House Refi after divorce

[LdiJ]

Statistics are for all properties, not specific ones. I suspect your sample size is not large enough for you to be able to tell, or your loan processes were better than average.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/real-estate-illinois.html

Reading edit:
Properties under $25K? That is so below the median of even the poorest markets in IL (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Illinois/), I suspect it is simply not really an outlier as much as the "sample size" bias I mentioned earlier.

Tranq, we are seeing that all over Indiana too. The banks are selling them for whatever they can get for them. Our housing market in general is different than a lot of other areas.

Just to give an example...a real one. 2000 square ft all brick home in a decent, older working class neighborhood, in a decent school system purchased for 75.9k in 1990. As of 2008, house appraised at 119,9k, recently the owner had the house appraised to see if there was any chance of taking out some equity for a new roof, and the appraisal came it at just 40k.

Another example...same sort of neighborhood but the house was smaller at 1600 square ft with an inground swimming pool in the backyard. My brother purchased it for 22k.

 

[tranquility]

Tranq, we are seeing that all over Indiana too. The banks are selling them for whatever they can get for them. Our housing market in general is different than a lot of other areas.

Just to give an example...a real one. 2000 square ft all brick home in a decent, older working class neighborhood, in a decent school system purchased for 75.9k in 1990. As of 2008, house appraised at 119,9k, recently the owner had the house appraised to see if there was any chance of taking out some equity for a new roof, and the appraisal came it at just 40k.

Another example...same sort of neighborhood but the house was smaller at 1600 square ft with an inground swimming pool in the backyard. My brother purchased it for 22k.

I believe it and didn't doubt nextwife at all. It's just that properties that have gone so low are not the median and, at some point, you can sell them for the metal in the structure for more and they won't see much of a drop in the coming years. But, those houses certainly put a downward pressure on prices. Also, there is the shadow REO inventory out there. Houses that will be in the same situation, but are not being foreclosed on yet in order to try to keep up the value of the inventory they do have on the market. (Conspiracy theorists say they will be released after the election and were withheld to create the fiction things are not as bad as they are.)

 

[Bali Hai]

Federal Prosecutors Sue Bank of America Over Mortgage Program

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/federal-prosecutors-sue-bank-of-america-over-mortgage-program/

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what political party the CEO of Bank of America belongs?

And these people don't need to be regulated? They should be on trial for TREASON!

 

[tranquility]

Federal Prosecutors Sue Bank of America Over Mortgage Program

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/federal-prosecutors-sue-bank-of-america-over-mortgage-program/

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what political party the CEO of Bank of America belongs?

And these people don't need to be regulated? They should be on trial for TREASON!

Um...you realize that BofA is getting sued because they bought Countrywide, right?

While it is irrelevant as to the argument as to who should be president, guess who was in charge of Countrywide Financial when they were doing the behavior BofA is getting sued over?

Good 'ol Angelo Mozilo. Google "Friends of Angelo" to see the roster of supporters of this fellow in the senate and house who got below market loans and weep for the party you support. (Although both parties were involved, the big hitters were Democrats.)

Info edit:
Uh oh, genius. Looks like the Democrats are all over this one. Bad example for your point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/18/your_guide_to_sleazy_democratic_party-backed_banks_114829.html
In part:

Countrywide/Bank of America. Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report on corruption-plagued Countrywide Financial Corp., which was bailed out by taxpayer-bailed-out Bank of America. The House investigation confirmed the notorious favor-trading scheme, which involved sweetheart home loan deals for members of Congress and their staff, top government officials and executives of doomed mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

"These relationships helped (Countrywide CEO and Democratic subprime loan king Angelo) Mozilo increase his own company's profits while dumping the risk of bad loans on taxpayers," according to the new report. Mozilo copped a $67.5 million plea to avert a high-stakes public trial in the heat of the 2010 midterm election season. Since then, Obama's Justice Department has taken no action to prosecute Countrywide officials on federal bribery charges.

Among the influence-peddling operation's most prominent beneficiaries: the aforementioned Obama top adviser Jim Johnson, who accepted more than $7 million in below-market-rate Countrywide loans, and former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, whose ill-fated 2010 re-election bid was personally endorsed by Obama. Obama stood by Dodd even as sordid details of his two discounted Countrywide loans and record Countrywide PAC donations mounted.

Bank of America, which raked in $45 billion in Obama-supported TARP bailout funds and billions more in secret emergency federal loans, footed the $50 million restitution payment bill for Mozilo and another Countrywide official. In 2008, BofA's political action committee gave its biggest contributions to Obama, totaling $421,000. And as I noted in January, Bank of America supplied the Democrats with a $15 million revolving line of credit, along with an additional $17 million loan during the 2010 midterms.

Embarrassed by the party's ties to shady Bank of America, progressives are now trying to rebrand the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C., where Obama will give his nomination acceptance address. They're referring to it as "Panthers Stadium" instead.

