[ctr70]

How about we band together and everyone in the U.S. with a mortgage stop making our mortgage payments so we can all get a principle reduction and a 3% 30 yr fixed?

[ctr70]

No the servicers are doing it more from Government pressure from all the state attorney generals regarding the robo-signing issue, etc.. than they are from a business decision IMO. I’m OK with banks doing this if it is their own business decision. I’m NOT OK with the Government intervening in any way and forcing principle reductions and loan mods.

IMO the whole robosigning thing has been overdone and has just given the Gov a reason to force & pressure the banks to a settlement (more principle reductions and loan mods)…yes the banks should get penalized for handling paperwork improperly, but NOBODY was getting foreclosed on that was making their payments!!! I just don’t think the banks penalty should be reducing principles of deadbeats not making their mortgage payments, people who made dumb financial decisions to buy properties they couldn’t afford, and people who did cash out refis at the peak to buy the hummer and the boat.

[ctr70]

Yes it’s a rental.

[ctr70]

Temeculaguy is right on. Aztecs hoop is THE BEST entertainment in town hands down. The games are exciting and the atmosphere is absolutely electric! The team is a huge surprise this year now being #13, it was supposed to be a re-building year. It is THE BEST venue to watch college hoops on the west coast right now period…surpassing UCLA, USC, CAL, Stanford, and Washington.

Next year they have the whole backcourt back and they are bringing 4 new high profile transfers and recruits. They will be off the hook next year.

I would not say east coast hoops is sedate by any stretch of the imagination. Have you ever seen the student section at a Duke home game???? The sun still rises and sets east of the Rockies for college hoops…but I love the Aztecs.

[ctr70]

I will have to look into that. So if you put money into a “non-deductible” IRA you can immediately convert it to a Roth? So you have to convert every year you make a contribution? What is the cost to convert it? I have a SEP IRA too as I run a small business.

I still think it is so bogus that they don’t take the income cap off the Roth. What a joke. $122k is peanuts in Cali.

[ctr70]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=ctr70]But I would really love to see a REAL business person get the presidency […][/quote]

The track record of businessmen as presidents is not that great. Truman was an unsuccessful businessman before entering politics. The most recent – and perhaps only – example of a successful businessman as president would probably be Harding in the early 1920s. History doesn’t give him high marks.[/quote]

Those examples are a long time ago, and as you say Truman was an unsuccessful businessman. We have not had a real businessperson in there in a long time.

[ctr70]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=ctr70]But I would really love to see a REAL business person get the presidency (George W. was not a REAL self-made business person and Arnold was an actor, not a real biz person). Just like I was hoping a businesswomen (Meg Whitman) would have won the CA governorship vs. the career bureaucrat that won. No more lawyers and career bureaucrats that have never had real jobs outside of politics. I like to see someone that has had the responsibility of employing people in the private sector, running a company, innovating, running a balance sheet, etc… I have always wanted to see Micheal Bloomberg run.[/quote]
On paper this kind of thinking sounds good, but in practice Good Government is nothing like Good Business. Businesses exist to make money, governments exist to provide public services. As a business owner if you’re doing something that isn’t profitable, you can stop doing it. Government has an obligation to continue taking care of the disabled and the elderly and defending our borders, even though it can’t make money doing it.

Having worked in both private and public sector jobs, I’m surprised by the “government is wasteful compared to private enterprise” argument. Sure, inefficient businesses eventually fail. But on the whole, given the scope of what it does, the government does a lot of things very, very well. The last company I worked for was incredibly wasteful in how much we paid our mediocre CEO. Upper management made mistakes left and right thanks to not listening to the concerns of workers how their new initiatives actually reduced productivity. Middle managers often fudged numbers on their failed pet projects to save their skins. Show me a private company that doesn’t have plenty of waste and fat to trim, and I bet there are no more than 2-3 employees working there.

I will agree that because both sides of the political aisle are in bed with huge corporations, government does very little to really incentivize small businesses. Both sides pander around election time, but policy rarely cuts in favor of the little guy.[/quote]

You gotta be kidding me. Governments and Unions are terribly, terribly inefficient. One of the few competitive industries left in the U.S. is Silicon Valley b/c it is the purest form of capitalism left in this country and a “meritocracy” where brains and talent get you ahead. And there are no unions or seniority in Silicon Valley. Detroit is the opposite. They got their asses kicked in the 1980’s by Japan b/c of their bloated Unions, pensions and health care costs.

