[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 61°F  
High: 84°F ~ Low: 65°F
Thursday, July 31, 2014

Your responsibility?

Posted Monday, February 23, 2009, at 4:07 PM

If you have saved, done without frills many times and own your home straight out, no mortgage, do you think your tax dollars be used to help others beat the mortgage crisis?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Not sure any of us have a choice about where our tax dollars are spent.. but I had rather these "new" tax dollars be spent helping the mortgage crisis than to hand this money to the banking exes for vacations. What is yet to be seen is whether or not this money will really help the homeowner and not the banks again. Bush's TARP money was suppose to help this problem but we see what happened there. If it will slow down these foreclosures I will be happy and think it is money well spent. Foreclosures effect every one of us, it drives the market lower and lower. Your home is not worth nearly as much right now as it was 5 or 6 years ago unless this stops soon there will be so many upside down mortgages the bailout will be horrid. Many of these people are just people like you and I, they have lost their jobs and have attempted to refinance their homes, banks wouldn't refinance because of their debt to income ratio or they owe more on their home than it is appraising for.. this is not their fault. So many of these people have no choice right now but to walk away..banks and mortgage companies are not trying to help. They can't pay the mortgages that they had even a year ago because of ARM's resetting or loss of income...they can't refinance because their banks say No...they can't sell because they now owe more than the home is worth..their only option is to walk away. Which is something NO HOMEOWNER would ever want to do if there was any way out of it.

I don't like the way the stimulus states only mortgages in default will get help..it seems to me they should be helping the ones who have been struggling to make their payments but may not be able to hold their heads above water much longer.. I always thought it was stupid to charge someone more interest just because they didn't make enough money to suit the finance company..it always seemed backwards to me that the poorest people pay the highest interest rates. Maybe the government should just insist that the mortgage rates be reduced to a normal rate..that would help every struggling homeowner.

Even though this tax will not help those who own their homes or have been current there are many taxes that do not directly effect all of us..we pay for schools even when we don't have children...we pay for roads even when we do not drive..I see this as no different.

sorry I got so long winded

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Feb 23, 2009, at 6:20 PM

No. Period.

With all due respect Diana, there is a large section of the foreclosure market that didn't just fall on hard times. These people bought more house than they could afford. They made bad business decisions. For them, it was easy to walk away since they had no equity in the home once the market dropped. Now our GRANDCHILDREN will be forced to help pay for their mistake. Yes letting them go into foreclosure will hurt for a while. But normal market forces will eventually heal the economy.

Rick Santelli of CNBC last week called for a new "Tea Party". Ordinary Americans protesting the use of borrowed porkulus money to help people who made bad business decisions. There is a growing movement in this country to put a halt to federal foolishness. I think middle Tennessee's tea party is scheduled for next week.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Feb 23, 2009, at 9:59 PM

With all due respect to you also Tim are you suggesting we punish everyone because some few bought more home than they could afford?

These homeowners will not be given a free home to live in ..they will be given a reasonable rate of interest. Do you realize some people are now paying 20% interest on a home mortgage? That is ridiculous..if a bank needed to charge that much interest to anyone then the loan should have never been approved. A lot of people blame the homeowner for buying a home that was out of their reach when in fact it is the interest that is out of their reach. I personally do not blame the homeowners, people apply for loans all the time and if a bank tells you yes you can have your loan most people are going to say ok. Now understand this also when these banks and mortgage companies made these loans they started out with these high interest ARMS they told their customers they would be able to refinance in a year or two provided they made their payments on time. Many homeowners did just that but the banks would not refinance them. Especially now that the bottom has dropped out and the banks have become so stingy with the money. This has put many homeowners in the hole without a shovel.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Feb 23, 2009, at 10:40 PM

I am friends with a guy that bought a small house with about an acre of land on a 30 year ARM. His payment was reasonable, round $650 a month including escrow. In less than a year and a half, his ARM changed and his payment went to nearly $1400 with escrow. He is a very hard working man. Rarely, if ever, misses a day at work and pays all his bills. He drives a 2001 pick-up truck that is paid for and was before he bought the house. Good work history, no payments, good payment history, small down payment, all of this allowed for him to puchase his home. Yet through no fault of his own, lost his house, credit rating and everything he had worked so very hard to accomplish. The mortgage company wouldn't even offer to work things out. And all of this was before the "housing bubble" burst so I can only imagine what people are dealing with right now.