Obama's copious crooked friends and funders are going to need a lot more whitewash than that to cover up their ill-gotten gains.

 

[Bali Hai]

Um...you realize that BofA is getting sued because they bought Countrywide, right?

While it is irrelevant as to the argument as to who should be president, guess who was in charge of Countrywide Financial when they were doing the behavior BofA is getting sued over?

Good 'ol Angelo Mozilo. Google "Friends of Angelo" to see the roster of supporters of this fellow in the senate and house who got below market loans and weep for the party you support. (Although both parties were involved, the big hitters were Democrats.)

Info edit:
Uh oh, genius. Looks like the Democrats are all over this one. Bad example for your point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/18/your_guide_to_sleazy_democratic_party-backed_banks_114829.html
In part:

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh. Never have, never will.

 

[tranquility]

I don't believe Rush Limbaugh. Never have, never will.

Two things. One, argumentum hominem is a logical error and conveys the fact you choose to not deal with the weakness of your position. Two, Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with the article as far as I'm aware. Besides, you may google the friends of Angelo if you would prefer thousands of other articles on the topic. Surely even the all powerful Limbaugh couldn't control so many.

By the way, are there any facts in the statement made you find untrue? (I do love your shining examples of the arguments of the Obama derp's in the country. They make the point far better then anything I could say.)

 

[Bali Hai]

Two things. One, argumentum hominem is a logical error and conveys the fact you choose to not deal with the weakness of your position. Two, Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with the article as far as I'm aware. Besides, you may google the friends of Angelo if you would prefer thousands of other articles on the topic. Surely even the all powerful Limbaugh couldn't control so many.

By the way, are there any facts in the statement made you find untrue? (I do love your shining examples of the arguments of the Obama derp's in the country. They make the point far better then anything I could say.)

The examples (not a complete list) one needs to look at are these:

1) Bush let 911 happen. No one argues to the contrary.

2) The second financial crisis in US history happened under Bush's watch. The first one happened in 1929 with Republicans at the helm. Things WILL NOT get better under elitist Romney. The elitist jerk Republicans caused the financial meltdown to start with. When big money gets into office, people lose their jobs, this is a historical fact. Most people can't move overseas to US companies owned by Republicans to get a job. Nor do they have offshore tax shelters.

3) Bush went to war and we still haven't found the WMD and never will. That was a lie! Saddam isn't walking on GHWB's face in his palace anymore, however, now that Bush has removed Iran's arch enemy Iraq, he only succeeded in destabilizing the Middle East far more than it was and bringing us ever closer to WWIII.

Bush caused people to lose their retirements, houses and jobs. People need jobs to pay their mortgages. Just what the hell does everyone think is going to happen when big business elitist Republicans cut jobs and move overseas to satisfy shareholders? Or are we supposed to trust that corporations will do the right thing for America? They haven't and they won't.

4) I was there, and, I saw it happen!

 

[tranquility]

The examples (not a complete list) one needs to look at are these:

1) Bush let 911 happen. No one argues to the contrary.

2) The second financial crisis in US history happened under Bush's watch. The first one happened in 1929 with Republicans at the helm. Things WILL NOT get better under elitist Romney. The elitist jerk Republicans caused the financial meltdown to start with. When big money gets into office, people lose their jobs, this is a historical fact. Most people can't move overseas to US companies owned by Republicans to get a job. Nor do they have offshore tax shelters.

3) Bush went to war and we still haven't found the WMD and never will. That was a lie! Saddam isn't walking on GHWB's face in his palace anymore, however, now that Bush has removed Iran's arch enemy Iraq, he only succeeded in destabilizing the Middle East far more than it was and bringing us ever closer to WWIII.

Bush caused people to lose their retirements, houses and jobs. People need jobs to pay their mortgages. Just what the hell does everyone think is going to happen when big business elitist Republicans cut jobs and move overseas to satisfy shareholders? Or are we supposed to trust that corporations will do the right thing for America? They haven't and they won't.

4) I was there, and, I saw it happen!

You're aware that Obama is not running against Bush, right? While I would answer each of your, um...points, I'll let the readers decide if they are relevant or correct. There is plenty of facts out there with the internet for those who desire to learn things.

In this election, which states are serving their people better? Those who agree with the Democratic model or those who agree with the Republican one? Each must answer for themselves and for the future of all.

Personally, I think that without the Tea Party and their desire to return to the social contract of Constitutional government, we would already be lost because of both parties. While I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I'm not a Libertarian because I believe there is a need for government in our lives--at least to a level far greater than those who are true believers seem to think appropriate.

Join me, Bali, and reject the powers that be in both parties that have bought us the excesses of Bush and the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Join the Tea Party and seek change towards the rule of law and opportunity for all. Fight the thought of the same old, same old where the new boss is the same as the old boss--just with different clothing. This imperious emperor, Obama, has no clothes. I am appalled that the election is even close and fail to understand the allure.

