|
|
|
|
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 11:08:36 AM | Only if you discount the advantage of having an 'educated' populace. Small business owner's benefit from being able to hire somebody who can accurately make change. You benefit from other drivers being able to read traffic signs.....etc.
Individual exemptions makes way for individual inclusions.....& that's the slipperiest of slopes.
That being said, I'd have no problem w/ a surtax for those families that choose to have over, say, 2 children. The same principal applies...they are utilizing the gov-funded resources more than the average citizen.
haha, I would have to say that I almost believe in a maximum wage over a minimum wage.
OK....CEO's salaries are capped @ 250K. Corporate profits are capped @ 25%. Sounds kinda ridiculous doesn't it?
Minimum wage does not drive lower skilled workers out of the system....because that increase in spending money stays in the community. Which causes new businesses to arise....those businesses need workers. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 11:20:45 AM |
Only if you discount the advantage of having an 'educated' populace. Small business owner's benefit from being able to hire somebody who can accurately make change. You benefit from other drivers being able to read traffic signs.....etc.
Individual exemptions makes way for individual inclusions.....& that's the slipperiest of slopes.
by educated populace, are you referring to the US educational system? the one who's motto is 2nd in spending, 18th in results! the education system that is driving all the innovative jobs to china and india? the educational system that promotes "liberal arts," rather than engineering and sciences. I would be shocked if people in 10 years can change a dollar.
OK....CEO's salaries are capped @ 250K. Corporate profits are capped @ 25%. Sounds kinda ridiculous doesn't it?
Minimum wage does not drive lower skilled workers out of the system....because that increase in spending money stays in the community. Which causes new businesses to arise....those businesses need workers.
I think that they are both ridiculous. the point is this. someone flipping a burger doesn't deserve $12 per hour. they aren't worth it. minimum wage destroys small businesses. if I own a small hardware store and I make $35,000 per year and they raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour, I no longer have a business. that is a $10,000 per year raise for each 40 hour per week employee. people should be paid what they are worth, whatever amount they are able to negotiate. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 11:44:21 AM | That kind of thinking is precisely why we have people working 2-3 crappy jobs while the Wal-Mart mentality ACTUALLY destroys small businesses.
A raised minimum wage gives local folks more money to spend on hardware. You no longer make 35K a year if your business is run well.
Unions & enforcement of Anti-Trust law are gone......you aren't able to negotiate jack-diddley on the lower end of the working class.
Remember the game of Monopoly? That's exactly what happens in an unregulated "Free-Market" economy.....& we are rapidly getting to the end of the game.
I know you have 'minimal gov interference' as a mantra, & on many levels I totally agree....but economics is NOT one of those levels.
If you can show me a single, modern society that has had a stable, prosperous middle class WITHOUT government regulation of the economy, I'd be happy to listen to that example.
Every one of our trading partners w/ a prosperous middle class has progressive taxation, strong unions, limited immigration & heavy import tarriffs, among other economic regulators.
We should, too. | |
|
| |
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:03:11 PM |
Good, so we're all in agreement that raising taxes is a BAD thing, right?
... yes and no....
there are times that raising taxes, for instance in a time of war, when we are spending more money is not a bad thing, given the war is just.....
but the real issue is where the money is going and corporations using the public commons to gain wealth and moving to Dubai to avoid paying taxes, such as Haliburton has done...
a fair tax sounds nice... i just am sick of all the loop holes those who should be paying are using to avoid paying...... | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:06:39 PM | The unions did just fine for the auto industry until the tarriffs were lifted...killing the trade balance we USED to have w/ other countries. Allowing 'unfair' competition.
You do realize that China, Japan etc have tarriffs on US goods, while ours have been virtually eliminated, right? Not exactly a 'free market' world economy. Great for the big US import businesses.....not so good for US workers.
Cheap Wal-Mart crap = cheap Wal-Mart jobs. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:16:19 PM | The unions did just fine for the auto industry until the tarriffs were lifted...killing the trade balance we USED to have w/ other countries. Allowing 'unfair' competition.
