Sub-Prime Fallout

xoxoxoBruce · 01-26-2008, 01:18 PM

In the wake of the Sub-Prime debacle, people are losing their homes. Don't forget when people lost their homes, so do the pets.

Pets are being turned in to the shelters, by people losing their homes, in record numbers. Remember our four footed friends.

lumberjim · 01-27-2008, 12:38 AM

decision darwinism.

you sign up for an ARM to buy a house that you KNOW you can't afford...and worst case scenario for you is the embarrassment of being forcleosed and maybe having to file a bankruptcy.

but that dog you abandon will probably be given an injection that stops it's heart. That's baggage for ya.

If you acquire a permanent dependent like a dog or a cat, you need to stick with your commitment. poor puppy.

01-28-2008, 01:56 AM

Contact the US Surgeon General and propose that Uncle Sam accept discarded animals to implement a Pet Therapy program for US service members in high stress environments. Recommend that the US Army Veterinary Corps be proponent for program administration (the US Army Medical Corps is already proponent for medicine in all branches of the US Armed Forces) and suggest that the veterinarians' offices on military posts with major deployed units be designated as reception and processing stations that citizens can send their animals to [at the citizens' expense].

Put yourselves in the animals paws for a moment. Would you rather be euthanized and incinerated (maybe turned into fertilizer); or, would you like the opportunity to make some GIs lives better and possibly go out in a blaze of glory!

XoxoxoBruce is designated to spearhead this grassroots movement. For God's sake, son, be careful.

aimeecc · 01-28-2008, 09:02 AM

A lot of military bases already have an abandoned pet problem. People deploying overseas leave the pets behind. One base I was at started a 'temporary placement' program so people would volunteer to take care of pets while the service members were deployed.

Although not a bad idea to make them 'service' animals to help the disabled.

ZenGum · 01-28-2008, 09:09 AM

I like Noboxes's idea, therapy animals are great.
The only catch I see is at the citizens' expense.
Someone who has just lost their home to bankruptcy is unlikely to be willing or able to pay for this project. Which is a pity because I think it is a good idea.
How about an extra 10% tax on all dividends paid out on war-related stock, such as Lockheed-Martin, etc? Just an idea...

classicman · 01-28-2008, 09:40 AM

60 minutes ad an interesting piece on the forclosure issue last night. Very interesting to learn that many of those homes, no % given, were because people CHOSE to default. They explained by saying that the value of their home had decreased so much that it made no sense to make such a large payment on a home the would never sell for as much as they paid for in the first place. They were "advised" to default on the loan. I was amazed at that.

Yes there are many who cannot afford to make the higher payments and they are losing their homes because of it, but it isn't every one.

Flint · 01-28-2008, 09:46 AM

This really puts a human face on it.

classicman · 01-28-2008, 09:55 AM

Funny you say that Flint - that was part of the show too - The guy felt that since the mortgage industry had become so impersonal, many didn't feel bad about defaulting on their loans. "It was with this big nameless, faceless conglomerate anyway - ya know?" That was the assumptive attitude. The fact that the enntered into a contract and made an agreement to abide by it apparently had little or no meaning.

Radar · 01-28-2008, 10:08 AM

Look, we can handle the homeless pet problem and the hungry homeless problem at the same time. I'm just saying rather than poison these pets, feed 'em to the homeless.

Personally speaking I don't care if these houses lose 50% of their value. It means those of us who were responsible and didn't buy a house we couldn't afford, will now be able to do so. I resent the government getting involved and trying to force banks to save these homes. It's meddling with the free market, and it's wrong.

That is how we got the housing bubble in the first place. Allow normal market corrections, and things will work out ok.

aimeecc · 01-28-2008, 10:11 AM

A friend of mine defaulted. The bank messed up. He knew he was behind on payments, but had moved, house was on the market but not selling... He talked to billing over and over and they set up an arrangement for reduced payments, blah blah blah. Then he got a notice from a different department that the house was now in short sell status. Sold right from under him. I guess the default department doesn't talk to the billing department or something. He was angry, but didn't have the time or energy to fight it.