Most mortgage companies apply payments more toward the interest and less toward the principle in the first few years of the mortgage. As the mortgage "matures" (if you want to call it that) and the interest is paid down more money is applied to the principle. They do this betting that the consumer isn't going to stay with a mortgage for the full term. Therefore, they get their money up front and you get very little equity built up unless you stay with it for a while. That being said, why won't the mortgage companies work with those who fall on rough times and suspend the interest temporarily or equalize the payments a little more. I realize there are some companies that will try to work with individuals and get through rough times but there are more out there that will not. I appreciate the fact that they are trying to run a business and earn a profit, but something has got to give. The have-nots can't continue to support the haves.

-- Posted by Bamadoc72 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 12:50 AM

Absolutely not!!!

For all the stories about the "poor victims" who originally had good rates on their adjustable rate mortgages and were preyed upon by greedy bankers, I have but one thing to say.

IT WAS ALL THERE IN WRITING BEFORE YOU SIGNED THE PAPERS!!!!

If you can't be counted on to live up to the rules you signed up for, perhaps a court should declare you incompetent and you could go live in a group home with coloring books and stuffed animals for you to play with.

America is being ruled by the lowest common denominator, whether it be someone that dumps hot coffee in their own lap and decides the restaurant is to blame or ball games where scores aren't kept so kids won't have their feelings hurt.

It's sad to think personal responsibility is an outdated concept.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 5:40 AM

Diana no one is talking about being "punished". Buying a home is a business transaction, nothing more nothing less. Businesses make bad business decisions every day, they live with them and move on. It's when we attach emotion to these transactions that we get into the kind of mess we're in now. The government wanted home ownership for all at any price and set the banking industry (and many homeowners) up to fail.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 7:01 AM

Quietmike . . . even though you put it in a harsh manner I do have to agree with your point. So many people knew the risk when obtaining a loan for a house that was above their means of living and knew that an adjustable rate was subject to change depending on the market. Even if the bank who granted them the loan did not explain the payment agreements and rates, they still had to sign an agreement which explains the loan terms and should have seen what it entailed. If they didn't understand the terms then they shouldn't have signed the loan until they could find someone to explain it to them in terms they could understand. It is kind of like going to Las Vegas to gamble . . . you go with money in hopes of making more money and there is a chance you can come back with more money or less depending on certain factors. If you can afford to gamble and win then great but if you spend all your money and lose it, you don't expect the casino to pay you back or help you recover some of your losses. Why should those who made responsible financial decisions not receive any help when those that bit off more than they could chew and knew the risk or didn't care to read the fine print get bailed out and not learn the consequences of bad choices.

The problem is that I know one person who is being foreclosed on but yet he still pays over $100 cable bill and almost $200 worth in internet, regular and cellular phones charges and doesn't think that maybe he needs to cut back on those items and such but yet he is having trouble paying his mortgage. I see this with people who claim that they can't afford health insurance but yet they are eating out all the time and using cell phones and internet and not placing priority on things they actually need.

It all comes down to personal responsibility and living within your own means. If they are going to start bailing out people every time they make a bad decision, then maybe I should run out and purchase a home myself with no care if I can afford it or not over the years. It is irresponsible people like that is costing me money . . . I received a notice that my credit card company is raising my interest rate even though I make all my payments on time and such because many people are defaulting because they get in over their head. Why should I be paying for their irresponsibility? If someone I don't know goes to jail for committing a crime then does that mean I must go to jail too or pay his bail just because he made a bad decision and we need spread the wealth around? NO!