I worked in a Union Hotel in college and a non Union Hotel. People in the Union Hotel did not hustle, it was old, out of date and a crappy place overall. Workers only did what they had to do and nothing more. It is human nature when you have job security, seniority, safety, you stop hustling and innovating. Now most of Europe (except Germany) is imploding b/c most of it is one giant Governmental/Union body.

And the private sector has a right to do what they want with their profits and pay people what they want b/c their revenue comes from PRODUCT SALES, not TAXES like the Government.

But I also do believe there needs to be some Government and some regulation. There is definitely a place for some Government. And I do agree that there needs to be protections against big disparities in wealth and the abuses of that wealth getting out of control. We don’t want to live in a county with a tiny # of super wealth and huge amount of poor.

Some excellent Big, Big Government success stories…China and Russia in the 1960’s, North Korea, Cuba…all wonderful places we all would dream of living. They all needed fences to keep people IN instead of OUT.

[ctr70]

[quote=poorgradstudent]In general, one data point is meaningless, two is worth investigating, and three makes a trend.

That said, I don’t really care, because Cain is a terrible Presidential candidate anyways. 9-9-9 is a huge tax increase and wealth redistribution plan, stealing from the poor and giving to corporations. Cain has no coherent policy on social issues; he had a rational moderate stance on abortion that he flipped on when he realized it wouldn’t fly with Republican primary voters.

By all means, if you want 4 more years of Obama (which I do, for the record), nominate Cain. He has the potential to get thrashed worse than Mondale did. He reminds me a lot of Sharon Angle, the woman largely responsible for Harry Reid holding his senate seat.[/quote]

I haven’t been following the elections heavily, but Cain doesn’t look too strong. I’m definitely not a tax the rich guy as a solution to all that ills the world. Being a small business owner myself that has hustled and been frugal my whole life to create a good life, I just hate to see a big chunk of my money get sucked into the inefficient Government waste machine. I’ve always liked the idea of the flat tax. I do not like to DIS-incentivise financial success but taxing the crap out of people that achieve financial success.

But I would really love to see a REAL business person get the presidency (George W. was not a REAL self-made business person and Arnold was an actor, not a real biz person). Just like I was hoping a businesswomen (Meg Whitman) would have won the CA governorship vs. the career bureaucrat that won. No more lawyers and career bureaucrats that have never had real jobs outside of politics. I like to see someone that has had the responsibility of employing people in the private sector, running a company, innovating, running a balance sheet, etc… I have always wanted to see Micheal Bloomberg run.

And I’m an independent, I’m not on the right or the left. And I am not an Obama hater, I actually think he is OK.

[ctr70]

The problem today is the media scrutiny & blowing up of every single mistake people running for office every had in their past. I think this is a big issue and possibly why we can’t get talented leaders. Imagine if we had this kind of media scrutiny putting a magnifying glass on candidates lives throughout history? We may have not ever had presidents like JFK, Abraham Lincoln, Adams, Washington, etc… b/c they had some skeletons in their past that popped up under the microscope and prevented them from ever winning office. People are human beings and make mistakes in their past. When you try to find someone who is absolutely perfect who has never done anything wrong in their past, you narrow the field down so much it may not leave any one talented left. Or you get someone with a perfect past, but is a total bonehead & sucks as a president. There are probably a ton of talented people that could really lead this country to greatness, but do not want to run and put their past under the microscope.

But of course there is no way to stop political opponents from exposing things from the past true or not true.

[ctr70]

[quote=SellingMyHome] So, we dumped it onto a bank that was the cause of the mess this country is in now. [/quote]

This quote is the prevailing mindset in the country right now, and is being heavily pushed by the media and some politicians. That; “it was not my fault, it was the damn bank that gave me a loan to buy a house”. “How dare that bank actually loan me money and expect me to pay it back!”. Yes we all know, some terrible loans were made that shouldn’t have been, and the banks have been rightfully blamed heavily for that. My issue is that it is AT LEAST 50/50 fault between the homeowners and lenders for the mess we are in. I could have bought at the peak with a $5,000/mo payment, but I didn’t b/c I knew I couldn’t afford it. I stayed living within my means and rented. Many financially prudent friends of mine did the same thing. No one forced anyone to buy a home. Many did it out of greed b/c they saw their neighbors house going up $100k a year and wanted a piece of that speculation. No one forced anyone to make stupid decisions like cashing out all their equity to buy the RV and the Hummer. But now it’s all the banks fault. I just personally feel the media and a lot of politicians are shifting the blame 100% off the homeowners, and it’s at a minimum a 50/50 blame.