I'm buying a home and staying far away from any adjustable rates... And praying the market doesn't continue to decline. I'd hate to buy it and find out 6 months later its going for $50k less.

classicman · 01-28-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimeecc

A friend of mine defaulted. ...~snip~...The bank messed up. He was angry, but didn't have the time or energy to fight it.

Must be nice to be in that position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I'm buying a home and staying far away from any adjustable rates... And praying the market doesn't continue to decline. I'd hate to buy it and find out 6 months later its going for $50k less.

There are many in that exact situation right now. Part of this issue is just that. People cannot sell a house to cover what they still owe on it.

aimeecc · 01-28-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Must be nice to be in that position.

If it were me, I'd fight it. He and his wife now have ruined credit and live in a small apartment. You bet I'd fight it. But his personality is more of the happy go lucky, 'let it be' kind.

I'm somewhat worried the agent who met us at a home we want to make an offer on doesn't really have our best interests in mind. I'm not sure about any obligation to her. No papers were signed.

lookout123 · 01-28-2008, 02:25 PM

she can fight it if she bothers to keep in touch and finds that you've bought a house she found for you while using another agent... but it is an uphill battle for her.

if you haven't signed anything with her and you don't trust her to really cover all the important details of the transaction, find someone new immediately.

lumberjim · 01-28-2008, 02:29 PM

to be clear, all agents work for the seller. the seller pays them.

aimeecc · 01-28-2008, 02:54 PM

There's actually 2 homes, a few doors down from each other. One my husband found online, called an agent, and asked to see it. I didn't see it. This other agent was referred by my bank, I talked to her, told her we like a certain neighborhood. She called Sunday morning saying there had been a new listing, asked if we wanted to see it. Turns out just a few homes down from the one my hubby saw. So I said yes, and asked if we could see the one I hadn't seen yet.
Homes are the exact same floor plan, but the one my husband saw w/ another agent has a remodeled kitchen (I don't really like the remodeled kitchen) and more updates (newer HVAC, water heater, windows, doors, to name a few) and a fully finished basement. Same listing agent on both homes. Price is only $2k difference. But the one without updates is a better lot. We would be happy with either, its just a matter of which one we can get a better deal on. We can probably negotiate more on the one without all the updates. Anyway, I need someone that can negotiate and that has our interests in mind. The agent has already been pushing me towards the one with all the updates, even though I said several times that I liked the other one. Not sure if its her agenda, or if she personally thinks its a better deal.
Anyway, just vetting... I want to make sure my husband and I do whats right and get the best deal.

01-26-2008, 01:18 PM	#1
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Sub-Prime Fallout In the wake of the Sub-Prime debacle, people are losing their homes. Don't forget when people lost their homes, so do the pets. Pets are being turned in to the shelters, by people losing their homes, in record numbers. Remember our four footed friends. Attached Images __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

01-27-2008, 12:38 AM	#2
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	decision darwinism. you sign up for an ARM to buy a house that you KNOW you can't afford...and worst case scenario for you is the embarrassment of being forcleosed and maybe having to file a bankruptcy. but that dog you abandon will probably be given an injection that stops it's heart. That's baggage for ya. If you acquire a permanent dependent like a dog or a cat, you need to stick with your commitment. poor puppy. __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

01-28-2008, 09:09 AM	#5
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	I like Noboxes's idea, therapy animals are great. The only catch I see is at the citizens' expense. Someone who has just lost their home to bankruptcy is unlikely to be willing or able to pay for this project. Which is a pity because I think it is a good idea. How about an extra 10% tax on all dividends paid out on war-related stock, such as Lockheed-Martin, etc? Just an idea... __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

01-28-2008, 09:40 AM	#6
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	60 minutes ad an interesting piece on the forclosure issue last night. Very interesting to learn that many of those homes, no % given, were because people CHOSE to default. They explained by saying that the value of their home had decreased so much that it made no sense to make such a large payment on a home the would never sell for as much as they paid for in the first place. They were "advised" to default on the loan. I was amazed at that. Yes there are many who cannot afford to make the higher payments and they are losing their homes because of it, but it isn't every one. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

01-28-2008, 09:46 AM	#7
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	This really puts a human face on it. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

