Gas Prices.... Completely Outrageous!!! How Much Are They Where You Are???

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by Sarah

no no. i'm not looking for anyone to say anything. i just have to laugh every time someone mentions health care.

both of my parents work for the government. you'd at least think there'd be some sort of family plan. i suppose that's why Americans are encouraged not to think.

sit down, shut up, and watch this tv! here's american idol. here's 56 channels of it!

Indeed. I NEVER talk about health care because I've been so so lucky in my life to always have insurance..and right now I don't even pay for my insurance, work does. Amazing.

But I also realize there are millions upon millions without insurance, it's a huge problem...and I've got many friends who are in the same situation as you...it's crazy.

[skcin]

I know we're way off topic now, but I found this. Still acknowledges that the borrowers are paritally to blame, that they should have done more research. But the last statement says a lot, IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/real...ymag/index.htm

The buyers: The Quams and the too-good-to-be-true mortgage
Stretched by their loan, the newlyweds rented out their second bedroom to pay the bills.
By Amanda Gengler, Money Magazine writer-reporter
May 2 2007: 2:48 PM EDT


(Money Magazine) -- Newlyweds Erik and Brandi Quam can't really afford their home. The monthly carrying costs on their two-bedroom condo in Arlington, Va. run about $2,500 a month, and they fear the bill could go higher still as their adjustable mortgage resets to higher interest rates. It's already a tight squeeze: They've taken in a roommate to help pay the bills.

Unfortunately, they can't afford to sell either. Thanks to a falling housing market and a prepayment penalty of about $11,500, they'd owe the bank more than their place is worth. "It makes me want to cry every month," says Brandi, 26. The irony is that the Quams should be able to afford their place: It cost just $219,000 when a still-single Brandi, fresh out of the Air Force, bought it.


So how did they get themselves in such a mess? More puzzling still, why did lenders let them - along with millions of other homeowners, many of whom, unlike the Quams, are in immediate danger of foreclosure?

In the answer to that question lies the real story behind the once dizzying, now fizzling housing boom. Sure, record-low interest rates, boomers buying vacation homes and immigrants grabbing for the American dream all did their bit to push up prices.

But what really supercharged the market was the mortgage industrial complex - a machine with cogs called brokers and bankers, fueled by money poured in by investment banks, bond traders and hedge fund managers. The system prospered and grew, introducing new players into the financing transaction and transforming the roles of others.

Finally it ran amok, creating huge incentives at every level of a home sale or a refi to sacrifice prudence in pursuit of a killing. Market checks and balances should have prevented the process from getting out of control. But they were corrupted, co-opted or simply steamrollered.

Too much money. Too little restraint. This is the story of how all the important players in the market decided that they had too much at stake to shout, "Stop!" We've been here before: Remember when Wall Street analysts told us Amazon.com was worth $400 a share?

And as with the tech bubble, it may not be only speculators who get hurt. As home prices unwind from unsustainable highs, we may all feel at least a little bit poorer. That could be a drag on the economy. It's already a real drag for the Quams.

The primary mortgage on the Quams' condo was fixed at 5.25 percent, but Brandi had also taken out a smaller variable-rate loan. As rates rose in 2005, she went looking for a better deal and entered her contact information into a few Web sites.

Shortly thereafter, she says, she got a call from broker Robert Hoover of CPA Mortgage in Maryland. He found her a new loan with what she says she understood to be an initial 1 percent rate, with only small increases in the first five years. And since she had equity (her condo had appreciated), she could even take a little cash out to pay off some bills. The transaction earned the broker and his firm about $12,600.

It took a few months before Brandi realized what she had done. The mortgage was something called an option ARM. It was true that Brandi could make initial minimum payments of about $800. But those weren't enough to cover the interest she was actually being charged, which was higher than the rate used to calculate required payments. The unpaid interest was added to the loan balance, a phenomenon called negative amortization.