[ctr70]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you, ctr70. The OP states he had a short sale in 2010 (abt 18 mos ago?) and currently has a FICO score in the “low 700’s.” He does not appear to meet any “extenuating circumstances” test.

Ball park (and excluding closing costs), what are the rates and terms he could currently expect for an 80% LTV fixed conventional mtg of $400K and a 97.5% LTV fixed FHA mtg of $482,500? Thanks for any help.[/quote]

He would have to wait for 3 yrs after a short sale to go FHA, but you say he is only at 18 mos. In 6 mos he could try conventional 20% down, as they only require 2 yrs after short sale.

[ctr70]

Bearishgirl, those guidelines are only if you want to get a short sale BEFORE the 3 yr waiting period after short sale for FHA, and BEFORE the 2 yr waiting after short sale for conventional 20% down.

It is pretty straightforward and easy to get a mortgage after a short sale, after a bankruptcy or foreclosure, IF you wait the time periods, you don’t even have to have a great reason or extenuating circumstance for it.

Also, VA only requires a 2 yr wait after a foreclosure and FHA only a 3 yr wait. And all three VA, FHA and conventional loans only 2 yr waits after Chap 7 BK’s. It’s pretty much a slam dunk you will get the loan after these time periods.

Believe me, people who dumped their properties to foreclosure in 2008 and having NO trouble getting back in the market with a 3.5% down FHA loan at 4% right now.

1. VA – 2r wait short sale, BK 7, foreclosure
2. FHA – 3 yrs wait short sale, foreclosure, 2 yr wait BK
3. Conventional – 2 yrs wait short sale (20% down), 2 yr wait BK 7, 7 year wait foreclosure

[ctr70]

I have no problem with Gov worker retirees getting pensions or life health care as long as *not a penny of it* is paid by tax payers, or not a penny of it is backed by tax payers (in the case of investment losses by the pension funds). Their benefits should be no different the private sector.

[ctr70]

Actually it is very easy to get a loan after a short sale or foreclosure and a lot of people are jumping back into the market at these low prices and low rates. It turns out the smarter people are the ones who got out of their upside down property EARLIER in the crash (vs. later), and now they are already back in the market approved to for a a loan to buy. I have a friend in the Bay Area who already bought again at a killer price with a 4% rate after walking away from his massively upside down property in late 2008.

Here are the wait times:

*short sale*
-2 yrs VA
-2 yrs conventional (with 20% down, 4 yrs with 10% down)
-3 yrs FHA

*foreclosure*
-2 yrs VA
-3 yrs FHA
-7 yrs conventional

[ctr70]

[quote=paramount]Let’s be clear about one thing, I don’t think anyone is saying gov’t workers shouldn’t get a fair salary and savings plan; it’s just that right now what they get is unfair to the rest of us who have to actually pay for their benefits.

For the most part, there is no reason gov’t workers shouldn’t receive benefits on par with those of us in the private sector.

They deserve:

A decent salary
A 401k Retirement account with 50% up to 6% match
A standard medical plan like the rest of us get: $20-$30 co-pays, 4k deductible, etc..

No Pensions
No lifetime medical benefits
Sign them up for social security[/quote]

Excellent post Paramount, totally agree. I’m totally in favor of Gov workers getting excellent pay, excellent benefits, 401k plans on par with the private sector, but NO tax payer supported pensions and NO healthcare for life. Just like in Greece, these have to go.

The Michael Lewis (author of “Liars Poker”) article/interview with Arnold and others a few weeks ago in Vanity Fair is required reading. It goes in depth about the bankruptcy of Vallejo CA and San Jose fiscal woes. And talks about how Arnold says he tried to get somewhere with pension reform but the state legislation wouldn’t have it (they probably get very nice pensions themselves). This is why I thought Meg Whitman was an interesting candidate (she doesn’t get or need a Gov pension so no conflicts of interest there, Gov Brown probably does get one). This article also had an example of a state prison psychiatrist that makes $850k a year on the Gov payroll.

I know a ex Fed Gov employee that gets a $8k/mo Gov pension for life. That is nuts! A working stiff in the private sector would have to accumulate say $2.5 million in capital in a safe investment (with principle not at stake) at say 4% to throw off that income per month! Or work their whole life to develop a free & clear rental property portfolio for a $8k annuity per month. Yet the tax payer is paying out thousands and thousands of these big ‘ol pensions!!

[Author]

Posts