It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should We Consider Outlawing Adjustable Rate Mortgages & Foreclosures?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Anyone I know who took an ARM has lost their shirt. If ARMs are allowed to continue they should have a fixed range of adjustment so that the loanee can guage a highest possible payment scenario.

It would be difficult to outlaw foreclosures for obvious reasons. However, a system of foreclosure whereby the former owners retain indefinite rights to tennancy at a pre-agreed rate, could reduce the impact of a foreclosure event on a family.

What we should really consider outlawing is the current banking system and the vampires that run it.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Adjustables should be banned because when you are factoring $500 a month mortgage that is likely to double in a year that triples a year or two later. That $500 you had allocated for is now $3,000 and this is why they are evil and should be outlawed.

As to if forclosures should be outlawed and no they should not.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Adjustables should be banned because when you are factoring $500 a month mortgage that is likely to double in a year that triples a year or two later. That $500 you had allocated for is now $3,000 and this is why they are evil and should be outlawed.

As to if forclosures should be outlawed and no they should not.


Why ban them?
Just don't agree to them or sign the paperwork for them.

That was easy enough.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


By effectively banning them prohibits someone from being suckered into this as if it's not illegal they will always try to sucker someone into it, ban it outright and the practice ends once and for all.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


By effectively banning them prohibits someone from being suckered into this as if it's not illegal they will always try to sucker someone into it, ban it outright and the practice ends once and for all.


Oh stop it.
Legislating stupid actions is a pipe dream and ridiculous.
Just don't do the stupid action. Money saved from the moronic Govt dolts putting together a 1500 page law that really wont do away with the action anyways.

Kind of like going to the doctor and saying "It hurts when I put my finger in my eye". The logical response from the doctor is "Well, don't put your finger in your eye".



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


With no laws on the books banks and lenders will do whatever the flip it wants to and the second you call them out on it they say, "It's legal and we are doing it and there isn't a thing that you can do about it". Stop defending and protecting the draconian practices.

An unfortunate reality is that the people need to be protected from these scrupulous and nefarious agenda. Force their hand by blocking these draconian policies as they've conned people and have pressured people into signing bogus loans.

This is where Gov't needs to have it's claws and fangs out and be the big, bad entity that keeps these firms up at night living in fear looking over their shoulder. Banks have already proven that they cannot be trusted.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


With no laws on the books banks and lenders will do whatever the flip it wants to and the second you call them out on it they say, "It's legal and we are doing it and there isn't a thing that you can do about it". Stop defending and protecting the draconian practices.

An unfortunate reality is that the people need to be protected from these scrupulous and nefarious agenda. Force their hand by blocking these draconian policies as they've conned people and have pressured people into signing bogus loans.

This is where Gov't needs to have it's claws and fangs out and be the big, bad entity that keeps these firms up at night living in fear looking over their shoulder. Banks have already proven that they cannot be trusted.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


So from one topic, "Banning/Outlawing ARMs" to another.

Even my ADD can't keep up with that.

But, nice try though. Stay on topic.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I am on topic and have remained on topic. Too many shaky variables and it open's a pandora's box of sorts! Cases like this is where Gov't regulation should be strict and not allows them to step all over people while using the law to do it.
edit on 3-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The mentality of today's Americans is just nauseating. When I bought my current home I was offered an ARM which would have made my monthly payments something like $500.00 - $600.00 cheaper. At the time I thought we would only be living there for a few years and move up to a bigger house. Even with all of that in mind I still had enough intelligence to go for the fixed rate because I didn't want to take the fools gamble with the ARM. As it turns out, I am still living there. Due to several reasons, our plan to move fell through so we are making due with a slightly smaller house than we planned on living in...but at least I didn't take that fools gamble so my mortgage rate did not adjust. So, even though I was smart enough to not sign an ARM, I am still in a smaller house than I wanted.
Since so many people here believe that a stupid decision should not come with consequenses, then perhaps we should have a law where "they" give me a bigger house but let me keep my current mortgage - makes about as much sense as what some of you are saying.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


ARM's do need to be outlawed as they do not allow a homeowner to correctly budget for their mortgage payment as when you get a mortgage and have your payments set at $500 a month and after 2 years it balloons to $1,000 just to triple again to $3,000 means that per month you now have to fork over six times what you initially thought you'd be paying which is the Numero Dos cause for the collapse of the mortgage bubble. Numero Uno is the utter and absolute lack of accountability and the deregulation of the banking and lending institutions.

When you sign up or renew your mortgage your payment and rate should be fixed for the life of the loan and always pay at least 40% more of the minimum payment to avoid paying into interest only. This is how we are kept in debt, being forced to pay down interest only while not satisfying or paying into the principle.
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


ARM's do need to be outlawed as they do not allow a homeowner to correctly budget for their mortgage payment as when you get a mortgage and have your payments set at $500 a month and after 2 years it balloons to $1,000 just to triple again to $3,000 means that per month you now have to fork over six times what you initially thought you'd be paying which is the Numero Dos cause for the collapse of the mortgage bubble. Numero Uno is the utter and absolute lack of accountability and the deregulation of the banking and lending institutions.