The Quams have decided to start paying at least the interest on the loan, but even so, the balance has grown by $7,000. Barring a market turnaround, they're stuck for at least another year and a half until the prepayment penalty phases out. They've had to turn down job offers because they can't move.

Who is to blame here? Yes, Brandi should have asked more questions and scrutinized the fine print. The idea of a mortgage with a 1% rate seems, on its face, too good to be true. Brandi says she did know she'd eventually have to make higher payments, but she planned to move before that happened.

Exactly how Hoover described the mechanics of the loan, or what she thought he meant, is impossible to know for sure now. Hoover declined to speak with MONEY, and his firm sent an e-mail saying that it couldn't comment on a client but that "ultimately, it is the consumer that makes the choice they feel is best."

But based on the documents Brandi showed us for her loan - and documents MONEY has seen for other option ARMS - it is easy to see how a person could be confused.

A payment schedule is shown on the federally mandated truth-in-lending form, but it is based on minimum payments and a steady interest rate, rather than the variable rate the Quams are charged.

An "adjustable-rate note" first says the Quams will be charged a yearly rate of 1 percent. The next subsection says that rate "may" change almost immediately. The first payment coupons show only the minimum, negatively amortizing payment.

A spokeswoman for the original lender, BankUnited of Miami Lakes, Fla., said she couldn't specifically comment on Brandi's loan. But she said that borrowers aren't approved unless their "credit score will support the fully indexed rate." All borrowers, she added, acknowledge receipt of numerous documents disclosing every aspect of the loan, including a four-page form that describes the terms "in plain English" and warns borrowers of the possibility of negative amortization.

Keep in mind, complex loans like option ARMs are new to most people, and they are radically different from 15- and 30-year fixed-rate loans. Consumer advocates say that the truth-in-lending disclosure rules are outdated and that borrowers like the Quams are being asked to climb a steep learning curve - with their homes at stake.

"The disclosures on adjustable-rate mortgages have never been any good, and option ARMs are particularly terrible," says Jack Guttentag, professor emeritus of finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

In any case, the loans are popular. In the first half of 2006, option ARMs were 15 percent of mortgage originations, reports the Mortgage Bankers Association. In theory, the loan can be a useful tool for people with irregular income, such as entrepreneurs.

But low payments are the rule, not the exception. Today more than 80 percent of borrowers in securitized option ARMs pay less than their interest charges, according to Fitch Ratings. Their loan balances are rising. That might not be so bad in a rising market, but it's potentially a disaster in a falling one.

It's obvious that a lot of homeowners could have used better advice about how to find an affordable loan. But good advice has gotten harder to come by in the mortgage game. That's because the person across the desk or on the other end of the telephone getting you a mortgage probably doesn't work for the bank that's putting up the money. He may not care if you can pay.

"Consumers thought that when they qualified for a loan, that meant they had a reasonable prospect to repay the loan unless some type of illness or catastrophe hit the family," says Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. "That is no longer the case."

[Musicman408]

Guys, I have a quick question. I have been away from the comp for several days because of performances and Physical therapy and was just wondering if anyone knew why gas jumped 25 cens or so today. It's 3.19 here........

Missed Ya Guys,
Ethan

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by Musicman408

Guys, I have a quick question. I have been away from the comp for several days because of performances and Physical therapy and was just wondering if anyone knew why gas jumped 25 cens or so today. It's 3.19 here........

Missed Ya Guys,
Ethan

I heard that Bush lost a poker game and his bet was our economy.

[Macfanforever]

From Yahoo Canada


Conservatives reject opposition call for public inquiry into gasoline prices.

Wed May 2, 5:53 PM

By Terry Pedwell


OTTAWA (CP) - Rejecting explanations from big oil companies, the opposition parties are demanding the federal government investigate why gasoline prices have been surging.

But there's little Ottawa can do to curb prices at the pumps, say the Conservatives. The NDP demanded a public inquiry after gasoline prices reached as high as $1.28 a litre in Vancouver on Tuesday, and only slightly lower in other parts of Canada. Pump prices have since dropped but remained just under $1.10 a litre in many regions.

