Goomba wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
>>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I
>>> see it half the people having mortgage problems were people who
>>> overbought assuming they were going to make a killing when they
>>> flipped the house. Housing prices readjusted (look at California
>>> who led that trend) in many areas because they were just insanely
>>> overpriced. There were also certainly mortgage lenders who got
>>> sloppy and allowed unqualified people buy more home they couldn't
>>> afford which I can find fault with. Yet somehow I don't see how
>>> Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>>
>> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
>> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.
>>
> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
> helpless, clueless victims?

How did it come to this, that people had NO IDEA they couldn't
afford a house 10 times their income? That it was just SO
CONFUSING, all those big words like balloon payment. What,
the interest rate is going to go up?

I guess we do need paternalist institutions telling us what to do
because it's just too much to expect us to figure out these things
on our own.

nancy

Kswck wrote:

> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't
> be their fault-it's Bush's fault.

There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?

The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kswck wrote:
>
>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't
>> be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.
>
> nancy

Ah, then. Just wait till Obama gets into the WH, raises taxes to bail out
these institutions, and pass a windfall profits tax to redistribute the
wealth.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kswck wrote:
>
>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't
>> be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.
>
> nancy

A lot of people got RICH very RICH! the loan initiation fees and
commissions were simply outrageous - "Sure we'll refi your property it will
only be another 50 k in loan fees - what do you care the appreciation of
your property will cover that and more! What the hell - you're going to
move in a few years anyway." think of all the profit you're going to make.
After all property always appreciates.

Great job school, system! I wonder how many were/are university grads?


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

Dimitri wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Kswck wrote:
>>
>>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you
>>> idiots? So someone spending more money on a home than they can
>>> afford-can't be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>
>> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
>> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
>> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
>> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.

> A lot of people got RICH very RICH! the loan initiation fees and
> commissions were simply outrageous - "Sure we'll refi your property
> it will only be another 50 k in loan fees - what do you care the
> appreciation of your property will cover that and more!

It's difficult for me to believe how many people in real estate and
investment careers had no idea that values could go down.
They've only seen it go up all their lives.

> What the
> hell - you're going to move in a few years anyway." think of all the
> profit you're going to make. After all property always appreciates.
>
> Great job school, system! I wonder how many were/are university grads?

These poor younger people, more than ever they must understand
their finances and I don't think anyone's teaching them in school.
Instead they get to college greeted by credit card companies, sign
here! You'll get a free pen set!

nancy

Kswck wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Kswck wrote:
>>
>>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you
>>> idiots? So someone spending more money on a home than they can
>>> afford-can't be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>
>> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
>> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
>> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
>> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.

> Ah, then. Just wait till Obama gets into the WH, raises taxes to bail
> out these institutions, and pass a windfall profits tax to
> redistribute the wealth.

Heh. That might be a good idea if they hit up the oil companies.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
news
>
<snip>

> These poor younger people, more than ever they must understand their
> finances and I don't think anyone's teaching them in school.
> Instead they get to college greeted by credit card companies, sign
> here! You'll get a free pen set!
>
> nancy

Well we've evolved to a society of instant gratification.

Got a headache - take a pill
Bored- plug in your I-pod
Want to go faster - buy a Beemer
Too lazy to make coffee - go to Starbucks.
Can't afford what you want - use plastic

There is no distinction between Want and Need
There is no understanding of the difference between judgments and feelings.
More so than the Japanese we have become a nation of sheep and our leaders
have become the Judas goats leading us to the slaughter.

;-)


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

Dimitri wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> These poor younger people, more than ever they must understand their
>> finances and I don't think anyone's teaching them in school.
>> Instead they get to college greeted by credit card companies, sign
>> here! You'll get a free pen set!

> Well we've evolved to a society of instant gratification.
>
> Got a headache - take a pill
> Bored- plug in your I-pod
> Want to go faster - buy a Beemer

You misspelled 'lease' ...

> Too lazy to make coffee - go to Starbucks.
> Can't afford what you want - use plastic
>
> There is no distinction between Want and Need

Hey, when I was first starting out, I didn't have 2 nickels
to rub together after I paid my rent. I made do with used
furniture and the kindness of friends who gave me their
spare pots and plates, etc.