When you sign up or renew your mortgage your payment and rate should be fixed for the life of the loan and always pay at least 40% more of the minimum payment to avoid paying into interest only. This is how we are kept in debt, being forced to pay down interest only while not satisfying or paying into the principle.
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Again, YEAH for more Govt control.
Let the Govt restrict people in their actions (Wise or foolish), control what they can and can't have all because some chose poorly.

You can't tell me that saying this crap out loud makes sense. Honestly.
Why not have laws stating we can't step in mud puddles, because it is not wise, gets you dirty, creates laundry, then uses more electricity, more detergent, thus sucking more out of your monthly budget and has the potential to put you in the poor house.

I don't need Govt telling me what I can and can't do. What is so hard with that?
It is a simple fix, just don't step in the mud puddle, or sign for an ARM.
If you do, suffer the consequences. Good or bad.

It is like this is crazy town. Govt is becoming more and more like the parent scolding the child and creating more rules.

Maybe you want to be the kid to Mommy and Daddy Govt, but I don't. I can make my own choices.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Flatfish
 





When a mechanic fixes someone's car and they're unable to pay, he doesn't get to repossess their car. When a contractor does a re-modeling job on a house and doesn't get paid, he doesn't get to repossess the house. Why should a bank be any different?


A mechanic generally will not need to "repossess" an automobile for unpaid debt because the mechanic will have the automobile in his, or her, garage, or shop. The mechanic is not obligated to hand over the vehicle until they have been paid for their goods and services.

The smart contractor remodeling a house will have commanded the money for the job up front. Certainly a contractor will not use their own capital to purchase the products necessary for remodeling, and if the client doesn't have money for that, then the contractor has no reason to begin remodeling.

I don't know what planet you live on, but down here on planet earth, mechanics don't have to just suck it up whenever a dead beat has scammed them into fixing their car, nor does a contractor have to bend over and pull down his, or her, pants to every person who thinks it is perfectly fine to defraud a contractor and have the remodel their house with no intention of paying for the work.


I think that you may be the one living on a strange planet, like maybe the planet of "Make It Up As You Go."
I never said one word about people intentionally scamming someone else into fixing their car or the intentional defrauding of contractors, you just made that stuff up out of thin air.

FYI, here in Texas, a location found on planet Earth, we do indeed have an instrument called a "Mechanics Lien" and it's often utilized by fraudulent service providers who have overcharged for their services and/or just flat out didn't provide the service or repair they had previously contracted to do, thus leading to the dispute over fees owed.

Haven't you ever seen any of the documentaries of repairmen who attempt to charge customers for replacing parts that were never replaced? Or, documentaries of homeowners who refuse to pay their contractor because his work is substandard or because he abandoned the job and failed to live up to his end of the contract?

Real Story; I have a widow friend who's roof was damaged during a hail storm and she was instructed by her insurance company to hire a licensed contractor to re-roof her home, which she did. The contractor applied new shingles over the old ones instead of removing them first and after inspecting the work, the insurance company refused to pay for the substandard job. A new contractor was hired to re-roof the house correctly and was paid in full by the insurance carrier. When my friend refused pay the first contractor for his shoddy work, he applied for and attained a mechanics lien against her home. She Had No Intention Of "Defrauding" Anyone! The entire episode was brought about because the contractor performed a sub-standard job.

If you're going to sit there and make stuff up, please do it in your own thread.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
We need to make sure that all avenues of corruption are available to
create more destruction. Otherwise John Wayne would cry in his coffin.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Yeah! Lets let the elites bundle up more debt, made of fake money and then act surprised
when everything crashes later on! I love paying real money to cover artificially generated
debt!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
The mentality of today's Americans is just nauseating. When I bought my current home I was offered an ARM which would have made my monthly payments something like $500.00 - $600.00 cheaper. At the time I thought we would only be living there for a few years and move up to a bigger house. Even with all of that in mind I still had enough intelligence to go for the fixed rate because I didn't want to take the fools gamble with the ARM. As it turns out, I am still living there. Due to several reasons, our plan to move fell through so we are making due with a slightly smaller house than we planned on living in...but at least I didn't take that fools gamble so my mortgage rate did not adjust. So, even though I was smart enough to not sign an ARM, I am still in a smaller house than I wanted.
Since so many people here believe that a stupid decision should not come with consequenses, then perhaps we should have a law where "they" give me a bigger house but let me keep my current mortgage - makes about as much sense as what some of you are saying.


If the banks knew that they would not be allowed to throw people out of their homes in order to repossess and/or flip them to a new buyer, "They," (the banks) would never have made the loan in the first place and more than likely, they would demand a larger percentage of the homes value be submitted by borrower as the initial down payment. This is the way it used to work before the banks created this ARM and sub-prime scam on american home buyers.