"Yesterday, Imperial Oil reported a 31 per cent increase in quarterly profits, on the very same day that gas prices went through the roof," New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis said in the Commons on Wednesday.

"So here we have big oil companies making big profits and consumers still paying big prices. It doesn't add up," she said.

"Why doesn't this government take on these big gas makers?"

Ottawa has limited ability to counter rising gasoline pump prices, said Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

"There have been six federal studies of gas prices and each and every time the Competition Bureau has found there's been no price fixing," said Lunn.

"If the member has information and would like another investigation, they're welcome to bring that forward."

Lunn also cited Conservative government measures to mitigate the effects of higher gasoline prices.

"We brought in the $2-billion biofuels strategy," he told the Commons. "We're providing incentives for Canadians to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles ... and we have lowered the GST."

Rather than look at price fixing, the federal government should instead investigate why oil companies have been closing gasoline refineries, said Bloc MP Robert Vincent.

"The sharp increase in gas prices is not explained by international factors alone," he said. "It's also due to the intentional closure of some refineries.

"We know prices at the pump come under provincial jurisdiction, but can't the federal government check the profit margin of refining since that's under its jurisdiction?"

Oil companies and industry observers have blamed rising gas prices on everything from unrest in oil-rich Nigeria and tensions in the Middle East to high demand and low inventories. The cost of buying gasoline also moved higher in the United States, with an average gallon of gas at American pumps rising Tuesday to US$2.96, up nearly 80 cents US a litre.

The national average price of gas in Canada on Tuesday was just over $1.10 a litre, up nearly five cents from the average price in March, and 19 cents higher than the average price in January, said MJ Ervin and Associates Inc., a Calgary-based consulting firm.

-

First quarter and annual returns for Canada's big five oil and gas companies

By The Canadian Press

Here are some recent earnings from Canada's Big Five oil companies:

Imperial Oil Limited (TSX:IMO)

Net profits 2007: $774 million. 2006: $591 million

Increase: 31 per cent

Annual net income 2006: $3.04 billion. 2005: $2.6 billion

Increase: 17 per cent

Petro-Canada (TSX:PCA)

Net profits 2007: $590 million. 2006: $206 million

Increase: 186 per cent

Excluding one-time losses/gains:

Net profits 2007: $580 million. 2006: $486 million

Percentage increase: 15 per cent

Annual net income 2006: $1.74 billion. 2005: $1.79 billion

Percentage decrease: 3 per cent

Husky Energy Inc. (TSX:HSE)

Net profits 2007: $650 million. 2006: $524 million

Increase: 24 per cent

Annual net income 2006: $2.73 billion. 2005: $2.00 billion

Increase: 26.5 per cent

EnCana (TSX:ECA)

Net profits 2007: $491 million. 2006: $1.47 billion

Decrease: 66 per cent

Excluding one-time losses/gains:

Net profits 2007: $858 million. 2006: $694 million

Increase: 29 per cent

Annual net income 2006: $5.65 billion. 2005: $3.43 billion

Increase: 65 per cent

Suncor (TSX:SU)

Net profits 2007: $551 million. 2006: $713 million

Decrease: 23 per cent

Excluding one-time losses/gains:

Net profits 2007: $539 million. 2006: $509 million

Increase: 6 per cent

Annual net income 2006: $2.97 billion. 2005: $1.16 billion

Increase: 156 per cent



Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
Need help? Want to send feedback?

[irishgrl]

Paula, that article nicely explains what has been happening in the world of creative financing. Yes the buyers are partly to blame, but they optimistically think they will be getting raises or that the interest rate wont be THAT high...

Sorry Jason, as that article points out, I DO think the mortgage industry is to blame. They got greedy and they were going to make their commissions, regardless of whether or not down the line the borrower would go under, and that seems heartless to me. I personally wouldnt EVER go for an adjustable rate mortgate, much better to know what you have to pay each month from now till its paid off....but thats just me.