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 7:13 AM

Jaxspike, I completely agree with you! Some people don't know how to separate priorities from material things. My husband and I only have cell phones, no house phone, and we have basic cable. We don't go out to eat but maybe once a month and we take our lunches to work. We have the "round-up" program at the bank, so that saves us a little money. And we make sure we put a certain amount of our checks in our savings account every week so that we know we have our house payment at the beginning of every month. We pay everything on time, but like you stated, we still have bills that are being increased to compensate for other people's negligence. We received a notice stating that our insurance on our vehicles is going up. Mine went up $20 by itself.

Bamadoc72, I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but apparently he didn't read what he was signing. These mortgage companies expect you to hold up your end of the deal when you sign the papers. They assume that you know what the "deal" is and that you are bound by that contract. That's why some of them won't work with you. It's all a money making scheme. I have to disagree with your last statement, though. I think the haves cannot continue to be made to support the have nots.

-- Posted by candasons07 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 8:19 AM

Dianatn, you say that it's not the homeowner's fault. And you say that the home wasn't out of reach, it was the high interest rate. Any responsible adult should thoroughly think about purchasing at home from all financial aspects. They should take into consideration every bill they pay and approximately what they spend on groceries and gas every month. Every extra curricular activity for their children (if they have any) should be figured in. Then they should factor in what the house payment would be with the proposed interest rate. After all of the details are laid out, then they should decide if they can really pay for everything they have and a new house. You have to be logical about buying a house. Just because a bank says you can do it, doesn't mean you can do it. You have to be responsible enough to know what you can do. Banks are only in this to make money! So, I do believe it is a bad decision on the homeowner's part. There's no need to sugar coat anything. Only you know what you have to pay for each month and whether or not you can really afford something. Banks don't figure in what you pay out in bills. They figure in your gross income, not what you actually bring home. How many times have you been to a bank to get a loan and they asked you to bring in a copy of every bill you pay every month and a estimated amount you spend on groceries and gas? I've never seen that happen! That's where they get you!

-- Posted by candasons07 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 8:38 AM

No. Personally I don't think everyone deserves a house. Look closey at what I said. Yes, people need a home, but not everyone is financial obedient to OWN a home. This is how we got into this mess in the first place by banks giving 100% loans to folks who couldn't afford to have a home in the first place. One is taking a mature step in life when buying a home.

-- Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 8:40 AM

You be logical, Every American needs a place to live, Every American has the right to attempt the American Dream..Right?

I am not going to sit around and argue these problems..Just for giggles ..Sit down and Google Customers Refinance Complaints on Bank of America, CountryWide, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Merrill Lynch. Look at the thousand upon thousands of entries by people who are in this situation. Read how these banks and mortgage companies REFUSED to refinance these homeowners. Btw be sure and flip back several pages and look at the dates there are thousands of complaints before this mortgage crisis started. These companies had become America's Best House Flippers at the expense of these homeowners. But yet people think Wall Street Bankers should get the bailout and not the American People?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 8:52 AM

No we should not bail out anyone else.

When i bought my house, i bought it with the wisdom to buy one that was in our budget should one of us lose our income.

I bought the house i could afford, not the one i WANTED.

I am already using my tax dollers for unwed mothers/wefare people and others that are just to lazy to get off their rears and work.

I have done everything from scrubbing toilets, to mucking stalls to fast food to whatever needed to be done to provide for my family.

People need to get over this Princess mentality that the world owes them something.

Nobody owes you a dime.

Get off your lazy bumm and work, if you lost your job, get one at tyson.... scrub a floor, work at a fast food chain.. do something other than whine you are not making such and such dollers anymore...

Nope I , nor anyone else needs to bail someone out for a poor choice.. that is life..

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 9:05 AM

Yes, Dianatn....everyone wants the "America Dream" but is they are not responsible enough to maintain their mortgage payments, then there is the problem. Whats wrong with renting until one is financial able to afford a downpayment on a home? The only positive thing about this financial crisis is that it will hopefully help consumers realize to not have debt and be done with loans. These banks, especially credit card companies, are doing nothing but ripping people off with their interest rates. True, it is hard not to have house payment. I am under the age of 30 and all I have is a mortgage payment. My husband and I have worked hard to not be a slave to debt. (Big Dave Ramsey Fan, can't you tell?)

-- Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 9:09 AM

Oh and if I knew I was on the verge of losing my my, then I would find another job or maybe a third to keep it. I would also keep my "needs" and turn off the cwll phones, internet, cable, etc. Thats the thing. There are a lot of people out there who don't want to work hard to keep what they got. They give up too easily.

-- Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 9:11 AM

I meant to say losing my home in my previous posts. Sorry.

-- Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 9:13 AM

Some of you need to walk a mile in the shoes of those having a hard time. We've been behind on our martgage payments. Not because we "aren't repsonsible enought to pay them" -- but becaue my husband's job went to Mexico and we went from a $100K a year family to a $35K a year family, then had to deal with heart surgery bills on top of that. Sometimes s*** happens, no matter how "responsible" you are. Luckily, we had a fixed rate mortgage, wo we didn't get hit as hard as many folks.

It's very easy to be critical when you've never been there. The greatest evil in this country is lack of compassion.

-- Posted by MotherMayhem on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 10:24 AM

4fabfelines

You are right Nobody owes you a dime but these people are owed the opportunity to try and save their homes.

If these banks and mortgage companies stood behind their customers and did what they told them they were going to do in the first place we would not be having this conversation. It isn't that these people were not working..it was because their mortgages had grown beyond their income level.

And Honda yes banks and mortgage companies do look at your debt to income ratio..it is on your credit report..everything you owe each month is spelled out for them. If these people were not credit worthy when they bought their home and these people paid their mortgages every month...then why 2-3 years down the road are they no longer credit worthy for a refinance? These banks and mortgage companies were quite happy about foreclosures while the market was good they were making tons of money. When a homeowner pays over a 1000 a month in mortgage payments for 2 years and 98% of it is interest..who has gained the most? Of course it is the bankers.. then they place this house back on the market and resell.. when homes was sitting on the market for a month or less, the banks made tons of money on the same house over and over. If they allowed their customers to refinance their profit was slashed on this home. The whining from the banks started when homes stopped selling and these foreclosed homes sat for months upon months..

If the banks and mortgage companies were made to do the right thing for these homeowners there would be no reason to bail them out..a interest cut would keep these people in their homes and the banks still would make money on these loans problem is the banks wouldn't be making the BILLIONS in interest..Please understand this is greed on the part of the banks ..they have nothing to lose they still hold the deed to the house so they still have what THEY said it is worth. The only people losing here is the homeowner.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 10:32 AM

Yawn . . . cue the same broken record over again please.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 10:57 AM

That's easy for you to say jaxspike when it does not effect you..renters still pay rent and still don't own a thing!!!

This does not affect me one way or the other but it does millions of Americans and you can not say that all of a sudden MILLIONS of people just decided to stop paying their mortgages at the same time.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 11:03 AM

Mothermayhem . . I have been in that position before when I was laid off in 2000 and at the same time had to go to the hospital due to an illness with no insurance. I struggled for several months until I was able to go back to work but I cut my costs and only bought what was essential and try to get by but never did I believe that I was owed anything or I deserved to be bailed out . . . I worked hard and cut back and eventually work two jobs for a couple of years to pay off the debt I collected during that time. I never whined that someone should take care of my problems . . . I took care of them myself.

So are you saying that people are too good to do what I did? But really, I have walked in those shoes and know how it is . . . still doesn't mean I believe anyone should get a free ride when they make bad decisions.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 11:06 AM

Dianatn . . . Well, if I lose my job and dont have money to pay my rent, I am still homeless just like the next guy.

Your comment had no merit really in that regard.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM

Where is this FREERIDE everyone speaks of? I would like to apply for one of these free homes.

The bailout money will be given to the banks to readjust mortgage interest rates. The homeowner will still have their mortgage payment, they still pay interest it will be just a reasonable interest. The banks are being paid for the balance of the over inflated interest.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 11:15 AM

In regards to MotherMayhem...