I don't like to think how it would have gone if I had a credit
card. Back then no one I knew had them, except maybe
a Macy's card.

I would definitely have gotten into trouble.

Maybe with this crisis people will get a clue to change how
they view credit.

nancy

In article >,
"Kswck" > wrote:

> <sf> wrote in message ...
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:07:37 -0400, "Kswck" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> blake murphy wrote:
> >>> foreclosures
> >>>> have skyrocketed.
> >> yep, it's all in our heads...
> >>>>
> >>>> blake
> >>>
> >>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I see
> >>> it
> >>> half the people having mortgage problems were people who overbought
> >>> assuming they were going to make a killing when they flipped the house.
> >>> Housing prices readjusted (look at California who led that trend) in
> >>> many
> >>> areas because they were just insanely overpriced. There were also
> >>> certainly mortgage lenders who got sloppy and allowed unqualified people
> >>> buy more home they couldn't afford which I can find fault with. Yet
> >>> somehow I don't see how Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
> >>
> >>Because Libs want to have someone to blame for everything from the
> >>mortgage
> >>crisis to global warming.
> >>These people who are defaulting on their mortgages are stupid for not
> >>figuring things out themselves, rather than listening to someone else.
> >>If your mortgage payment is 85% of your monthly income, then SOMETHING is
> >>not getting paid that month. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> >>that
> >>one out.
> >>Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
> >>So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be
> >>their
> >>fault-it's Bush's fault.
> >>
> >
> > So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Let the buyer beware. Take some resonsibility for your own lives.

Unless you are Big Business. The US government bailed out Bear Stearns
to the tune of US$30 billion. They took very little responsibility for
their actions.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:40:20 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>Goomba wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>>> What *exactly* did Bush have to do with mortgages again? The way I
>>>> see it half the people having mortgage problems were people who
>>>> overbought assuming they were going to make a killing when they
>>>> flipped the house. Housing prices readjusted (look at California
>>>> who led that trend) in many areas because they were just insanely
>>>> overpriced. There were also certainly mortgage lenders who got
>>>> sloppy and allowed unqualified people buy more home they couldn't
>>>> afford which I can find fault with. Yet somehow I don't see how
>>>> Bush (or Clinton before) as being responsible?
>>>
>>> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
>>> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.
>>>
>> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
>> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
>> helpless, clueless victims?
>
>How did it come to this, that people had NO IDEA they couldn't
>afford a house 10 times their income? That it was just SO
>CONFUSING, all those big words like balloon payment. What,
>the interest rate is going to go up?
>
>I guess we do need paternalist institutions telling us what to do
>because it's just too much to expect us to figure out these things
>on our own.
>

Paternalism has nothing to do with it. Sound business practice does.
They needed to meet the same logical standards we met when we bought
our first homes 30+ years ago. We put no less than 20% down and made
payments that were no more than 25% of our income. There was no
choice, that's what we did. Our world of financing was a lot less
complicated.

However, if those slimy lending practices didn't exist there would
have been an economic downturn and subsequent inflationary period long
before this. Those practices fueled the new housing boom, which is
now a big bust.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >I don't have a lot of sympathy for the speculators in the latest
> >mortgage fiasco, but I am incensed that our government had to buy out
> >the irresponsible companies.
>
> Exactly which irresponsible companies are you talking about?
>
> If you're complaining about Bear Stearns, then I agree, but
> I don't see any other examples so far, in which the governement
> wasn't merely making good on its own responsibilities.

You've nailed it, Steve. A US$30 billion bailout.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Goomba wrote:

> Ignorant? Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
> right to remain ignorant?