I have a cousin that worked at the GM plant for years. With nothing but a high school diploma he made the same amount of money as my mother, who was a registered nurse at a high-end hospital in FL for 20+ years. The solution to American products being overpriced due to ridiculous labor demands is not, IMO, to make sure that competitor's products are over-priced as well due to tariffs. That makes us (being the American consumer) ALL losers in the end. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:26:07 PM | Wasn't she a member of the Nurse's Union? Of course not, they were highly dissuaded from forming one.
When we had all of the aforementioned economic policies in place to protect the middle class goods we NOT overpriced because the average worker made a living wage. Average people regularly bought a new car every few years because they could afford one. A single salary could support a modest family. Family vacations were a given.
You'll notice that the American consumer is losing in a BIG way right now.....that didn't used to be the case. Your money now leaves the community & contributes to the vast wealth of a chosen few, rather than staying in town & affording Joe the financial opportunity to utilize YOUR business/product.
If you are against gov regulation of industry then surely you oppose the proposed bail-out/relief that is being talked about for you own industry, right? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:33:38 PM |
If you are against gov regulation of industry then surely you oppose the proposed bail-out/relief that is being talked about for you own industry, right?
You bet I oppose it, and have said as much on these forums many times. It's just making matters WORSE. The market should be allowed to correct itself. Instead, we're ALL being robbed yet again by the Fed's ridiculous inflationary policies. "Adding liquidity" to help the big banks is merely reducing the value of our money. That money you have in your bank/wallet/retirement (if you're lucky enough to even have a retirement account) is worth FAR less than it was last month, 6 months ago, last year...and will be worth even less next week. It's criminal. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:37:15 PM | ^^^ looks like your right there nightwing....and it looks like its causing some huge problems....(there is more to the article than is posted which gets more into the problems)
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2003/09/22/story3.html
Nurses treat staffing issue with union
South Florida Business Journal - by Stephen Van Drake
Nurses upset with staffing levels triggered a unionization vote at Miami's Cedars Medical Center, creating a collective bargaining unit embracing 1,500 workers.
"It's a no-brainer," said Martha Baker, president of Local 1991 of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), based in Washington, D.C. "Patients do better with more nurses."
That brings to 7,700 the number of nurses, doctors and other hospital employees organized in SEIU Local 1991 at Cedars, Jackson Memorial Medical Center and St. Mary's Hospital, said Joyce Moscato, national SEIU spokeswoman.
Health care experts, union officials and nurse organizers say scores of hospitals in Florida may soon follow Cedars.
At Cedars last month, registered nurses (RNs) voted 217 to 132 and technical and service workers voted 433 to 297 to join the SEIU, according to a SEIU news release. More than 75,000 hospital employees joined the SEIU, the nation's largest health care union, in the past five years, said the union.
But Cedars' management expressed chagrin at the recent vote. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:49:22 PM |
The market should be allowed to correct itself.
That would be how, exactly? Massive foreclosures (where banks keep the money from the loan AND the property) forcing families onto the streets while those who practiced deceptive loan practices get off scott-free? That should really help the economy.
Also....you realize that the Fed is NOT part of the US government, right? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 1:08:12 PM | That would be how, exactly? Massive foreclosures (where banks keep the money from the loan AND the property)
OK first of all, in a foreclosure the lenders don't "keep the house and the money, too." I loan you $100 at 6% for 30 years...lets say it was a 2-year ARM (since that's all anyone wants to talk about) which means in 2 years you've paid back $14,389.20 of the original $100k that I'm out (not really as most of that went to interest, but even so...) If I foreclose on the home (which also entails thousands in legal and administrative fees on my end, plus the expense and commissions paid out on trying to re-sell the property) how exactly am I "keeping the money AND the house?" This is why so many lenders ARE willing to do loan modifications if borrowers actually bother calling and trying to work something out...they take a huge loss in the event of a foreclosure.
forcing families onto the streets while those who practiced deceptive loan practices get off scott-free?