I have been there too. I am not going into details with my personal life, but I have been there and stayed I there for 5 years. I worked my a** off trying to keep my head above water. Never once was I late on a payment. It can be done with hard work and determination. It can!

-- Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 11:54 AM

short and sweet............NO!!!!

-- Posted by titansfan on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 12:14 PM

The problem is if you don't have a job then lowering your interest rates on your loan isn't going to help you keep your house, A lot of the foreclosures now are happening because people are loosing their jobs. And a lot of these homes have lost a 1/4 or more of their value.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 5:54 PM

Dianatn, I have been there.. and done that.. made less than 5,000.00 a YEAR and never asked for assistance. Just got another job, more work until i got my head above the flood.

I drove a crappy car, lived in a crappier house but we got it done.. ate more Raman noodles than i care to think about.

If we get real tight again.. the cell phone goes first , the television cable and then maybe the internet.

Sometimes people just cannot keep the houses and that is understandable.. it does not make those people failures, sometimes these lending companies do have hidden charges and balloon rates.

It is a terrible and complex problem.. but i do not think we need to bail out mortgqge companies.. the CEO's of those companies are not going without..

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 6:18 PM

Candasons07, thank you for your response. I think I need to clarify my last statement. The haves I am refering to are the CEOs and other top ranking officials in various businesses that make more in a year than most of the "working class" (that indirectly pay their salary) will make in over 25 years combined.

Exerpt from T-G article:

" TVA CEO Tom Kilgore just got nearly $1.1 million in incentive awards -- on top of his $655,000 salary and $300,000 deferred compensation package. Kilgore's compensation rose 11.6 percent in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. In the TVA's financial report to the Securities Exchange Commission for that same fiscal year, released Dec. 16 and available at both the TVA and SEC web sites, it announced an increase in its operating revenues -- of 11.3 percent.

In a press release from TVA, it states the organization earned "a record $10.4 billion in operating revenues," and that "The increased revenue in 2008 was primarily a result of rate and fuel cost adjustments, driven by a 21-percent increase in fuel and purchased power costs."

The revenue did not include any from the 20 percent increase, which only took effect in October, after the close of the 2008 fiscal year."

The have-nots in my opinion are the "average joe working class" man/woman that work very hard to get(and keep) what we have.

When I was in the process of purchasing my home, I did just what you were talking about. Calculating/estimating all of my expenses each month, I backed into what I could afford if I had to work 2 miminum wage jobs to make ends meet and have a little left for contigencies. What I couldn't estimate was such a rapid increase in fuel, groceries, utilities, etc that I have to have to live. I am not refering to the "fluff" items most people have such as a cell phone, cable, internet, designer clothes, a brand new car, etc, that I absolutely agree can and should be eliminated if it comes down to those items or losing your house.

I understand that items will go up as time progresses and can only hope that my income will keep up. True "cost of living" increases are a thing of the past in most companies these days. In an effort to be more profitable, they may give a small hourly raise in good faith but in reality it doesn't help much. $20 a week (fifty cents an hour) doesn't go very far.

-- Posted by Bamadoc72 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 6:47 PM

BTW, I am still have my house and am holding my own. It isn't easy but I get it done.

-- Posted by Bamadoc72 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 7:00 PM

I have some friends with mental disabilities so severe that one would expect that no contract they made would be held legally binding.

The real estate agents,lending institutions,courts and counsellors all accepted the purchase of the homes and,in some cases,the foreclosures or bankruptcies that followed.

Some were unemployed or one illness or job loss away from being destitute.

Why were they not turned down,sold more modest properties or helped to deal with their financial difficulties when they occured?

It would have made more sense to have voided the sale and let them pay off their time in the homes as "rent" than to let them be overcome by debts they couldn't really understand.

Their situations now are better than they might have been but why were these fiascos allowed to happen to begin with?

(State Protection and Advocacy organizations,etc. should be taking part in either breaking the contracts,re-working them with the participation of competent conservators or helping such innocents see things through without getting deeper and deeper into financial quicksand.

I'm not talking about naive or reckless regular people but the truly impaired.