01-28-2008, 01:56 AM	#3
NoBoxes Guest Posts: n/a	Contact the US Surgeon General and propose that Uncle Sam accept discarded animals to implement a Pet Therapy program for US service members in high stress environments. Recommend that the US Army Veterinary Corps be proponent for program administration (the US Army Medical Corps is already proponent for medicine in all branches of the US Armed Forces) and suggest that the veterinarians' offices on military posts with major deployed units be designated as reception and processing stations that citizens can send their animals to [at the citizens' expense]. Put yourselves in the animals paws for a moment. Would you rather be euthanized and incinerated (maybe turned into fertilizer); or, would you like the opportunity to make some GIs lives better and possibly go out in a blaze of glory! XoxoxoBruce is designated to spearhead this grassroots movement. For God's sake, son, be careful.

01-28-2008, 09:02 AM	#4
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	A lot of military bases already have an abandoned pet problem. People deploying overseas leave the pets behind. One base I was at started a 'temporary placement' program so people would volunteer to take care of pets while the service members were deployed. Although not a bad idea to make them 'service' animals to help the disabled.

01-28-2008, 09:55 AM	#8
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Funny you say that Flint - that was part of the show too - The guy felt that since the mortgage industry had become so impersonal, many didn't feel bad about defaulting on their loans. "It was with this big nameless, faceless conglomerate anyway - ya know?" That was the assumptive attitude. The fact that the enntered into a contract and made an agreement to abide by it apparently had little or no meaning. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

01-28-2008, 10:08 AM	#9
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Look, we can handle the homeless pet problem and the hungry homeless problem at the same time. I'm just saying rather than poison these pets, feed 'em to the homeless. Personally speaking I don't care if these houses lose 50% of their value. It means those of us who were responsible and didn't buy a house we couldn't afford, will now be able to do so. I resent the government getting involved and trying to force banks to save these homes. It's meddling with the free market, and it's wrong. That is how we got the housing bubble in the first place. Allow normal market corrections, and things will work out ok. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

01-28-2008, 10:11 AM	#10
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	A friend of mine defaulted. The bank messed up. He knew he was behind on payments, but had moved, house was on the market but not selling... He talked to billing over and over and they set up an arrangement for reduced payments, blah blah blah. Then he got a notice from a different department that the house was now in short sell status. Sold right from under him. I guess the default department doesn't talk to the billing department or something. He was angry, but didn't have the time or energy to fight it. I'm buying a home and staying far away from any adjustable rates... And praying the market doesn't continue to decline. I'd hate to buy it and find out 6 months later its going for $50k less.

01-28-2008, 02:25 PM	#13
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	she can fight it if she bothers to keep in touch and finds that you've bought a house she found for you while using another agent... but it is an uphill battle for her. if you haven't signed anything with her and you don't trust her to really cover all the important details of the transaction, find someone new immediately. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-28-2008, 02:29 PM	#14
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	to be clear, all agents work for the seller. the seller pays them. __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

01-28-2008, 02:54 PM	#15
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	There's actually 2 homes, a few doors down from each other. One my husband found online, called an agent, and asked to see it. I didn't see it. This other agent was referred by my bank, I talked to her, told her we like a certain neighborhood. She called Sunday morning saying there had been a new listing, asked if we wanted to see it. Turns out just a few homes down from the one my hubby saw. So I said yes, and asked if we could see the one I hadn't seen yet. Homes are the exact same floor plan, but the one my husband saw w/ another agent has a remodeled kitchen (I don't really like the remodeled kitchen) and more updates (newer HVAC, water heater, windows, doors, to name a few) and a fully finished basement. Same listing agent on both homes. Price is only $2k difference. But the one without updates is a better lot. We would be happy with either, its just a matter of which one we can get a better deal on. We can probably negotiate more on the one without all the updates. Anyway, I need someone that can negotiate and that has our interests in mind. The agent has already been pushing me towards the one with all the updates, even though I said several times that I liked the other one. Not sure if its her agenda, or if she personally thinks its a better deal. Anyway, just vetting... I want to make sure my husband and I do whats right and get the best deal.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)