Ignorance requires a *right*?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

sf wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:40:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>><sf> ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:54 -0400, Goomba >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you think they got that way? They're the same ones who get an
>>>>> "interest free" credit card, transfer their dept from other cards over
>>>>> and then add new charges to the credit card... ignorant.
>>>>
>>>>Ignorant?
>>>
>>> and naive.
>>>
>>>>Consumer information is readily available. What gives them the
>>>>right to remain ignorant? And many weren't at all ignorant but play(ed)
>>>>out a plan to shuffle debt from card to card to reap the benefits and
>>>>avoid the costs. It could work at times and it certainly caught up with
>>>>many in a negative way!
>>>
>>> I think you've been away too long, Guisi. The scoop about "no
>>> interest" is contained in the fine print that probably even you don't
>>> read. The trick is to transfer, but the only activity on the account
>>> should be paying off the debt.
>>
>>Hmmm, I did not write that. I do read the fine print, but also pay off the
>>sucker.
>>
> Sorry Guisi, I canceled the message as soon as I sent it. Apparently
> it wasn't canceled.

Most NNTP servers do not honor cancels.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> These poor younger people, more than ever they must understand their
>>> finances and I don't think anyone's teaching them in school.
>>> Instead they get to college greeted by credit card companies, sign
>>> here! You'll get a free pen set!
>
>> Well we've evolved to a society of instant gratification.
>>
>> Got a headache - take a pill
>> Bored- plug in your I-pod
>> Want to go faster - buy a Beemer
>
> You misspelled 'lease' ...
>
>> Too lazy to make coffee - go to Starbucks.
>> Can't afford what you want - use plastic
>>
>> There is no distinction between Want and Need
>
> Hey, when I was first starting out, I didn't have 2 nickels
> to rub together after I paid my rent. I made do with used
> furniture and the kindness of friends who gave me their
> spare pots and plates, etc.
>
> I don't like to think how it would have gone if I had a credit
> card. Back then no one I knew had them, except maybe
> a Macy's card.
>
> I would definitely have gotten into trouble.
> Maybe with this crisis people will get a clue to change how
> they view credit.
> nancy

2 nickels - 2 nickels,

If it took a nickel to get out of town I didn't have enough to go around the
block.

I was so poor I couldn't pay attention.

I look back and wonder just how in the hell we managed.

I do understand that times today are very different.

I think the hottest day of my young married life was when I got an Amex
card. I thought I was hot stuff! I had arrived!

LOL

:-)
--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

sf wrote:

>> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
>> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
>> helpless, clueless victims?
>
> So, you want to play Blame the Victim?
>
And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?

sf wrote:

>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be their
>> fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>
>
> So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.
>
Doesn't a LOT of that fall under "Let the buyer beware" ?

Nancy Young wrote:
> Kswck wrote:
>
>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't
>> be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.
>
> nancy

And some look to blame anyone but their own poor choices.

Goomba wrote:

>
> >
> > So, you want to play Blame the Victim?
> >
> And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?

I sometimes wonder who the victim is. There are people/banks/credit companies
who will lend money to people who have little hope of paying it back. They
will then try to use the the legal system to try to recoup their loss.
Perhaps there should be stricter rules about lending.

Dan Abel > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> If you're complaining about Bear Stearns, then I agree, but
>> I don't see any other examples so far, in which the governement
>> wasn't merely making good on its own responsibilities.

>You've nailed it, Steve. A US$30 billion bailout.

Yeah, I think the Bear deal was squirrely. Unlike past bailouts
(Lockheed, Chrysler) it was just a back-room deal with no
vote in Congress or anything.

However I think the bailout of Fannie/Freddie is reasonable,
because after all they are government entities. It kind
of spooks me to see winger members of Congress talk about
how we should just default on what is essentially government debt.

Steve

sf wrote:

> Paternalism has nothing to do with it. Sound business practice does.
> They needed to meet the same logical standards we met when we bought
> our first homes 30+ years ago. We put no less than 20% down and made
> payments that were no more than 25% of our income. There was no
> choice, that's what we did. Our world of financing was a lot less
> complicated.
>
> However, if those slimy lending practices didn't exist there would
> have been an economic downturn and subsequent inflationary period long
> before this. Those practices fueled the new housing boom, which is
> now a big bust.
>


I bought my first house in 1981, when nationally interest rates were 17%!
I didn't have to put down 20% because of qualifying for a "first time"
home loan at 9.35%. That rate would be unheard of today in the 5-6.5ish
range. For a 40k house, my mortgage payment was $369 (taxes and PMI
included) I was barely out of my teens yet *I* managed to study the
papers and ask questions and learn about mortgages. Even back then they
warned people not to spend more than x percent of their income on
housing. I believe it was no more than 30%.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:34:58 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>>> And did these predatory practices start in 2000, or perhaps, before?
>>> And how much responsibility did the borrowers hold here? Were they all
>>> helpless, clueless victims?
>>
>> So, you want to play Blame the Victim?
>>
>And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?