(Some of these folks deserve to be in group homes or assisted living.)

How many of the people we are rescuing might fall into this category of unwitting victim?

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 8:58 PM

This is predatory lending at it's finest. But hey, it's what capitalism is all about. Getting more at the expense of others. Yay. Let's all celebrate, like most people here do, until the very people they refer to as irresponsible become YOU.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 9:53 PM

I was quite impressed by our New President's speech tonight, I am sure there will be many in here that disagree but Hey, What's new?

I think his biggest Obstacle will be to get the American people past the "it's all about me" mode. We all must realize every bill, every law, every tax cut or even every tax increase will not affect each of us directly. But when these things benefit us as a country it does affect YOU and ME. I must confess I too need to work on this in some areas. Maybe we all need to Remember: United we Stand and Divided We Fall. Our country has been divided far too long now and it is time to come together as a country. If that means I must prop up my brother or sister American so they do not fall, then so be it!

I know I was never Obama's biggest fan but if he can accomplish just half of the things he purposes, I will be first in line to vote for him come 2012.

I will gladly eat crow but I do prefer it Baked :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Feb 24, 2009, at 10:00 PM

I will believe it when I see it . . . fortunately I can see through the usual political rhetoric and that is all last night was.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 6:39 AM

hhhmmm...

Good point! Individuals should be taking that tax return and paying off debt so they won't have to worry about it later.

-- Posted by honda14 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 8:32 AM

Bamadoc72, I apologize. I thought you were meaning that statement in a different way.

Mother Mayhem, I have been there. That's how I know that banks only figure gross income and they don't care what other bills you have. Like I previously stated, only you know what you have to pay and if you can really afford another bill like a mortgage payment.

Dianatn, I never said certain people don't deserve the "American Dream", but some people can't afford it. They let one bank tell them they can have it and they go for it even if they have the slightest doubt in their head that they can't afford it. The "responsible" part I am referring to is people being responsible enough to figure in every financial obligation they have before they take on anymore. I understand that this economy is so messed up that people can't get ahead because they are so far behind, but it's no one's responsibility to handle the situation except the person that's in it. The rest of us have our own financial struggles to handle. And just for the record, I certainly don't think that these mortgage companies that are in need of a bailout should get it. I have more important things to spend my money on than bailing out some greedy company that's too tight to work with people when they need it. But they sure do want the government to work for them!

-- Posted by candasons07 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM

*No. Personally I don't think everyone deserves a house. Look closey at what I said. Yes, people need a home, but not everyone is financial obedient to OWN a home. This is how we got into this mess in the first place by banks giving 100% loans to folks who couldn't afford to have a home in the first place. One is taking a mature step in life when buying a home.

Posted by honda14 on Tue, Feb 24, 09 @ 8:40am

Honda14, I don't know how I skipped over this statement, but I completely agree! Now watch as some people start saying we are rude or that we don't care about anyone but ourselves. Your statement is very true though. I don't want anyone to be homeless or have to sleep in a car or anything (I've been there when I was a kid!) but some people think that because a bank says they can do something, they can do it! I completely agree with your statement.

-- Posted by candasons07 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 11:18 AM

Bamdoc72, I understand what you are saying. No one can determine how much prices for gas, utilities, and groceries are going to go up. And that can really cut chunks out of income. Some people know how to cut back to make room for these increases and some people don't.

-- Posted by candasons07 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 11:32 AM

If this was just about people who bought more home than they could afford then I would agree with you. But we are talking about MILLIONS of foreclosures not THOUSANDS. This is driving the entire housing market into the ground, yours included. If for some reason you had to sell your home you would see exactly what I am speaking of.

The outrageous interest rates is my biggest concern and this is something these banks and mortgage companies can and could control if they would. Problem is they are not willingly going to slash interest rates even if these people are capable of paying smaller loans. Why should they? The interest is their profit. As I said before the banks are not losing anything in a foreclosure they still hold the deed to the property.. At the appraisal value THEY said it was worth. If the property was worth 200,000 for the home owner don't cry about it being worth less because your appraiser is the one who said it was worth 200,000. Anybody with an ounce of brains knows that high appraisal value benefits the bank and mortgage company.. they use this as equity on their books. It doesn't help the homeowner one little bit especially when they try and sell and find out the REAL value of their home is well below their pay off.