Macfan4ever, your article underscores what I said earlier about Big Oil being the real culprits here. Its just disgusting, and it should be stopped.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, he did discharge more than 20% of the debt because he likely saved tens of thousands in interest as interest cannot be charged or accrue in a 13 plan save for some exceptions like student loans, income tax, etc. So, creditors will never look at him as if he did anything other than bankrutpcy under either chapter, though 13 generally is considered slightly better.

As a general rule and with few excpetions, any and all creditors listed as such when he filed will be included in the discharge order. If these creditors are not accordingly reporting the debt on his credit report, they are in violation of the court's order. Mailing a copy of the listing of the creditors as well as the dischrage order as proof of the dispute to the credit reporting company should remedy this. If the creditor refuses, then they could be consrued as being in violation of the court's order, which usually means sanctions. Having said that, any unrelated negative items on his credit report will be up to him to remedy, and that is not that easy of a process, though it has gotten better.

And, yes, given those facts, it sounds like your friend got bad legal advice becuase the amount he paid in five years likely could have paid his debt off in full and left him with some money.

just so you know, the items on the credit report werent unrelated, they were the exact items that were included, but for some unexplained reason each of them had up to $200 still showing and this was AFTER (a YEAR after mind you) the bankruptcy was discharged.

Any creditor who moans and groans about a lost 20% when they got paid 80% is an ASS.

Yes my friend got bad advice. He regrets this more than you know. He says that considering the way he's being treated in the credit world, he'd have been better off going the ch7 route (he says he qualified). They say no good deed goes unpunished, and I agree.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Paula, that article nicely explains what has been happening in the world of creative financing. Yes the buyers are partly to blame, but they optimistically think they will be getting raises or that the interest rate wont be THAT high...

Sorry Jason, as that article points out, I DO think the mortgage industry is to blame. They got greedy and they were going to make their commissions, regardless of whether or not down the line the borrower would go under, and that seems heartless to me. I personally wouldnt EVER go for an adjustable rate mortgate, much better to know what you have to pay each month from now till its paid off....but thats just me.

Macfan4ever, your article underscores what I said earlier about Big Oil being the real culprits here. Its just disgusting, and it should be stopped.

Whatever, you hate the concept of individual responsibility. If you buy a house and think you will be able to afford it in the future, you have no one to blame for yourself

I mean here is a cite with sample disclosure statements https://www.everbankwholesale.com/Fo...sclosures.asp#

They are very clear cut and if the buyer does not read them, how is that anyone's fault but their own.

Finally, even if the ARM rises after the first five years and even if the idiot buyer did not know it would, they have still saved gobs of money and will continue to do so for severalk years over a fixed rate loan because the raise in the rate on a typical ARM is capped per year.

Note - if someone loses their job, that is a horrible thing and I fell sorry for them. But, to blame their subsequent inability to pay the mortgage on the lender is ridiculous in that everyone can lose their job --- so no mortgages should be made Of course not -- the mtg companies go with the information they are given and the reasonable expectation of stability in employment. I mean the mtg. company wants to make money on the loan.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

just so you know, the items on the credit report werent unrelated, they were the exact items that were included, but for some unexplained reason each of them had up to $200 still showing and this was AFTER (a YEAR after mind you) the bankruptcy was discharged.

Any creditor who moans and groans about a lost 20% when they got paid 80% is an ASS.

Yes my friend got bad advice. He regrets this more than you know. He says that considering the way he's being treated in the credit world, he'd have been better off going the ch7 route (he says he qualified). They say no good deed goes unpunished, and I agree.

It was not just 20% - they lost likely thousands in interest. And, I think everyone who owes you money in the future should pay you at 80% and with no interest they contracted to pay and on which you base your income. Better yet, your employer should pay you 80% of your contracted wage. Let's see how you like that

Having said that, I am sorry your friend went through this. And, I suggest contacting the credit reporting agencies and disputing the items -- then provide them with a copy of the dischage. That should remedy it.

