What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
else should I buy?

On Jan 25, 6:46 am, Moe <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote:
> What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
> else should I buy?

I will try to make this slightly on topic by telling you whats on my
wish list.

Splurge in the home tv shopping network=).
-I like the electronic pest repellers "and say goodbye to chemicals"
Remember one poster who reported that his 07 camry had a faulty VSC
due to small animals munching at the wires;
-fabric steamers that is as good as the professional dry cleaner, you
can use it on your cars upholstery as well;
-and pops-a-dent for instant DIY dent repair, even if I dont have a
dent, I know it will come in handy

"Moe" <BubbleleLand@Fat.City> wrote in message
news:4799cc09$0$4041$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
> What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
> else should I buy?

Habitat for Humanity

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:54 -0800, EdV wrote:

> On Jan 25, 6:46 am, Moe <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote:
>> What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
>> else should I buy?
>
> I will try to make this slightly on topic by telling you whats on my wish
> list.
>
> Splurge in the home tv shopping network=). -I like the electronic pest
> repellers "and say goodbye to chemicals" Remember one poster who reported
> that his 07 camry had a faulty VSC due to small animals munching at the
> wires; -fabric steamers that is as good as the professional dry cleaner,
> you can use it on your cars upholstery as well; -and pops-a-dent for
> instant DIY dent repair, even if I dont have a dent, I know it will come
> in handy


I want some of that Nutty Putty sealer/adhesive stuff.

I'll do one of three things: buy an HDTV (you're going to need one 02/09.
Who cares, really, except Congress and the FCC?), buy some parts or some
body supplies for the Supra (Probably from eBay...does that count?), or
pay my car insurance bill. That's CAR INSURANCE, not HEALTH INSURANCE.
Phuque Ewe Mitt!!!

(Actually, I'll probably wind up paying the penalties for not having
Health Insurance, so the money coming to me will do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!
Did I say Phuque Ewe Mitt!!! yet today?)

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:l1xmj.1922$cm6.462@trndny05...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:54 -0800, EdV wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 6:46 am, Moe <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote:
>>> What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
>>> else should I buy?
>>
>> I will try to make this slightly on topic by telling you whats on my wish
>> list.
>>
>> Splurge in the home tv shopping network=). -I like the electronic pest
>> repellers "and say goodbye to chemicals" Remember one poster who reported
>> that his 07 camry had a faulty VSC due to small animals munching at the
>> wires; -fabric steamers that is as good as the professional dry cleaner,
>> you can use it on your cars upholstery as well; -and pops-a-dent for
>> instant DIY dent repair, even if I dont have a dent, I know it will come
>> in handy
>
>
> I want some of that Nutty Putty sealer/adhesive stuff.
>
> I'll do one of three things: buy an HDTV (you're going to need one 02/09.
> Who cares, really, except Congress and the FCC?), buy some parts or some
> body supplies for the Supra (Probably from eBay...does that count?), or
> pay my car insurance bill. That's CAR INSURANCE, not HEALTH INSURANCE.
> Phuque Ewe Mitt!!!
>
> (Actually, I'll probably wind up paying the penalties for not having
> Health Insurance, so the money coming to me will do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!
> Did I say Phuque Ewe Mitt!!! yet today?)
>
This 150 Billion is another bullshit sop to the US taxpayer in my view.
(Remember , it's an election year and we're supposed to feel good about the
farthandles running this nation. )
It was shown that the last rebate in 2001 ($300 per as I recall) most people
just socked it away in the bank or paid off part of their credit card bills,
and it didn't stimulate the economy very much at all. It's just trying to
throw money at a situation and hope that it sticks.
If people use the $150 billion (which we're probably going to borrow from
China) to buy knicknacks from China at their local Wal*Mart, the money will
go straight back to the folks we borrowed it from!
As regards the housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why we
don't get together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment the same
and increase the lives of the loans. So instead of being driven out of the
home by higher payments, the payment would remain the same, but the life of
the loan would increase from 30 years to 37 or 40 years. The average
homeowner doesn't care that the extra cost is being tacked on at the tail
end of the loan, as long as they can keep up with the monthly payments.
and the lenders are happy too.
It's a pity that lots of folks were bamboozled by realtors and lenders into
buying houses that they clearly couldn't afford, but the paperwork on a
mortgage only states that you have to be an adult to sign the papers, not
that you have to be a savvy adult.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:25:33 -0800, mack wrote:

> As regards the
> housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why we don't get
> together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment the same and
> increase the lives of the loans.