So, you're blaming the fish for being caught with a very good lure?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

>> And do you want to pretend they don't have any responsibility here?
>
> So, you're blaming the fish for being caught with a very good lure?
>
Yup. They hold as much blame as anyone else here. It took two to tango, eh?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:51:18 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> Paternalism has nothing to do with it. Sound business practice does.
>> They needed to meet the same logical standards we met when we bought
>> our first homes 30+ years ago. We put no less than 20% down and made
>> payments that were no more than 25% of our income. There was no
>> choice, that's what we did. Our world of financing was a lot less
>> complicated.
>>
>> However, if those slimy lending practices didn't exist there would
>> have been an economic downturn and subsequent inflationary period long
>> before this. Those practices fueled the new housing boom, which is
>> now a big bust.
>>
>
>
>I bought my first house in 1981, when nationally interest rates were 17%!

How well I remember 17%! That was the time we went together with
friends to build a spec house with an ocean view. At that time the
rate was 12% but we figured rates would be down by the time we
finished. Instead, rates soared. When that happens, you deal with
it. I'm just glad we didn't buy all three lots because we could have
lost three times as much. We went into it with our eyes open and
a roll of the dice. We lost.

I'm not talking about speculators though. I'm talking about people
who should not have qualified for loans of the sizes they got. It's
an entirely different game. In a tight housing market, they are
naive, desperate, sometimes barely speak English (and are told by the
loan officers "sign here) and the loan companies are sharks.

>I didn't have to put down 20% because of qualifying for a "first time"
>home loan at 9.35%. That rate would be unheard of today in the 5-6.5ish
>range. For a 40k house, my mortgage payment was $369 (taxes and PMI
>included) I was barely out of my teens yet *I* managed to study the
>papers and ask questions and learn about mortgages.

It was a simple time when you bought your first house. Ten years
earlier it was even simpler. There were no incentives for first time
buyers. Either you met the standards or you didn't. It's the same
concept for children meeting height standards to go on rides at the
amusement park. When lending institutions started designing shades of
gray to broaden who they could lend money to (translation: increase
profits), it was the beginning of the long slippery slope that ended
in the fiasco we have today.

>Even back then they
>warned people not to spend more than x percent of their income on
>housing. I believe it was no more than 30%.

There are no more warnings.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:36:15 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't be their
>>> fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>>
>>
>> So, it's ok for institutions to engage in predatory lending practices.
>>
>Doesn't a LOT of that fall under "Let the buyer beware" ?

It sounds like you approve of the practice.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Goomba wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
>> Paternalism has nothing to do with it.

Paternalism comes into it when people sign for mortgages
and then say they are victims, they didn't know what the
papers meant. Like the bank is their daddy. Most of the
people we're talking about are not victims.

> I bought my first house in 1981, when nationally interest rates were
> 17%! I didn't have to put down 20% because of qualifying for a "first
> time" home loan at 9.35%. That rate would be unheard of today in the
> 5-6.5ish range. For a 40k house, my mortgage payment was $369 (taxes
> and PMI included) I was barely out of my teens yet *I* managed to
> study the papers and ask questions and learn about mortgages. Even
> back then they warned people not to spend more than x percent of
> their income on housing. I believe it was no more than 30%.

The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2 times
your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at least you
knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of town thinking
you could get it for no money down.

nancy

Nancy Young > wrote:

>Maybe with this crisis people will get a clue to change how
>they view credit.