Deceptive loan practices my arse. Have you ever taken out a mortgage? Was not your FIRST question "what's my payment going to be?" I know that's been the first question anyone I've ever dealt with has asked. I also honestly don't see how it's remotely possible for someone to "not know" they had an ARM. Do you know how many forms they have to sign that say in huge, bold letters taking up the top 1/3 of the page ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE along with all the other disclosures stating how, when, and how much their rate/payment will increase? The ONLY parties being defrauded in this business that I've seen are the banks, when brokers and borrowers willingly lie about income to get around debt ratios. A program which, incidentally, the BANKS THEMSELVES created.
That should really help the economy.
Not everyone is capable of home ownership at any given time, that's a fact of life. I'll be the 1st to say that a lot of loans were made that shouldn't have been made. Our economy is in the tanker right now because of all the crap paper that was written and fraudulently floated on the bond market with AAA and A ratings.
Also....you realize that the Fed is NOT part of the US government, right?
Yes I'm aware it's a privately-owned institution, with trustees appointed by the government. All the same dirty hands in bed with one another. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:03:02 AM |
I'll be the 1st to say that a lot of loans were made that shouldn't have been made.
Agreed, on this particular part....
But.....the legal fees/selling cost come out of the interest PROFIT already made AND the bank retains the ('equity' of) original downpayment of 10-20K (assuming the house sold for 100K or above).
Unless it costs 30K+ to foreclose on/sell a house (which I know it does not), then I'm going to have a hard time mustering much sympathy for banks.
& any time the Caveat Emptor arguement is applied there is usually something not quite morally right about the process. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:45:03 AM | | Not to mention as regards the home market that there was any need even on variable rate morgages to immediately jack the rate up from the low percentages to the max percentages. If you wish to fault the individuals who took the loans without thinking then you must equally blame the banks for going for the max percentages as soon as the economy turned ignoring the obvious fact that many would be unable to pay the max at that point since the economy turned bad. A level of stupidity that even Greenspan found disillusioning on the "free market" | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:48:02 AM | Wow, "let the market correct itself." How 1920s of you. We had a century of Laisez~Faire economics. What did it get us? A recession or depression every 8-13 years. They got worse and worse, until the Great Depression. What has kept us from that fate since 1940? Minimum wage, social security, welfare, government regulation, rural electrification, interstate highways, OSHA, worker's comp, Unions. . .
Anyone who says "let the market correct itself" is either ignorant of History or just cold hearted.
The way the economy actually works is not an opinion. It simply works from the ground up; period. Saying the Sun is cold is not an opinion, it is just blatently wrong. Saying that Capitalism works fine as long as government gets out of the way, is just as dumb as saying the sun is cold.
Giving rich people all the tax breaks is like giving all the medicine to healthy people, it is just as effective. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:11:49 AM |
But.....the legal fees/selling cost come out of the interest PROFIT already made AND the bank retains the ('equity' of) original downpayment of 10-20K (assuming the house sold for 100K or above).
Ahh, but you see, those kinds of deals are not in the VAST majority of cases the ones going into default, let alone "subprime" loans to begin with. an 80-90% LTV loan (again, using the example of a $100k house w/ $10-20k down) would be a fannie/freddie "conforming" or FHA loan, not a subprime loan. Most subprime loans were either high ltv 100% or 80/20 loans or refi's at 90+%. I think you'll be able to find statistics to show that your example is the minority, not the majority of cases.
Unless it costs 30K+ to foreclose on/sell a house (which I know it does not), then I'm going to have a hard time mustering much sympathy for banks.
Oh don't get me wrong, I have no sypathy for banks, either. As a broker, they consider me their enemy and do all they can to lobby for legislation to drive us out of business because we force them to be more competitive than they'd like to be. Not to mention that, unlike brokers, they don't have to disclose to borrowers the yield spread they charge on a loan (the amount they jack up your interest rate above and beyond what you REALLY qualify for.) This is how banks advertise their "no closing costs" scam. Besides, it's banks, not brokers, that design loan programs. As I said before, let the ones that made crap loans fail. Allow the market to correct itself. My only point above was that foreclosure does indeed turn into a net LOSS for the lenders most of the time. You don't think you're seeing all these ads on TV for loan modifications simply because the banks are trying to be nice, do you? They really DONT want to foreclose if they can help it.