Mack, this may be the first thing we have agreed on in a LONG time!

Bush had mentioned something about this when the news of the "Credit
Crunch" first broke (or, at least, when it started to affect the rest of
the world...)

This would make the most sense: hold interest rates at the initial rate
until the economy strengthens again. Think of what this would do: it would
keep a glut of houses off the market, thereby helping the housing market
regain some of it's losses; it would help the people with the loans not
only to keep their homes, but also allow them to buy the appliances,
furniture, etc they need to make a house a home. This strategy made the
most sense in both the short and long terms.

No wonder they gave up on it...

I would also slap fines on those accused of preditory loan practices that
enticed these people to take the loan in the first place. "Well, the
initial rate is low, and may rise, but by that time your home will be
worth more, and you can get some equity from it."

mack wrote:
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:l1xmj.1922$cm6.462@trndny05...
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:54 -0800, EdV wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 6:46 am, Moe <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote:
>>>> What to buy with it, a salad shooter from wal-mart is on the list, what
>>>> else should I buy?
>>> I will try to make this slightly on topic by telling you whats on my wish
>>> list.
>>>
>>> Splurge in the home tv shopping network=). -I like the electronic pest
>>> repellers "and say goodbye to chemicals" Remember one poster who reported
>>> that his 07 camry had a faulty VSC due to small animals munching at the
>>> wires; -fabric steamers that is as good as the professional dry cleaner,
>>> you can use it on your cars upholstery as well; -and pops-a-dent for
>>> instant DIY dent repair, even if I dont have a dent, I know it will come
>>> in handy
>>
>> I want some of that Nutty Putty sealer/adhesive stuff.
>>
>> I'll do one of three things: buy an HDTV (you're going to need one 02/09.
>> Who cares, really, except Congress and the FCC?), buy some parts or some
>> body supplies for the Supra (Probably from eBay...does that count?), or
>> pay my car insurance bill. That's CAR INSURANCE, not HEALTH INSURANCE.
>> Phuque Ewe Mitt!!!
>>
>> (Actually, I'll probably wind up paying the penalties for not having
>> Health Insurance, so the money coming to me will do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!
>> Did I say Phuque Ewe Mitt!!! yet today?)
>>
> This 150 Billion is another bullshit sop to the US taxpayer in my view.
> (Remember , it's an election year and we're supposed to feel good about the
> farthandles running this nation. )
> It was shown that the last rebate in 2001 ($300 per as I recall) most people
> just socked it away in the bank or paid off part of their credit card bills,
> and it didn't stimulate the economy very much at all.

The rich people put it their bank accounts or stocks. Middle class and
poor people did spend the money.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,2934188.story

BTW, the stimulus is also a tax cut for the tax year.

> It's just trying to
> throw money at a situation and hope that it sticks.

The ironic thing is that what seems to have brought the crisis on Wall
St. was a bank in France selling lots of stock to make up for losses
from a rogue trader. They never said why they were selling so much
stock, so billions of dollars of stock (maybe around $7B) were suddenly
dumped on the market, causing the stock market to go way down without
explanation. Panic set in. The Federal Reserve made a sudden interest
cut which will have to be followed by another. Then the President made a
tax cut/rebate stimulus plan.

> If people use the $150 billion (which we're probably going to borrow from
> China) to buy knicknacks from China at their local Wal*Mart, the money will
> go straight back to the folks we borrowed it from!
> As regards the housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why we
> don't get together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment the same
> and increase the lives of the loans.

This has been suggested as a remedy, requiring mortgages which have a
rate that resets during a particular time period to remain constant.
This only delays the problem for three years or whatever the period is.

> So instead of being driven out of the
> home by higher payments, the payment would remain the same, but the life of
> the loan would increase from 30 years to 37 or 40 years.

The problem is that the interest rate will eventually go up. This only
delays the pain for those who can't afford the house.

