# Bush to Propose Subprime Mortgage Reforms



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Plainsmen or others. I don't understand the above article found at www.foxnews.com

Does that mean Bush is using our tax money to help out those who bought homes that they shouldn't have bought in the first place?

I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything. I just don't understand the article or what is happening.

It seems people tried to go to bigger and better homes when interests rates were low and basically were living outside of their means and now Bush is going to come in and help them out. Amy I reading this correctly?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Unfortunately I think your reading that right. I suppose he has to do something, yet it sure is a liberal type move. Have you seen the loan default rate in California. What would you expect. These liberal Californians go buy homes they can not afford, then when the going gets tough the wimps default. I think it's approaching 50%. Now the rest of the fiscally responsible citizens have to haul their worthless behind out of trouble. I say make them pay for their stupidity the rest of their life if need be. Every state that has a high default rate is a liberal state. I don't think anyone in North Dakota conservative or liberal can understand these people. 
I would say help the bank, forget the jerks who made the loan and get it out of them in the future. Some way society needs to re-instill within people personal responsibility.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Thank you Plainsmen for the post. I couldn't agree with you more. Quite frankly this -isses me off. Why should tax payer money be used for people who thought they needed a newer home when many could have stayed where they were.

I would like to know what kinds of vehicles these people own and if they have any toys too (boats, ATV's, campers, etc..).

They should be forced to sell everything that is not "luxury" and start over with bad credit.

One thing I just hate about our country is the fact that we notoriously reward bad behavior. (Example: teen pregnant girl gets free ride to college while the boy who kept his zipper up has $40,000 in student loans when both graduate).


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Maybe it has something to with with our economy being credit driven (has been since the clinton years). If they make credit harder to get people wont spend as much. After that businesses wont be taking in as much thus stock prices fall, affecting everybodies retirment plans. Without 401(k)s and other investment income to rely on, social security will be more important. This would force the feds to repay the loans they have taken against SS to save it and stop us from being a third world nation when the babyboomers are all retired and it is all we can do to pay thier SS checks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> Maybe it has something to with with our economy being credit driven (has been since the clinton years). If they make credit harder to get people wont spend as much. After that businesses wont be taking in as much thus stock prices fall, affecting everybodies retirment plans. Without 401(k)s and other investment income to rely on, social security will be more important. This would force the feds to repay the loans they have taken against SS to save it and stop us from being a third world nation when the babyboomers are all retired and it is all we can do to pay thier SS checks.


Yup, that's why I responded with:


> I suppose he has to do something


I sure do agree with live2hunt thought. The irritating thing is we have fiscally responsible people living in older houses while those who think they are better are buying houses they can't afford. Then what happens? The guy living in his old house paying his taxes has to support the a-hole who defaults on his loan. This behavior is more dangerous to the economy because he will do it again with no remorse.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Agreed


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/31/real_es ... tm?cnn=yes



> Current Mortgage Rates
> 
> Type Overall avgs
> 
> ...


Bush offers help to troubled homeowners


> By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
> August 31 2007: 1:23 PM EDT
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush outlined his plan Friday for helping troubled subprime borrowers keep their homes. The initiatives target hundred of thousands of distressed homeowners.
> ...


Looking at Bush's proposals, he finally seems to be doing something correct. He is not bailing out those who have overextended themselves, but rather offering them options to refinance their junk loans without having to pay penalties that would have made it prohibitive. Thus he allows people to stay in their homes, keep their credit in check, preserve the stability of the economy, and not have it cost the average U.S. taxpayer any liability.

This doesn't seem to be a bailout, but rather correcting the mess the federal government has allowed to crop up with mortgage lenders manipulating the system. As the cost of an average home for an average shmuck has gone up, their ability to get into a "normal" home has diminished. That is the very reason that ARM's came into existence in the first place. Choose any major metro city, and you'll see that housing markets have gone thru the roof for many average joe's. It's not all about foolish people over extending themselves. It's about trying to buy a basic house without selling your soul. Let's face it. If most of you tried moving to a large city and buying your very first home for the first time, what type of home could you get into at your present salary? King Co. (Seattle/Bellevue) Washington just announced an increase in first time average home buyer price for a home. It is now $490,000. That gets you a 30 year old 3bedroom, 1.5bath fixer upper in the sticks with a 30 minute commute. And that's if you can find it, because there are already 4 bids in on that place by the time your realtor calls you with the "find". I have a girlfriend that just sold her 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo. The buyer just paid $379,000. Chew on that....

Reviewing these details, it seems to be a bi-partisan supported fair compromise....

Or so it seems to me.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan

Thanks for finding an article with another view.

I had training with a government attorney in San Antonio, Texas a few years ago. She was from Washington DC, and both her and her husband were government attorney's. I was paid less than half of what she was, yet had just purchased a much nicer (much much nicer) home in Jamestown, at about 30% of what she paid.

I can see where it is tough alright. As reported from California however, many of these people already living there upgraded beyond their means. The default rate is ten times what North Dakota is, and I think it is the difference in attitude. In California they don't stop to think about anyone but themselves. At least the ones who buy and default without a second thought.

The subject is very interesting, and deserves more attention than I am willing to give it the day before early goose season. Eat your heart our Ryan. oke: I'm nuts for even being on here.

I have about ten fields located and permission to hunt. There are from ten to 300 geese in each field. I think the geese are going to be harassed off in short order because they are close to roads. I'm going to the field that the geese left three days ago. I think they will be back when the first volley is fired.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Another thing about this program bush is trying to impliment is the predatory lending that was taking place. Lenders where giving these ARM loans to more first time home buyers, lower income home buyers. Some of these people were taken advantage of by lenders. I have covered some of this in previous posts. I also have talked about others over extending themselves too.

This program is tended to help the little guy....but will end up getting abused by the people who just will do it again and again. IMO


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> The subject is very interesting, and deserves more attention than I am willing to give it the day before early goose season. Eat your heart our Ryan. oke: I'm nuts for even being on here.
> 
> I have about ten fields located and permission to hunt. There are from ten to 300 geese in each field. I think the geese are going to be harassed off in short order because they are close to roads. I'm going to the field that the geese left three days ago. I think they will be back when the first volley is fired.


*ENVIOUS*

ya know you got me there Plainsman. Good luck to you. Let me know how you do... I guess I'll have to live vicariously thru the stories on the board over the weekend...

:bowdown:

Ryan


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Ryan and others. Thanks so much for the above posts. I understand this much better now.

Got 100 geese that have been in the field for 3 weeks now. The landowner posted it and we are the only ones allowed in there. should be a good time.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am jealous of all the early season guys. I am going to miss first two weekends of the early season. I will be giving up the trailer full of dec's in about an hour. But I guess I have a fair trade off.....I will be in Manitoba shooting a bear.

Good luck to all this weekend and be safe.

Chuck


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bear hunting??? Sure thanks. Just when I was having fun rubbing it in you one up me.  Best of luck by the way.

As you can tell I'm packed for the morning so back on here. I am a little embarrassed that I didn't research the mortgage/Bush situation a little better. Life has priorities, and I looked at one commented on the gist of it and went back to what's more important to me - my son and grandson coming to hunt. Thanks Ryan for not letting my mistake hang out there to long, and mislead people. And live2hunt I'll try not let that happen again.


----------