& any time the Caveat Emptor arguement is applied there is usually something not quite morally right about the process.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree or not, TBH. I can see why you think that, but I believe caveat emptor should be a way of life for all of us. We should ALL look at what we're signing. That's not "buyer beware" so much as "don't be a fool," IMO, and as I said, I honestly don't see how anyone could NOT see those big, bold letters taking up the top 1/3 of the pageS they're signing. Idunno.
And I'll reiterate, again, that it's an out and out lie to claim that folks who qualify for fannie/freddie conforming loans would be steered into subprime loans because subprime loans pay more. It's almost always easier to make more $ on a conforming loan that a non-conforming ("subprime") loan. Your money comes not just from the up-front fees built into the loan but also from yield spread added to the rate. Typically, non-conforming rates are so high to begin with that you simply can't add any YSP to them, and there's not enough room to make all your money "on the front end" because title fees, lender fees, appraisal fees, etc, eat up that 5-8% max (depending on the state) that can go to upfront closing costs. There's a LOT of misinfo out there on how all of this works. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:14:04 AM |
Not to mention as regards the home market that there was any need even on variable rate morgages to immediately jack the rate up from the low percentages to the max percentages. If you wish to fault the individuals who took the loans without thinking then you must equally blame the banks for going for the max percentages as soon as the economy turned ignoring the obvious fact that many would be unable to pay the max at that point since the economy turned bad. A level of stupidity that even Greenspan found disillusioning on the "free market"
I don't know where you're getting your information, but that doesn't and can not happen. ARMs are all designed to adjust a set amount per set time frame. It's part of the legally binding contract. They can not adjust to their max rate immediately - it usually takes a couple of years (or more) to hit max rate. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:14:48 AM |
Wow, "let the market correct itself." How 1920s of you. We had a century of Laisez~Faire economics. What did it get us?
Status as the wealthiest nation in the world?  | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:33:41 AM | As long as we are being accurate....it made us the home nation of the weathiest INDIVIDUALS & Corporations in the world.
The average worker was FAR from well off, worked extended hours for megre pay, had little say about his employment scenario & could be beaten or killed for trying to better the lot of his fellow workers. We'll not even get into child labor, etc.
Can you clear something up for me oddandy?
Who makes the final decision on what the borrower can realistically afford as far as a loan amount goes?
I seem to remember supplying financial information to enable my lender to determine my ability to pay the requested amount of the loan in a timely fashion. W2/savings/etc. I could have lied all I wanted & they wouldn't have loaned me more.....the hard numbers wouldn't support that.
Did this process get waived in these sub-prime loans/refinances?
If not, & those standard practices were followed, why did the lenders extend unreasonable credit?
If so, what possible logic would prompt somebody to take that kind of risk (you assert that everybody loses on these type of defaults) when there are other safer investments to be found? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:41:12 AM | It wasn't poor people jumping from skyscrapers in 1929!
Letting the market fend for itself is bad for everyone. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:11:02 AM |
The unions did just fine for the auto industry until the tarriffs were lifted...killing the trade balance we USED to have w/ other countries. Allowing 'unfair' competition.
should we talk about how great those teachers unions are? I've said it before, I'll say it again, 2nd in spending (around $900 billion) and 18th in results. teachers unions are a failure. teaching is one of the highest paying professions right out of college. you finish school and bam, you're making in the neighborhood of $30 per hour, and you still have a union to complain that you are underpaid.
If you wish to fault the individuals who took the loans without thinking then you must equally blame the banks for going for the max percentages as soon as the economy turned ignoring the obvious fact that many would be unable to pay the max at that point since the economy turned bad.
no. I only blame the individual, as they are the ONLY ones to blame.
Giving rich people all the tax breaks is like giving all the medicine to healthy people, it is just as effective.
the rich pay the majority of the taxes anyway. the only reason they get more tax breaks is because they have more money to tax. you can't give tax breaks to people who make no money.