> The average
> homeowner doesn't care that the extra cost is being tacked on at the tail
> end of the loan, as long as they can keep up with the monthly payments.
> and the lenders are happy too.

Of course, the lenders are happy. They sold the loans to someone else
and made their money already.

> It's a pity that lots of folks were bamboozled by realtors and lenders into
> buying houses that they clearly couldn't afford, but the paperwork on a
> mortgage only states that you have to be an adult to sign the papers, not
> that you have to be a savvy adult.

Realtors? Unless they made the loans, the realtors are not at fault.

You don't have to be a savvy adult? Even savvy adults were sometimes
taken in by dishonest practices, like forged signatures or lies, like
saying that the mortgage was a fixed rate mortgage, but the patperwork
that was signed was an ARM.

However, that doesn't excuse people who bought more house than they can
afford or those who used their house as an ATM for things they did not need.

Jeff

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LPGmj.3350$75.2352@trnddc05...
> The rich people put it their bank accounts or stocks. Middle class and
> poor people did spend the money.
>

I'm certainly middle class, and we simply used the last rebate for assisting
in paying the income tax that year.
It went out of the govmint's left hand and immediately back to them in their
right hand.

>
> The ironic thing is that what seems to have brought the crisis on Wall St.
> was a bank in France selling lots of stock to make up for losses from a
> rogue trader. They never said why they were selling so much stock, so
> billions of dollars of stock (maybe around $7B) were suddenly dumped on
> the market, causing the stock market to go way down without explanation.

Seven billion bucks is a drop in the bucket where the market is concerned.
This shouldn't have made even a ripple.

tax cut/rebate stimulus plan.
>
>> If people use the $150 billion (which we're probably going to borrow from
>> China) to buy knicknacks from China at their local Wal*Mart, the money
>> will go straight back to the folks we borrowed it from!
>> As regards the housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why we
>> don't get together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment the
>> same and increase the lives of the loans.
>
> This has been suggested as a remedy, requiring mortgages which have a rate
> that resets during a particular time period to remain constant. This only
> delays the problem for three years or whatever the period is.

Not really. It solves the problem neatly for folks who CAN afford their
present payment, and only lengthens the time it takes to pay it off.
>
>> So instead of being driven out of the home by higher payments, the
>> payment would remain the same, but the life of the loan would increase
>> from 30 years to 37 or 40 years.
>
> The problem is that the interest rate will eventually go up. This only
> delays the pain for those who can't afford the house.

True, if they can't afford the initial lower payment, but if they could
initially afford it, they ought to be able to keep up the same payments for
a longer time.
>
>> The average homeowner doesn't care that the extra cost is being tacked on
>> at the tail end of the loan, as long as they can keep up with the monthly
>> payments. and the lenders are happy too.
>
> Of course, the lenders are happy. They sold the loans to someone else and
> made their money already.

That's another wrinkle in the system. There ought to be federal legislation
preventing the loans from being sold in packages to other lenders. So if
you get a loan from ABC bank, you pay them and only them for the next 30
years.
>
>> It's a pity that lots of folks were bamboozled by realtors and lenders
>> into buying houses that they clearly couldn't afford, but the paperwork
>> on a mortgage only states that you have to be an adult to sign the
>> papers, not that you have to be a savvy adult.
>
> Realtors? Unless they made the loans, the realtors are not at fault.

Not really. Most realtors are more or less honest, but some will do or say
anything to make the sale. In these cases they encourage the buyer to fudge
the facts of his income in order to qualify, and in too many loans, simple
checks like W-2 stubs or other proofs of income were ignored, and the
realtors involved abetted the buyers in faking income.
>
> You don't have to be a savvy adult? Even savvy adults were sometimes taken
> in by dishonest practices, like forged signatures or lies, like saying
> that the mortgage was a fixed rate mortgage, but the patperwork that was
> signed was an ARM.

Savvy means you know what you're signing, and being aware of what interest
rate you're paying and how much it can increase. Most folks suckered into
getting ARMs thought that it might mean an additional few bucks in interest,
not hundreds of dollars per month. Thus, they were NOT savvy.
>
> However, that doesn't excuse people who bought more house than they can
> afford or those who used their house as an ATM for things they did not
> need.