Also, if he gets a credit card (even one requiring a deposit) and charges a little on it every month and pays it off each month -- maybe leave a balanace every other month, his credit will begin rebuilding itself. I know people two or so years out of a seven or 13 who get mortgages at market rates, especially if they have a good income. The trick is to shop around.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It was not just 20% - they lost likely thousands in interest. And, I think everyone who owes you money in the future should pay you at 80% and with no interest they contracted to pay and on which you base your income. Better yet, your employer should pay you 80% of your contracted wage. Let's see how you like that

Having said that, I am sorry your friend went through this. And, I suggest contacting the credit reporting agencies and disputing the items -- then provide them with a copy of the dischage. That should remedy it.

Also, if he gets a credit card (even one requiring a deposit) and charges a little on it every month and pays it off each month -- maybe leave a balanace every other month, his credit will begin rebuilding itself. I know people two or so years out of a seven or 13 who get mortgages at market rates, especially if they have a good income. The trick is to shop around.

80% is 4X 20% so I dont feel sorry for any creditor. And if someone owed me money and the best I could get was 80%, you betcha, I'd go for it.

As for the other, he is in the process of doing just that. He knows he can dispute this stuff and that is what he plans to do.

As for personal responsibility, you show me a typical housebuyer who takes the time to read the fine print or even if they do, who UNDERSTANDS it!
get real Jason!

As Paula's article points out, falling house values coupled with penalties prevent many people from even being able to find a way out. Lets face it, these documents are NOT written in a consumer's best interests, but rather to benefit the BANKS and by extension, the Mortgage Brokers. Who cares is thousands of people get fleeced eh Jason?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . As for personal responsibility, you show me a typical housebuyer who takes the time to read the fine print or even if they do, who UNDERSTANDS it!
get real Jason! . . . .

Good Lord woman - do you ever read anything? Read the ARM disclosure pages in that cite above. It is not not fine print -- it is a sep. fukning page specifically setting out in detail and in regular size print the results of an ARM. What do want, the lender to tatoo it on the closing agent's ass and have them moon the buyer prior to signing

Also, may companies such as ditech do not use pre payment penalties and they are illegal in many states. Are they fair - well, that depends on who asks the question. Most are one to two years. If you were the finance company and you structured your income model on each loan lasting 5 or more years, then yes they are. if you are the consumer, you hate them, but still want the loan at a cheaper rate, which is caused by the income plan. Interestingly, almost all contracts you sign have these a la cell phones plans. But, they are going away and loans will cost more as a result.

Better yet, let's let everyone who cannot pay for their house just keep it until they get a job allowing them to pay for it at their leisure -- or, the fed.'s could pay the P&I while the consumer is unemployed - more welfare, why not and this time not based on financial need - just that you lost your job

Again and finally, if you are stupid enough to buy a house you cannot afford at the time of purchase, you have no one to thank but yourself.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Good Lord woman - do you ever read anything? Read the ARM disclosure pages in that cite above. It is not not fine print -- it is a sep. fukning page specifically setting out in detail and in regular size print the results of an ARM. What do want, the lender to tatoo it on the closing agent's ass and have them moon the buyer prior to signing

Also, may companies such as ditech do not use pre payment penalties and they are illegal in many states. Are they fair - well, that depends on who asks the question. Most are one to two years. If you were the finance company and you structured your income model on each loan lasting 5 or more years, then yes they are. if you are the consumer, you hate them, but still want the loan at a cheaper rate, which is caused by the income plan. Interestingly, almost all contracts you sign have these a la cell phones plans. But, they are going away and loans will cost more as a result.