The American people have always lived beyond their means and the government has always showed us how to do that, they certainly do not live within their means they never have. The American people send their children to colleges they can not afford, buy cars they can not afford, have credit card debt they can not afford. Without credit very few people in the United States would have the necessities of life. People choose what is most important to them.. Ever drive by a house that is falling to the ground and a brand new Hummer sitting in the driveway? I have and I can direct you to some right here in this town.

We all, Every one of us...base our bills and our credit on our income (what we can normally afford to pay out) Car loans are usually 3-5 years we can comfortably look ahead that far.. unless you are Psychic no one, Not you, Not me ,Not the banks can predict what will happen in the next 30 years of your mortgage loan. A home is probably the single biggest investment any person ever makes and honestly I do not like the direction where my investment is headed. Unlike you I do not believe for one minute Millions of people got into loans they knew up front that they could not afford. Nobody in the right frame of mind goes into a home purchase knowing that the home will be foreclosed on.. God Help us all if we have that many gullible people walking our streets.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 12:24 PM

Dianatn . . . how many people get credit cards and yet max out and continue to spend? It is the same mentality with mortgages . . . you will be surprised how many people get in over their head and know it but yet they want to keep up with the neighbors and friends and have what they have.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 12:57 PM

Dianatn, I didn't say they are psychic and can predict what will happen to their home loans in the future. I already stated that I understand that things happen and people are doing what they can to pay for what they have. But I recently just refinanced my home with my husband. The amount we refinanced for was well under what our home appraised for. That's why I said you have to consider everything you pay, even the things that do not show up on your credit score, before you jump into buying a house. Just because your home appraises for $200,000 doesn't mean you have to take out that big of a loan. The economy is the problem behind all of this. But it's also part of the homeowner's fault, too. I stand by what I, and several others, have already stated. My husband and I have discussed selling our home and getting something a little bit bigger, but we are responsible and mature enough to know that now is not the time. The topic was never about a million people being foreclosed on, like you just stated. It was about whether or not our tax dollars should be used to help others out of the mortgage crisis. And now that I reread Bo's question so that I do not contradict myself, I realize that it really doesn't even pertain to me and it probably doesn't pertain to you either. My house is not paid in full. Is yours?

-- Posted by candasons07 on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 1:53 PM

Actually the topic was about the millions of people being foreclosed on because that is who is getting the bailout. I really don't see whether it matters if your house is completely paid for or if you are making payments or even if you are just a renter. This bailout money will be coming from all our taxes not just those who have their home paid for so we all have a stake in this even if you don't own a home.

I do believe though for those getting revamped loans the homeowner should have to make some concessions also. I think if they are getting a revamped loan they should not be able to collect the Credit Interest on their Federal taxes. I also think if they sell their home within 5 years of getting this adjustment they must pay a certain percent back to the Federal Government either through what they receive in equity or through future taxes. I do not think this readjustment of their mortgage should come with no strings attached.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 2:52 PM

Well, Yea the more your property is appraised for the more taxes you pay but your property taxes are appraised by county appraisers, your mortgage appraisal is done by your financing company. They should be close to the same amount...most aren't.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Feb 25, 2009, at 9:17 PM

Financial Peace, anyone?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 2:58 AM

Dianatn, I respect your feelings on Obama. But talk is cheap. He can promise us anything then wind up saving us thirteen dollars a week. Wow does that really impress me. One month into his coronation and all I see is an empty suit on TV non-stop. He does love to talk. Reminds me of Chuckie Schumer and his chattering classes remark. But he has not disappointed me as I expected nothing to start with. I am only grateful that My home is paid for and only the state or the brown shirts can take it away from me. By the way, is everyone still satisfied with their vote. Just curious.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 4:55 AM

Financial Peace, anyone?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 2:58 AM

From someone who has filed bankruptcy three times? Sure.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:15 AM

Financial Peace, anyone?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 2:58 AM

From someone who has filed bankruptcy three times? Sure.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:15 AM

In regards to the coment above...YES!!! He has helped me out tremendously.