People are now being made uncomfortably aware that house prices are not
permanently going upward, and there is such a thing as a housing slump, in
which the reverse is true.

mack wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LPGmj.3350$75.2352@trnddc05...
>> The rich people put it their bank accounts or stocks. Middle class and
>> poor people did spend the money.
>>
>
> I'm certainly middle class, and we simply used the last rebate for assisting
> in paying the income tax that year.
> It went out of the govmint's left hand and immediately back to them in their
> right hand.

Actually, no. First, we're the government.

Second, it resulted in less money for the government. So the we had to
borrow that money.

>> The ironic thing is that what seems to have brought the crisis on Wall St.
>> was a bank in France selling lots of stock to make up for losses from a
>> rogue trader. They never said why they were selling so much stock, so
>> billions of dollars of stock (maybe around $7B) were suddenly dumped on
>> the market, causing the stock market to go way down without explanation.
>
> Seven billion bucks is a drop in the bucket where the market is concerned.
> This shouldn't have made even a ripple.

Seven billion bucks? Yeah, it will make a ripple. However, I got my
value wrong. That was the loss. Far more (in the tens of billions of
dollars) worth of stock and options were involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/bu...ss/26bank.html

> tax cut/rebate stimulus plan.
>>> If people use the $150 billion (which we're probably going to borrow from
>>> China) to buy knicknacks from China at their local Wal*Mart, the money
>>> will go straight back to the folks we borrowed it from!
>>> As regards the housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why we
>>> don't get together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment the
>>> same and increase the lives of the loans.
>> This has been suggested as a remedy, requiring mortgages which have a rate
>> that resets during a particular time period to remain constant. This only
>> delays the problem for three years or whatever the period is.
>
> Not really. It solves the problem neatly for folks who CAN afford their
> present payment, and only lengthens the time it takes to pay it off.

Really? If they can't afford the payment later, it only delays things.

>>> So instead of being driven out of the home by higher payments, the
>>> payment would remain the same, but the life of the loan would increase
>>> from 30 years to 37 or 40 years.
>> The problem is that the interest rate will eventually go up. This only
>> delays the pain for those who can't afford the house.
>
> True, if they can't afford the initial lower payment, but if they could
> initially afford it, they ought to be able to keep up the same payments for
> a longer time.

Yet, they're getting further and further behind.

The loans were made on untenable assumptions, but the people who made
and sold the mortgages to someone else didn't care.

>>> The average homeowner doesn't care that the extra cost is being tacked on
>>> at the tail end of the loan, as long as they can keep up with the monthly
>>> payments. and the lenders are happy too.
>> Of course, the lenders are happy. They sold the loans to someone else and
>> made their money already.
>
> That's another wrinkle in the system. There ought to be federal legislation
> preventing the loans from being sold in packages to other lenders. So if
> you get a loan from ABC bank, you pay them and only them for the next 30
> years.

Nothing wrong with reselling loans. That's is one of the things that
made homes truly affordable to people who could pay back the loans.
Freddy Mac and Sallie Mae are two companies that buy those loan packages.

A lot of small banks, S&Ls and credit unions do keep and service their
own loans. And guess what? Only rarely do these homes go into
foreclosure or do the homeowners have trouble paying back the loans.

IMHO, the legislation needs to be made to require standards for these
loans be met before they can be resold. Otherwise, the capital from ABC
bank is tied up for 30 years.

>>> It's a pity that lots of folks were bamboozled by realtors and lenders
>>> into buying houses that they clearly couldn't afford, but the paperwork
>>> on a mortgage only states that you have to be an adult to sign the
>>> papers, not that you have to be a savvy adult.
>> Realtors? Unless they made the loans, the realtors are not at fault.
>
> Not really. Most realtors are more or less honest, but some will do or say
> anything to make the sale. In these cases they encourage the buyer to fudge
> the facts of his income in order to qualify, and in too many loans, simple
> checks like W-2 stubs or other proofs of income were ignored, and the
> realtors involved abetted the buyers in faking income.

Please provide evidence that the realtors did this rather the mortgage
folks.

