- This topic has 155 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM #14954February 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM #339762
thebazman
ParticipantI have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.
However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.
But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?
February 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM #340088ParticipantI have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.
However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.
But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?
February 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM #340184ParticipantI have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.
However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.
But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?
February 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM #340211ParticipantI have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.
However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.
But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?
February 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM #340305ParticipantI have a friend who is “upside down” on his mortgage by about $150K, and still paying 6.5% rate on 10-year interest-only loan! He would like to be able to refinance to the lower rate…it would help with payments, that’s for sure.
However, and I think most people who bought when prices were high would agree, a reduction in principal would help them more.
But how far do we carry this idea? Should someone who bought stocks at a high price on the market be reimbursed when the stock market crashes?
February 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM #339767AK
ParticipantIt would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.
I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.
I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM #340093ParticipantIt would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.
I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.
I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM #340189ParticipantIt would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.
I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.
I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM #340216ParticipantIt would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.
I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.
I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM #340310ParticipantIt would be very nice indeed, at least for those who aren’t underwater and have a reasonable chance of refinancing.
I wouldn’t mind buying at 4% myself.
I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.
February 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM #339772SD Realtor
Participant“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”
The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?
The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.
It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.
February 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM #340098Participant“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”
The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?
The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.
It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.
February 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM #340194Participant“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”
The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?
The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.
It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.
February 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM #340221Participant“I’m just not sure where they’ll find investors willing to lend long at 4% secured by U.S. residential property. Unless, of course, those investors are us taxpayers … and I’m not sure they can squeeze that kind of money out of us.”
The problem is your presuming we actually have a say in what our tax dollars, our childrens tax dollars, and our grandchildrens tax dollars are spent on. Clearly they are not. In fact the first failed bailout was a joke and this recent bailout is not much more then a spending spree by our government. Explain to me how over 300 million in std prevention is a bailout?
The bottom line is this will all be backstopped by the government.
It doesn’t matter if our leaders are democrats or republicans.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.