-- Posted by honda14 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 9:31 AM

Dianatn, the original question that sparked the whole slew of comments said "if your house is paid for...". It never said anything about the millions of people being forclosed on. It said the mortgage crisis. If you go back and read it you would see that. As always, the comments shifted from what was actually asked to the "millions of people being forclosed on". That wasn't in any part of the original question. That's why I said the whole question doesn't really pertain to me and probably not you either. I agree that the bailout money will be coming from everyone's tax dollars, whether they own a home or not, but that's not what Bo's question asked. Like I said, READ IT AGAIN.

-- Posted by candasons07 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 10:20 AM

Hey MotherMayhem, 2 thumbs up!! YOU hit the nail on the head. Mr. Melson, my hat off to you also. You really know how to get the people riled up. so they show their true colors. How sad that so many sit in judgement, yet really do not know every persons circumstance. True many have purchased beyond their means. But then who sets those prices on homes? Me? I'd rather have an older home. They have much more character. Something many of the people who comment on these stories and blogs lack a great deal of. So now you can all start on me and leave someone else alone for awhile.

-- Posted by MrsGailCL on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 7:20 PM

In regards to the coment above...YES!!! He has helped me out tremendously.

-- Posted by honda14 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 9:31 AM

I'm sorry but it doesn't take a person who has tried and failed three times at practicing what they preach to show you how to manage your finances... Some of what Dave speaks is common sense, my only complaint with him is that he obviously doesn't even hear his own message. Perhaps his wealth will last this time. Who knows. Though it was the station that hosts his show which denied for 12 months that the economy was in any sort of down turn, LOL.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:27 PM

darrick_04,

Everyone has opinions. Its easy to talk about money when you still live at home with your parents. Right?

-- Posted by honda14 on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 9:36 AM

Harland Sanders did not start his KFC franchise until the age of 65 and he had many, many business failures over his life time. Dave Ramsey was only bankrupt once, and that was at the ripe old age of 26, but that gave him the incentive to get him where he is today. Dave Thomas was a high school drop out, who eventually started Wendy's. Dave Thomas and Harland Sanders were also friends and co-workers. Oprah Winfrey came from a very poor background and is now one of the richest person's in America. All four of these folks came from either an average american home or below average home, none had rich parents, but they all worked to get where are now. I would bet that all would say that you have to live within your means to stay in control of your finances.

As to to original question, I think it's politics as ususual. I am still reserving my judgement until I see any proof that "change" is coming. I still believe the FEDERAL government should get out of any and all entitlement programs, including social security and medicare and get back to what they should be doing, protecting our soil. I am not opposed to states providing services, that's where it belongs, then states can determine where the spending goes, the feds so far have not done such a hot job.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 10:13 AM

From someone who has filed bankruptcy three times? Sure.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Feb 26, 2009, at 8:15 AM

Just where do you get your facts darrick_04? From what I can find on the internet, and according to what Dave says, he has only filed bankruptcy once. And, that was many years ago.

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 12:09 PM

The station that "host" Dave's show is just that a host. They provide the outlet by which each of the talk shows talk. Phil Valentine even stated last night that the owners of the stations are in the business of making money, if a conservative talking head makes them money, then that's who they hire, if a rapper makes them money, then they will hire the rapper. I would clarify the statement about the radio station possibly by saying the talk show's personalities denied the downturn in economy, not the host station. I'm myself though would not even agree that the personalities denied the change in economy.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Fri, Feb 27, 2009, at 12:17 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Shelbyville Mills School
(759 ~ 5:22 PM, Jul 29)

Does TV Hold Us Captive?
(7 ~ 6:04 PM, Jul 26)

Just Some Thoughts
(92 ~ 10:40 PM, Jul 25)

Any haunted places?
(37 ~ 6:15 PM, Jul 23)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)