The whole thing is a "Con Job" and if anyone thinks that they are to smart to be conned, they just haven't met the right con man yet. Plain & simple, the practice should be outlawed.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Well I guess I could get behind a law to ban ARM loans since they have affected some people who didn't know what they were getting into, but I'm sure there are a majority who knew the risk and took the loan anyway because so many people live in the moment with no thought whatsoever about the future and no thought about the consequenses of their actions.

That being said, anyone who defaults on a loan has no right to keep what they are not paying for. Yes it's sad that it happens in this economy - especially for the very few who are actually trying, but if the goal here is for the government to provide for everyone who cannot provide for themselves, then eventually everyone will come to the realization that there's no need to work at all anymore. We'll just get everything provided to us. How will that be financed? When no one works anymore and no taxes are collected - who will pay for everything?

Nobody owes you a thing simply because you exist, yet so many people feel that they have a "right" to things that they did not earn nor pay for. I'm all for being taxed to support those who can't support themselves, but it drives me insane that my taxes go to support those who won't support themselves.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
If the banks knew that they would not be allowed to throw people out of their homes in order to repossess and/or flip them to a new buyer, "They," (the banks) would never have made the loan in the first place and more than likely, they would demand a larger percentage of the homes value be submitted by borrower as the initial down payment. This is the way it used to work before the banks created this ARM and sub-prime scam on american home buyers.

The whole thing is a "Con Job" and if anyone thinks that they are to smart to be conned, they just haven't met the right con man yet. Plain & simple, the practice should be outlawed.


I would also like to point out that "they" were pressured by the government to make these risky loans. Bush pushed hard for the "ownership society" - especially among minorities (in an attempt to move more to the left) along with prominant democrats such as Harry Reid and Chris Dodd to name a couple. So I hope this doesn't turn into some partisan blame game because both sides are to blame as well as some on both sides that were against it. Yes, the banks are predatory, but this was forced down the banks throats due to republican and democrat pressure.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1

Originally posted by Flatfish
If the banks knew that they would not be allowed to throw people out of their homes in order to repossess and/or flip them to a new buyer, "They," (the banks) would never have made the loan in the first place and more than likely, they would demand a larger percentage of the homes value be submitted by borrower as the initial down payment. This is the way it used to work before the banks created this ARM and sub-prime scam on american home buyers.

The whole thing is a "Con Job" and if anyone thinks that they are to smart to be conned, they just haven't met the right con man yet. Plain & simple, the practice should be outlawed.


I would also like to point out that "they" were pressured by the government to make these risky loans. Bush pushed hard for the "ownership society" - especially among minorities (in an attempt to move more to the left) along with prominant democrats such as Harry Reid and Chris Dodd to name a couple. So I hope this doesn't turn into some partisan blame game because both sides are to blame as well as some on both sides that were against it. Yes, the banks are predatory, but this was forced down the banks throats due to republican and democrat pressure.


Yeah, I remember well. Here's a little reminder of the policies that led to our current situation. It may even be the government pressure you're talking about.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Be it from Bush, Clinton, Sharpton or Obama.
It was still noted, pushed for and accepted.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Well I guess I could get behind a law to ban ARM loans since they have affected some people who didn't know what they were getting into, but I'm sure there are a majority who knew the risk and took the loan anyway because so many people live in the moment with no thought whatsoever about the future and no thought about the consequenses of their actions.

That being said, anyone who defaults on a loan has no right to keep what they are not paying for. Yes it's sad that it happens in this economy - especially for the very few who are actually trying, but if the goal here is for the government to provide for everyone who cannot provide for themselves, then eventually everyone will come to the realization that there's no need to work at all anymore. We'll just get everything provided to us. How will that be financed? When no one works anymore and no taxes are collected - who will pay for everything?

Nobody owes you a thing simply because you exist, yet so many people feel that they have a "right" to things that they did not earn nor pay for. I'm all for being taxed to support those who can't support themselves, but it drives me insane that my taxes go to support those who won't support themselves.


I'm not advocating that banks take a total loss for bad loans, only that they share that responsibility. First by keeping the loans they made to maturity, (as opposed to bundling & selling them as MBS and derivatives) and secondly by abandoning the predatory lending practices known as ARMs and becoming more vigilant is assuring that the people they lend money to are indeed "good risk." If the banks thought for one minute that these loans they made were good, they would have indeed kept them through maturity. They new the loans were bad before they ever made them and thus, they felt the need to insure them and "flip" them to the next unsuspecting investor before the collective implosion took place.

P.S. It irks me too when my tax dollars go to support those who "won't" support themselves and if I remember correctly, our tax dollars went to bailout the banks and not the homeowners, so who is refusing to support themselves? In hindsight, I think that in this particular instance, I would have preferred to bailout the homeowners.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join