Except that the people who come out ahead in the credit
crisis are the ones who borrowed tons and get bailed out,
whereas the rest of us who are not in hock have to foot the bill.

The message going forward is to borrow heavily and spend freely,
and let the taxpayers and people who have savings instead of debt
be the suckers.

Steve

Goomba wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Kswck wrote:
>>
>>> Read the fine print-does Balloon Mortgage mean anything to you idiots?
>>> So someone spending more money on a home than they can afford-can't
>>> be their fault-it's Bush's fault.
>>
>> There is plenty of blame to go around, from the majority of the
>> buyers to the lenders who knew they'd just bundle the paper and
>> sell it up the line, what did they care if people defaulted?
>> The whole mess reeks. Some people got rich.
>>
>> nancy
>
> And some look to blame anyone but their own poor choices.

I think people should be responsible for their actions but a scam is a
scam. I was offered a home equity loan at a real attractive rate for a
term of 2 years or a fixed rate almost 2 pts higher. The scam is to
switch you onto the more profitable adjustable rate and boy, I had to
think about that one for almost a full minute before declining. Bait and
switch is a classic "sales technique" but in most cases, any loss is
relatively minor.

However, with sub-prime ARMs you could lose your home. Americans losing
their homes is not in the best interest of America. Sub-prime ARMs allow
more people to buy their homes but the bottom line is that the banks
should not be making loans to folks unable to support the payments -
duh. It's not in the best interest of America and it's citizens.

The banks or any entity that imperials America and the welfare of it's
citizens just so they can make big bucks should be held responsible for
their actions. Of course, nobody wants a paternalistic America and the
ideal would be to offer education on what's probably the biggest deal
most Americans will make in addition to outlawing this scam. Oh, yeah,
we should outlaw double digit credit card interest rates, just for good
measure. :-)

<sf> wrote in message ...

>
> So, you're blaming the fish for being caught with a very good lure?
>

Personal responsibility

<sf> wrote in message ...

> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.
>

Nor did they (or should they) stop people from being stoooopid. Perhaps a
few people were "taken" by the lenders, but most just wanted as much house
as they could get today and did not worry about escalation clauses three or
five years later. They should not get taxpayer money to help them, nor
should the banks dumb enough to lend money to questionable borrowers.

Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:

><sf> wrote in message ...

>> They did nothing to stop predatory lending practices even though it
>> was obviously a train wreck waiting to happen.

>Nor did they (or should they) stop people from being stoooopid. Perhaps a
>few people were "taken" by the lenders, but most just wanted as much house
>as they could get today and did not worry about escalation clauses three or
>five years later. They should not get taxpayer money to help them, nor
>should the banks dumb enough to lend money to questionable borrowers.

Bailing out defaulting homeowners is beyond stupid. It's simply
wealth transfer from taxpayers who were careful with their money
to taxpayers who were careless. It makes no sense whatsoever.
If the goal is to help people who have become homeless, then
help the homeless. But helping people who are not in any
particular dire straits because of the "predatory" lenders is
nonsense.

Same with bailing out banks. While I would be personally happy
if the small investment I have made in Washington Mutual does
not become worthless, I in no way expect my government to make
good on it. But, ironically, the plan to bail out homeowners
in fact hurts WM since it limits the bank's ability to foreclose
on people. I say let 'em foreclose. (Bailout plans also cost
the FDIC money, which filters back as a cost to any depositor
at any bank.)

Steve

sf wrote in :

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>>The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1
>>1/2 times your annual income. 2 times was stretching it.
>>Whatever, at least you knew not to go house shopping in the
>>expensive part of town thinking you could get it for no money
>>down.
>
> It seems no institution has used those guidelines in years.
> Back in the day, there was no way we would have qualified for
> the loans people are given now.

Ain't that the truth. Shame on the lenders.