Better yet, let's let everyone who cannot pay for their house just keep it until they get a job allowing them to pay for it at their leisure -- or, the fed.'s could pay the P&I while the consumer is unemployed - more welfare, why not and this time not based on financial need - just that you lost your job
Where did this come from???
Again and finally, if you are stupid enough to buy a house you cannot afford at the time of purchase, you have no one to thank but yourself.

I think ARM's are evil. The way housing prices have climbed, the mortgage behemoth sensed a killing and boy did they. I have yet to meet anyone who actually puts the money they save from an ARM onto the principal of the house. as I said, most people pay bills, take a vacation, buy a car, get braces for the kids etc. And if your job is in a certain place you are behooved to buy a HOME there too. so you are stuck with the housing prices in your job area What a crappy attitude you have Jason, very um, well....."elitist" comes to mind.....

I would NEVER go for an ARM. NEVER. I told my broker I could afford X amount to pay for a mortgage and no more. He worked with me and I found something I could afford. I know what I have to pay for the next 25 years. I got lucky tho, I found the last decent affordable house in my area. its the commute to work that kills me. I pay two-thirds as much for gas as I do for my house. Thats just crazy.

[Stew_Matthews]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Macfan4ever, your article underscores what I said earlier about Big Oil being the real culprits here. Its just disgusting, and it should be stopped.

I was trying not to get drawn into a discussion about the oil companies, in part because I work for one of them, but the proposition that gas prices are increasing so that oil companies can make more money is at best, simplistic, but in truth, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how the industry works or the factors that influence the pricing. For better or worse here are some things to consider….

First up, you will be aware from your newspaper and TV that commentators always talk about oil in terms of what is costs per barrel. The price of crude oil this morning in the US is $64 per barrel. A barrel contains 159 litres (or 42 gallons). How much profit do the oil companies make on that? The answer is around 5%. It varies depending on where the crude oil is coming from. If it’s the Middle East the margins are higher than say Russia or Nigeria.

I posted earlier about what the production costs are so the next question is where does the bulk of that $64 a barrel go? In fact it goes to the Government of the country that owns the oil. Oil companies pay a levy to extract oil. I work for the Chinese company Sinopec and we extract oil in Siberia and pay over half the barrel income to Russia. The rest of the barrel price after profit/costs goes in tax and the agents fees in handling the sale of the oil.

So if what I say is true, why is it that oil company profits are rising? Two reasons. One is that more oil is being sold, so although profit margins are reducing, the volume of sales gives the impression of increasing profits. The second factor relates to the way in which commodities are traded. Although the oil price is $64, to buy it you make a bid. The oil companies then weigh up the offer and consider the volume, the frequency of order and where they are shipping it and work out the most favourable bid to them. Sometimes they sell well below the barrel price because of the size of order. However around two years ago the United States made a decision to significantly increase it’s oil reserves and has encouraged US refineries (who turn the crude oil into gas etc) to outbid other countries in the market place. This surge in demand as any economist knows will drive up price, particularly when only 77 million barrels of oil can be on the world market each day. No oil company is going to turn down an extra $20 a barrel if someone is stupid enough to offer it.

A couple of other things to consider. China used to sell alot of cheap oil but now it needs to buy to sustain its economy. So there is less cheap oil coming onto the market but more demand. This allows countries (not just oil companies) to make a few more dollars. Also the quality of crude oil outside of the middle east is more expensive to turn into gas and increasingly refineries are having to buy this because they can’t obtain enough ‘light’ crude for the reasons above.

But finally, the most immoral act happens at the end of this sorry chain of money making. Governments add tax to the gas price. In the US 30 – 50% and in the UK about 80%. That’s the real scandal not the oil firms.

...but hey I'm an engineer not an economist

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I think ARM's are evil. The way housing prices have climbed, the mortgage behemoth sensed a killing and boy did they. I have yet to meet anyone who actually puts the money they save from an ARM onto the principal of the house. as I said, most people pay bills, take a vacation, buy a car, get braces for the kids etc. And if your job is in a certain place you are behooved to buy a HOME there too. so you are stuck with the housing prices in your job area What a crappy attitude you have Jason, very um, well....."elitist" comes to mind.....

