[SK in CV]

To elaborate on what urbanrealtor said…

[quote=urbanrealtor]If all liens and fees total more than the sale price, then it could be a short.

Sometimes sale price is below FMV (especially for shorts).

If the seller is behind on payments but has equity, then it is a distress sale, not a short sale.

By definition, no lender approval would be required.[/quote]

If any obligation due at sale (including, but not limited to all secured debt, 1st TD, junior TD’s, HELOCs, add on fees and interest related to that debt, delinquent taxes, commissions and fees) has to be compromised in order for the transaction to close, it’s a short sale. If someone doesn’t get all their money due, it’s a short sale.

[SK in CV]

To elaborate on what urbanrealtor said…

[quote=urbanrealtor]If all liens and fees total more than the sale price, then it could be a short.

Sometimes sale price is below FMV (especially for shorts).

If the seller is behind on payments but has equity, then it is a distress sale, not a short sale.

By definition, no lender approval would be required.[/quote]

If any obligation due at sale (including, but not limited to all secured debt, 1st TD, junior TD’s, HELOCs, add on fees and interest related to that debt, delinquent taxes, commissions and fees) has to be compromised in order for the transaction to close, it’s a short sale. If someone doesn’t get all their money due, it’s a short sale.

[SK in CV]

To elaborate on what urbanrealtor said…

[quote=urbanrealtor]If all liens and fees total more than the sale price, then it could be a short.

Sometimes sale price is below FMV (especially for shorts).

If the seller is behind on payments but has equity, then it is a distress sale, not a short sale.

By definition, no lender approval would be required.[/quote]

If any obligation due at sale (including, but not limited to all secured debt, 1st TD, junior TD’s, HELOCs, add on fees and interest related to that debt, delinquent taxes, commissions and fees) has to be compromised in order for the transaction to close, it’s a short sale. If someone doesn’t get all their money due, it’s a short sale.

[SK in CV]

To elaborate on what urbanrealtor said…

[quote=urbanrealtor]If all liens and fees total more than the sale price, then it could be a short.

Sometimes sale price is below FMV (especially for shorts).

If the seller is behind on payments but has equity, then it is a distress sale, not a short sale.

By definition, no lender approval would be required.[/quote]

If any obligation due at sale (including, but not limited to all secured debt, 1st TD, junior TD’s, HELOCs, add on fees and interest related to that debt, delinquent taxes, commissions and fees) has to be compromised in order for the transaction to close, it’s a short sale. If someone doesn’t get all their money due, it’s a short sale.

[SK in CV]

Was it purchased at a foreclosure auction? If not, and it was either a short sale prior to foreclosure or REO purchased from the lender, the value is cut and dried. The purchase price (inclusive of any debts assumed) is the value. No assessed value adjustment for a good deal. State law.

If it was an actual purchase at the foreclosure auction, it might get a bit more complicated. (Which is my way of saying I have no clue what the law is. I could speculate but hopefully someone that knows can actually chime in.)

[SK in CV]

Was it purchased at a foreclosure auction? If not, and it was either a short sale prior to foreclosure or REO purchased from the lender, the value is cut and dried. The purchase price (inclusive of any debts assumed) is the value. No assessed value adjustment for a good deal. State law.

If it was an actual purchase at the foreclosure auction, it might get a bit more complicated. (Which is my way of saying I have no clue what the law is. I could speculate but hopefully someone that knows can actually chime in.)

[SK in CV]

Was it purchased at a foreclosure auction? If not, and it was either a short sale prior to foreclosure or REO purchased from the lender, the value is cut and dried. The purchase price (inclusive of any debts assumed) is the value. No assessed value adjustment for a good deal. State law.

If it was an actual purchase at the foreclosure auction, it might get a bit more complicated. (Which is my way of saying I have no clue what the law is. I could speculate but hopefully someone that knows can actually chime in.)

[SK in CV]

Was it purchased at a foreclosure auction? If not, and it was either a short sale prior to foreclosure or REO purchased from the lender, the value is cut and dried. The purchase price (inclusive of any debts assumed) is the value. No assessed value adjustment for a good deal. State law.

If it was an actual purchase at the foreclosure auction, it might get a bit more complicated. (Which is my way of saying I have no clue what the law is. I could speculate but hopefully someone that knows can actually chime in.)

[SK in CV]

Was it purchased at a foreclosure auction? If not, and it was either a short sale prior to foreclosure or REO purchased from the lender, the value is cut and dried. The purchase price (inclusive of any debts assumed) is the value. No assessed value adjustment for a good deal. State law.

If it was an actual purchase at the foreclosure auction, it might get a bit more complicated. (Which is my way of saying I have no clue what the law is. I could speculate but hopefully someone that knows can actually chime in.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D

LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D

LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D

LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D

LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html%5B/quote%5D

LOL! That’s really all you’re left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[Author]

Posts