>> You don't have to be a savvy adult? Even savvy adults were sometimes taken
>> in by dishonest practices, like forged signatures or lies, like saying
>> that the mortgage was a fixed rate mortgage, but the patperwork that was
>> signed was an ARM.
>
> Savvy means you know what you're signing, and being aware of what interest
> rate you're paying and how much it can increase. Most folks suckered into
> getting ARMs thought that it might mean an additional few bucks in interest,
> not hundreds of dollars per month. Thus, they were NOT savvy.

And what about the people who were lied to or had their signatures forged?

>> However, that doesn't excuse people who bought more house than they can
>> afford or those who used their house as an ATM for things they did not
>> need.
>
> People are now being made uncomfortably aware that house prices are not
> permanently going upward, and there is such a thing as a housing slump, in
> which the reverse is true.

There have been housing slumps before. And, in the past, when other
things had prices that ballooned up, the prices burst before, like the
prices of companies like Enron and many tech firms.

I have been comfortably aware that the value of houses can go down and
that I should not get home equity loan for things that I don't need. The
home equity loan means that I could lose my house if I don't pay.

Jeff

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dKmj.5583$75.2878@trnddc05...
> mack wrote:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LPGmj.3350$75.2352@trnddc05...
>>> The rich people put it their bank accounts or stocks. Middle class and
>>> poor people did spend the money.
>>>
>>
>> I'm certainly middle class, and we simply used the last rebate for
>> assisting in paying the income tax that year.
>> It went out of the govmint's left hand and immediately back to them in
>> their right hand.
>
> Actually, no. First, we're the government.

Oh come on, this is pap for second graders. To me (and to many people)
the government is the enemy...and a downright incompetent enemy too.
>
> Second, it resulted in less money for the government. So the we had to
> borrow that money.

that's right, so it did all the good a pinch of monkey excrement would do.
>
>>> The ironic thing is that what seems to have brought the crisis on Wall
>>> St. was a bank in France selling lots of stock to make up for losses
>>> from a rogue trader. They never said why they were selling so much
>>> stock, so billions of dollars of stock (maybe around $7B) were suddenly
>>> dumped on the market, causing the stock market to go way down without
>>> explanation.
>>
>> Seven billion bucks is a drop in the bucket where the market is
>> concerned. This shouldn't have made even a ripple.
>
> Seven billion bucks? Yeah, it will make a ripple. However, I got my value
> wrong. That was the loss. Far more (in the tens of billions of dollars)
> worth of stock and options were involved.

You still think seven billion is a large amount? check out the dollar
volume of a
day's worth of trading on the NYSE and NASDAQ. It's a drop in a very
large
bucket.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/bu...ss/26bank.html
>
>> tax cut/rebate stimulus plan.
>>>> If people use the $150 billion (which we're probably going to borrow
>>>> from China) to buy knicknacks from China at their local Wal*Mart, the
>>>> money will go straight back to the folks we borrowed it from!
>>>> As regards the housing crash due to teaser ARM rates, I don't know why
>>>> we don't get together and simply keep the amount of mortgage payment
>>>> the same and increase the lives of the loans.
>>> This has been suggested as a remedy, requiring mortgages which have a
>>> rate that resets during a particular time period to remain constant.
>>> This only delays the problem for three years or whatever the period is.
>>
>> Not really. It solves the problem neatly for folks who CAN afford their
>> present payment, and only lengthens the time it takes to pay it off.
>
> Really? If they can't afford the payment later, it only delays things.

I don't get your reasoning. If they are employed, and are able to make the
monthly nut
presently, and they continue to be employed, at relatively the same earnings
volume,
why should they not be able to afford the same payment for 30-35-40 more
years?
(They will also probably be in a higher earnings bracket by then, as well,
so the
mortgage payment is that much MORE affordable.
>
>>>> So instead of being driven out of the home by higher payments, the
>>>> payment would remain the same, but the life of the loan would increase
>>>> from 30 years to 37 or 40 years.
>>> The problem is that the interest rate will eventually go up. This only
>>> delays the pain for those who can't afford the house.
>>
>> True, if they can't afford the initial lower payment, but if they could
>> initially afford it, they ought to be able to keep up the same payments
>> for a longer time.
>
> Yet, they're getting further and further behind.

>
> The loans were made on untenable assumptions, but the people who made and
> sold the mortgages to someone else didn't care.