(Steve Pope) wrote in
:

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>That's for sure. When we were planning on buying our present
>>home nearly two years ago, we were told by the lender that we
>>qualified for more than double the amount that we felt we
>>could reasonably afford. We went with the amount we felt
>>comfortable with, and insisted on a 30 fixed rate mortgage.
>>Doing anything else would have been foolish and would have put
>>us at the very risk that many people are facing now. We have
>>refi'd once since then, and are planning to do so in the near
>>future as rates have continued to drop in our area.
>
> That's very sensible. You might also want to look at the 15
> year fixed. Depending on market conditions, it can be a
> better bargain.
>
> Steve

In case of 'emergency' 30 yr is good AND making additional
MONTHLY principle payments (WHEN YOU CAN) and you can pay off the
loan is a lot less than 30 years! Paying on the principle in the
beginning of the loan saves MUCH interest $.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:40:55 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>nor
>should the banks dumb enough to lend money to questionable borrowers.

That's the point, Ed.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2 times
>your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at least you
>knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of town thinking
>you could get it for no money down.

It seems no institution has used those guidelines in years. Back in
the day, there was no way we would have qualified for the loans people
are given now.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri 01 Aug 2008 09:23:26p, told us...

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:55:04 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:
>
>>The guideline I went by was don't get a mortgage more than 1 1/2 times
>>your annual income. 2 times was stretching it. Whatever, at least you
>>knew not to go house shopping in the expensive part of town thinking
>>you could get it for no money down.
>
> It seems no institution has used those guidelines in years. Back in
> the day, there was no way we would have qualified for the loans people
> are given now.

That's for sure. When we were planning on buying our present home nearly
two years ago, we were told by the lender that we qualified for more than
double the amount that we felt we could reasonably afford. We went with
the amount we felt comfortable with, and insisted on a 30 fixed rate
mortgage. Doing anything else would have been foolish and would have put
us at the very risk that many people are facing now. We have refi'd once
since then, and are planning to do so in the near future as rates have
continued to drop in our area.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 08(VIII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Life is tough -- but it's tougher when
you're stupid.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>That's for sure. When we were planning on buying our present home nearly
>two years ago, we were told by the lender that we qualified for more than
>double the amount that we felt we could reasonably afford. We went with
>the amount we felt comfortable with, and insisted on a 30 fixed rate
>mortgage. Doing anything else would have been foolish and would have put
>us at the very risk that many people are facing now. We have refi'd once
>since then, and are planning to do so in the near future as rates have
>continued to drop in our area.

That's very sensible. You might also want to look at the 15
year fixed. Depending on market conditions, it can be a better
bargain.

Steve

On Fri 01 Aug 2008 09:42:45p, Steve Pope told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>That's for sure. When we were planning on buying our present home nearly
>>two years ago, we were told by the lender that we qualified for more than
>>double the amount that we felt we could reasonably afford. We went with
>>the amount we felt comfortable with, and insisted on a 30 fixed rate
>>mortgage. Doing anything else would have been foolish and would have put
>>us at the very risk that many people are facing now. We have refi'd once
>>since then, and are planning to do so in the near future as rates have
>>continued to drop in our area.
>
> That's very sensible. You might also want to look at the 15
> year fixed. Depending on market conditions, it can be a better
> bargain.
>
> Steve
>

It could be, but I might not be able to afford the payments at 15 year
fixed. I'll certainly raise the question.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 08(VIII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
When the going gets weird, the weird
turn pro.
-------------------------------------------

sandi wrote:

> Ain't that the truth. Shame on the lenders.
>
AND shame on people who borrow more than they can pay reasonable afford
monthly.

sandi wrote:

> In case of 'emergency' 30 yr is good AND making additional
> MONTHLY principle payments (WHEN YOU CAN) and you can pay off the
> loan is a lot less than 30 years! Paying on the principle in the
> beginning of the loan saves MUCH interest $.
>
Excellent advice! This is what MANY, MANY consumer financial advisers
suggest. www.clarkhoward.com is one of my favorite folks.
I always add $100/month to my mortgage payment. Not earth shattering,
but it certainly does help make a dent in that principle faster!

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>
> It could be, but I might not be able to afford the payments at 15 year
> fixed. I'll certainly raise the question.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

There are plenty of on-line amortization schedules so you can play around
plugging in different numbers and see the differences. They can be huge
over the long term.