I would NEVER go for an ARM. NEVER. I told my broker I could afford X amount to pay for a mortgage and no more. He worked with me and I found something I could afford. I know what I have to pay for the next 25 years. I got lucky tho, I found the last decent affordable house in my area. its the commute to work that kills me. I pay two-thirds as much for gas as I do for my house. Thats just crazy.

Your disdain of ARM's shows you know nothing of finance and the ability to make money in the housing market. Again, it for the most part would take seven to ten years for an ARM to reach the usually much higher rate of a fixed rate mortgage, if it ever gets there because some ARM's are capped at like 2%. But, whatever.

As for the elitist - how is holding someone liable to what they signed that. I am sick and fukcing tired of the lack of personal responsibility in America. You, obviously are not and think that people should have no liability for making poor choices or a choice that is made poor by a subsequent event, such as losing your job, not getting a raise, etc.

I mean if I get drunk as a skunk and go to a strip club and spend thousands of dollars, who do I have to blame in the morning - the hottie who took the cash with a glint in their eye - or me for being stupid enough to do that. The answer is me.

Yet, you seem to be saying that people bought houses that they qualified for (using conventional and other mortgages mind mind you - not the ARM's you ignorantly demonize) and then they lost their jobs and can't pay the mortgage (any kind) anymore. That sucks and I hate that for these poor people, but how is that in any way the mtg company's fault

Moreover and for the last time, if they lose their job and have an ARM as opposed to a fixed rate mtg. , they likely can make the lower payment an ARM provides if they can make any payment at all. So, why are you demonizing ARM's? To me, that makes you sound ignorant on this issue.

Anyway - last word is your's

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Your disdain of ARM's shows you know nothing of finance and the ability to make money in the housing market. Again, it for the most part would take seven to ten years for an ARM to reach the usually much higher rate of a fixed rate mortgage, if it ever gets there because some ARM's are capped at like 2%. But, whatever.

As for the elitist - how is holding someone liable to what they signed that. I am sick and fukcing tired of the lack of personal responsibility in America. You, obviously are not and think that people should have no liability for making poor choices or a choice that is made poor by a subsequent event, such as losing your job, not getting a raise, etc.

I mean if I get drunk as a skunk and go to a strip club and spend thousands of dollars, who do I have to blame in the morning - the hottie who took the cash with a glint in their eye - or me for being stupid enough to do that. The answer is me.

Yet, you seem to be saying that people bought houses that they qualified for (using conventional and other mortgages mind mind you - not the ARM's you ignorantly demonize) and then they lost their jobs and can't pay the mortgage (any kind) anymore. That sucks and I hate that for these poor people, but how is that in any way the mtg company's fault

Moreover and for the last time, if they lose their job and have an ARM as opposed to a fixed rate mtg. , they likely can make the lower payment an ARM provides if they can make any payment at all. So, why are you demonizing ARM's? To me, that makes you sound ignorant on this issue.

Anyway - last word is your's

There is such a thing as USUARY and blatant taking advantage of a person's need (and buying a house is a NEED, not a want!!) I loathe the greed behind it all. It wasnt that long ago that integrity was prized. now, its the almighty bottom line and how much PROFIT can we make from Joe Schmoe. It isnt a matter of personal responsibility but the Snake Oil sellers making a killing on the public at large, thinking that they'll worry about the bubble bursting later...thats just sick. Nobody sees the end of a job coming....or a bad accident that might put someone in the hospital and wipe out a family's savings We're not all wheeler-dealers ya know...

I am not a real estate dabbler. Im doing good to own my own home in this uncertain day and age. Your defense of gambling on something so necessary as a family home is baffling to me

also, you are twisting my words. I never said that people bought homes on fixed rates, that hardly happens any more. I was one of the lucky ones, but most people I know either have, or knows someone who has utilized the ARM. Many of them live to regret it.