Who makes the final decision on what the borrower can realistically afford as far as a loan amount goes?
the borrower. only they know what they can afford. general rule of thumb I have known since before I was a teenager. you should make at least 30% of your total loan amount. if you want a loan for $100,000, you should be making at least $30,000 per year. the people who didn't do that are mentally disabled.
Letting the market fend for itself is bad for everyone.
yeah, just look at how good government has been for the medical industry. those 17 year patent laws are great for not allowing a free market. that way, people can't afford life saving medication. the less laws, rules, and restrictions we have, the better off we are all going to be.
side note: HR3221 Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 passed by an 83-9 margin. wouldn't you know it, obama, mccain, and clinton weren't doing their jobs and didn't vote. here is a link so you can see how your representative voted and email their offices assuring them that they will not win re-election. this is a ****ing joke.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00155 | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:51:52 AM |
Who makes the final decision on what the borrower can realistically afford as far as a loan amount goes?
I seem to remember supplying financial information to enable my lender to determine my ability to pay the requested amount of the loan in a timely fashion. W2/savings/etc. I could have lied all I wanted & they wouldn't have loaned me more.....the hard numbers wouldn't support that.
Did this process get waived in these sub-prime loans/refinances?
I'm very glad you asked this question, as it proves that it's a lie to claim that people have ever been "tricked into loans they can't afford."
The hard numbers determine the amount and interest rate they can afford. Typically, the max bottom end debt-to-income (i.e. all other bills on credit plus new mortgage payment) cannot exceed 45-50% of the borrower's verifiable gross income. FHA limits max DTI to 43%, and USDA/Rural Development limits it to 41%. Furthermore, mortgage insurance companies (MI being required for any fannie/freddie "conforming" loan over 80% loan to value) are now limiting that max bottom-end DTI to 33-35%.''
On ARMS, ANY lender that I know of (and I know of a ton, it's my job) will require you to figure DTI not at the initial start rate but at the fully-indexed rate, i.e. at the MAX rate the loan can ever go to.
The exceptions to the DTI rule no longer (really) exist, but they were called "stated income" loans, whereby you and the borrower "state" what the income is. These were commonly referred to as "liar's loans." You had to prove a source of income, but you would take w-2's and paystubs and literally black-out the income amounts with a magic marker before sending them off. Again, the BANKS dreamt up these programs. The kicker here is that you had to have a high credit score to qualify for a stated income loan, so the thinking at the banks' end was that borrowers with a score that high likely pay their bills on time, anyway. These loans were designed primarily for self-employed people (who write off as much as possible so their "adjusted gross" income is not a true reflection of their income") as well as waiters/waitresses and other types who have an income that is not provable by typical underwriting standards.
As for why the banks took on these risks? Blame the Fed. A few years ago we had the cheapest money available in the entire history of the US. It was literally an orgy a printing a spreading paper. Everyone knew the ride (bubble) had to end eventually, and now we're seeing the correction. It's the whole "boom and bust" thing. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:02:47 AM |
should we talk about how great those teachers unions are? I've said it before, I'll say it again, 2nd in spending (around $900 billion) and 18th in results. teachers unions are a failure. teaching is one of the highest paying professions right out of college. you finish school and bam, you're making in the neighborhood of $30 per hour, and you still have a union to complain that you are underpaid.
How did we get from auto unions to teachers unions?? no matter. It's really irrelevant is there problems with unions? Yes but they are far less the problem then unrestrained unregulated capitalism. I've had these discussions with this particular poster before and sadly it will ultimately degrade as always into his espoused ideology instead of facts or reality. Still the point here while facts are still possible is that without unions we would still be dealing with child labor, sweat shops and virtual slavery. We see it every day around the world but turn a blind eye to it. But its not the rich buying those things made in those conditions its the everyday people. The rich over all don't spend their money they horde it hence being rich. The everyday people spend creating the growth and flow. Slowly but surely economists are even starting to open their eyes, but its a slow process because people have been shouting free market so long it keeps ringing in their ears.
no. I only blame the individual, as they are the ONLY ones to blame.