And what were these assumptions ? other than perhaps their rich uncle either
didn't die
or lost his money, or disinherited them?
>
>>>> The average homeowner doesn't care that the extra cost is being tacked
>>>> on at the tail end of the loan, as long as they can keep up with the
>>>> monthly payments. and the lenders are happy too.
>>> Of course, the lenders are happy. They sold the loans to someone else
>>> and made their money already.
>>
>> That's another wrinkle in the system. There ought to be federal
>> legislation preventing the loans from being sold in packages to other
>> lenders. So if you get a loan from ABC bank, you pay them and only them
>> for the next 30 years.
>
> Nothing wrong with reselling loans. That's is one of the things that made
> homes truly affordable to people who could pay back the loans. Freddy Mac
> and Sallie Mae are two companies that buy those loan packages.

Two out of hundreds who never made the initial loan.
>
> A lot of small banks, S&Ls and credit unions do keep and service their own
> loans. And guess what? Only rarely do these homes go into foreclosure or
> do the homeowners have trouble paying back the loans.
>
> IMHO, the legislation needs to be made to require standards for these
> loans be met before they can be resold. Otherwise, the capital from ABC
> bank is tied up for 30 years.

And what's wrong with that? It means the bank that made the initial loan
still services it, and didn't sell it off in a package to XYZ bank or
another RE syndicate.

>
>>>> It's a pity that lots of folks were bamboozled by realtors and lenders
>>>> into buying houses that they clearly couldn't afford, but the paperwork
>>>> on a mortgage only states that you have to be an adult to sign the
>>>> papers, not that you have to be a savvy adult.
>>> Realtors? Unless they made the loans, the realtors are not at fault.
>>
>> Not really. Most realtors are more or less honest, but some will do or
>> say anything to make the sale. In these cases they encourage the buyer
>> to fudge the facts of his income in order to qualify, and in too many
>> loans, simple checks like W-2 stubs or other proofs of income were
>> ignored, and the realtors involved abetted the buyers in faking income.
>
> Please provide evidence that the realtors did this rather the mortgage
> folks.

Just one example - my wife was until recently a realtor, and sold new homes.
She left one tract simply because she knew that other reps in that sales
office
were playing fast and loose with buyers' loans, and didn't want any part of
it.
Didn't want to have any guilt by association when the hammer fell.
Are you telling me that realtors all have halos, just like used car
salesmen?
There are bad apples in every endeavor, and just because they wear a large
"R"
in a pin on their label, it doesn't mean they wouldn't cut your throat to
get a nickel
out of it. Same goes for doctors, dentists, lawyers, police chiefs, etc
etc.
>
>>> You don't have to be a savvy adult? Even savvy adults were sometimes
>>> taken in by dishonest practices, like forged signatures or lies, like
>>> saying that the mortgage was a fixed rate mortgage, but the patperwork
>>> that was signed was an ARM.
>>
>> Savvy means you know what you're signing, and being aware of what
>> interest rate you're paying and how much it can increase. Most folks
>> suckered into getting ARMs thought that it might mean an additional few
>> bucks in interest, not hundreds of dollars per month. Thus, they were
>> NOT savvy.
>
> And what about the people who were lied to or had their signatures forged?

When did they find out they were lied to, and did they sign papers "in
blank" to be
filled in later? And if their names were forged, they have a perfect
right to sue and
rescind the sale. There ARE laws you know.
>
>>> However, that doesn't excuse people who bought more house than they can
>>> afford or those who used their house as an ATM for things they did not
>>> need.
>>
>> People are now being made uncomfortably aware that house prices are not
>> permanently going upward, and there is such a thing as a housing slump,
>> in which the reverse is true.
>
> There have been housing slumps before. And, in the past, when other things
> had prices that ballooned up, the prices burst before, like the prices of
> companies like Enron and many tech firms.
>
> I have been comfortably aware that the value of houses can go down and
> that I should not get home equity loan for things that I don't need. The
> home equity loan means that I could lose my house if I don't pay.

Lots of folks seemed to think the end price for their home was the sky, and
so a nice li'l home equity loan to buy a cigarette boat or SUV was made for
them....
but a little prudence goes a long way ...as they've found out to their
dismay.