My presidential voting history was, Carter, Anderson, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Nader, Bush, Obama. Don't close your eyes as to how this country has been run these last years. Both parties have lead us down the path to where we are and if we don't change the direction, we are doomed. Spending more is not an option, yet that is all Obama wants. I thought Romney was little better except he chose Ryan, who might actually make the reforms that will save the country and the retirement of those who rely on Social Security and the medical care of those who rely on Medicare. That you don't see that and are fooled by the real lies is because of one thing; you apparently can't do math. I can. Perot was crazy, but he was right (on the economic issues).

 

[Bali Hai]

You're aware that Obama is not running against Bush, right? While I would answer each of your, um...points, I'll let the readers decide if they are relevant or correct. There is plenty of facts out there with the internet for those who desire to learn things.

In this election, which states are serving their people better? Those who agree with the Democratic model or those who agree with the Republican one? Each must answer for themselves and for the future of all.

Personally, I think that without the Tea Party and their desire to return to the social contract of Constitutional government, we would already be lost because of both parties. While I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I'm not a Libertarian because I believe there is a need for government in our lives--at least to a level far greater than those who are true believers seem to think appropriate.

Join me, Bali, and reject the powers that be in both parties that have bought us the excesses of Bush and the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Join the Tea Party and seek change towards the rule of law and opportunity for all. Fight the thought of the same old, same old where the new boss is the same as the old boss--just with different clothing. This imperious emperor, Obama, has no clothes. I am appalled that the election is even close and fail to understand the allure.

My presidential voting history was, Carter, Anderson, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Nader, Bush, Obama. Don't close your eyes as to how this country has been run these last years. Both parties have lead us down the path to where we are and if we don't change the direction, we are doomed. Spending more is not an option, yet that is all Obama wants. I thought Romney was little better except he chose Ryan, who might actually make the reforms that will save the country and the retirement of those who rely on Social Security and the medical care of those who rely on Medicare. That you don't see that and are fooled by the real lies is because of one thing; you apparently can't do math. I can. Perot was crazy, but he was right (on the economic issues).

I too am appalled that the election is even close and fail to understand how quickly people forget that Republicans represent people who are union busting task masters that would have workers living in company housing and forcing them to buy from the company store.

They would also prefer the masses to be in profound debt to them right up until the day they dropped dead on the job.

This is not about an individual (Romney, Bush or Obama). It's about two very different philosophies.

If you believe that Republicans are in favor of saving social security or medicare, you need to open your eyes. What they say and what they really stand for and do are two completely different things.

Ryan might actually make the reforms that will save the country and the retirement of those who rely on Social Security and the medical care of those who rely on Medicare?? Please excuse me while I sign out and puke....

 

[Ohiogal]

Once more :


Did you "win" this house in the divorce or settle and get this house? If so, why didn't you suggest at that time that it be sold and you two split the deficit rather than you wanting to keep the house AND still expect to tie up her credit?

 

[tranquility]

This is not about an individual (Romney, Bush or Obama). It's about two very different philosophies.

Agreed. One uses math and recognizes there will be some sacrifice to fix the mess we're in and the other whistles past the graveyard pretending that getting more from the rich is enough to fix things. One has you and the arguments you've made as its champion.

 

[Bali Hai]

Agreed. One uses math and recognizes there will be some sacrifice to fix the mess we're in and the other whistles past the graveyard pretending that getting more from the rich is enough to fix things. One has you and the arguments you've made as its champion.

Sacrifice for who? I'm looking to the billionaires who got rich off the backs of the middle class to step up and do what's right.

You're right, I reject the notion that forcing the very rich including banks and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes will increase unemployment. The rich can control the economy for political and selfish purposes like they have for the last four years. Not sure if that will totally fix things or not and don't care. It's a good start. I don't believe in trickle down economics.

And then start putting penalties into place that make it more attractive for big business to stay in the US and not go overseas to hire slave labor and turn around and sell their products here at prices with the "Made in USA" label.

I don't like being controlled (held hostage) by the 1% of the Bernie Madoff's and Donald Trump's in this country. Yes, they're both crooks.

I also don't like the arrogance of someone who thinks that if he has enough money to buy the Whitehouse, that he is what's best for America. The Whitehouse should not be a leveraged buyout.

 

[tranquility]

He probably settled not knowing just how severe the Bush administration damaged the economy. Oh well, just another casuality and wrecked life.

Once again, pictures for those who believe this lie.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/153013/
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/09/chart-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-terrible-wors
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/10/vital-signs-chart-paychecks-losing-ground/?mod=e2tw
http://news.investors.com/100312-627990-presidents-case-for-re-election-rests-on-five-claims-all-phony.aspx
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/a-big-and-updated-version-of-the-biggest-most-important-chart-in-american-politics/