Of course YOU do, but fortunately there are many wiser heads then yours looking at the issue and pretty much universally they do not. From deceptive forms, to broker manipulations of applications they have been reviewing the process. From the failing investment banks, and internal company memos the evidence has been clear. While some were to blame for their own folly far more of the responsibility was on the lender side. After all the individual asked for the money the lender set the terms, and rather then keeping terms the individual could afford sought everything they could get. The lenders own hunger consumed them and instead of some money got none.
the rich pay the majority of the taxes anyway. the only reason they get more tax breaks is because they have more money to tax. you can't give tax breaks to people who make no money.
The rich pay the majority of taxes because they recieve the bulk of the benefits of the country. The middle classes have been taking more and more of the tax burden and the rich are divesting more and more of it and sweeping up even more income. The end result is the middle class holding more burden and getting less service hardly as you would call it fair.
the borrower. only they know what they can afford. general rule of thumb I have known since before I was a teenager. you should make at least 30% of your total loan amount. if you want a loan for $100,000, you should be making at least $30,000 per year. the people who didn't do that are mentally disabled.
And the lender who gives a loan someone can't afford and knows it is innocent as the dawn.. For I am not my brothers keeper. It is the lender who holds the power therefor it is the lender who holds the responsibility not the borrower.
Laize faire does not work it has been proven time and again. Wake up already.
Aww, you get to claim intellectual superiority and resort to defamation and insult WAY more than once here! Just watch your buddy exodus, he does it daily! How many dozen times does he trumpet his college degrees? And he resorts to defamation and insult SO often that he ends up whining in his profile about how many times he's been banned for doing so here.
I was referring to credibly claiming it. But yes the unwise generally will continue to do it even after they have been shown lacking. Intellectual superiority however does not always have to do with degrees, though your point is taken. I cannot answer for exodus, and won't. However I try to limit my defamation and insult to after I present my factually based arguments :) | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:32:41 AM |
The exceptions to the DTI rule no longer (really) exist, but they were called "stated income" loans, whereby you and the borrower "state" what the income is. These were commonly referred to as "liar's loans."
So borrowers were offered loans that were substantially more risky than what the industry had come to regard as sensible?
This begs the question of WHY somebody w/ a high credit score would be offered a risky loan when they would already qualify for a traditional home loan. If everybody loses on foreclosures....this just doesn't make sense.
I was under the impression that the majority of sub-prime loans were given to folks LACKING in sufficient credit scores. Why go Sub when you qualify for Prime? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:33:17 AM | re:"""I'm very glad you asked this question, as it proves that it's a lie to claim that people have ever been "tricked into loans they can't afford."
Individual responsibility is nice, it works so well so often to explain things. And it would be so nice if we all lived on some kind of frontier and you either work by the sweat of your brow or you perish.
Unfortunately, though, its just not that way for most people. Everything from the water your drink from your tap or out of a plastic bottle to the bowl you piss and shit in each day, you depend on someone else. MOST people dont actually produce anything. More people have articifical jobs these days, bullshit work, where they dont actually DO or accomplish anything, never got their hands in dirty and grew a tomato plant, never actually MADE anything with their hands, even a paper airplane.
And MOST people dont have a CLUE about anything except what the media feeds them.
So, you have a lot of wealth that went into buying and selling bundled mortages because of low interest rates and there was a lot of money swimming around looking for more..........so the brokers opened up subprime lines of credit.......and gee, whiz, all of a sudden they found all these dumb, irresponsible people, all at once! What a coincidence.
Not that they didnt sell those things, push them, cajole, convince borrowers they could work with them, do this, make it happen, etc.... those dumb people, they just swarmed all those innocent brokers and investors, they did!
Ive been through three closings for three homes that ive bought.
1. You dont get to see and review the lending documents prior to closing.
2. You dont get to read them at closing
3. You sign your life away and cross your fingers.
It's the lender's responsibility to demand sufficient income and means. The day it becomes mine only and a lender has none, I'll be first in line for a cool million $$$$. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
