There Goes Four Years of my Life

bastomatic wrote: A graduating veterinarian for example can expect to make on average $60k, some more, some much less. Average student debt from Vet school alone is more than $120k. Explain to me your solution.

Already had this discussion with SVreX a while back, apparently everyone can gets tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships by working hard, having good grades, and really pushing for the money.

But that is not how it works. The people who get schooling completely paid for NOT by parents is few and far between.

DrBoost wrote: Sorry, I gotta say your post smacks of "I'm better than you. I make (and save) more than you, my house is worth more, I'm just plain better...." I didn't go to college (suppose I'm not as good as many here then) but I've been working since I was 16. I learned real lessons through personal experience. I've turned those lessons into a career that has allowed me to support my growing family and keep them happy and healthy. I've gone through hard times, one of which almost ended my life, but I've pulled through. We have owned 3 houses, our current abode is upside-down. I put 30 or so percent down and did not over extend my self (heck, I went through 2 years of unemployment and was able to hold on to it, so it was not beyond my means) yet it's still worth 1/2 what I now owe. I didn't screw up. I found myself at the mercy of a funky market, both job and real estate. Crap happens. I'm doing what I have to do now to keep my kids happy and well fed, and I'm happy. We could have weathered the storm better had my wife been working, but I like to say “it’s not what you make, what you keep or even what you save, but it's the fact that your kids know who the heck you are”. My wife raised our kids, not a Kindercare employee. Do I sound bitter? Yup, suppose so. I just hear all these people lumping everyone into the same basket (yeah, you made quick mention to the contrary between boasts) and it irks me. I'm gonna stop now. Sorry for the distraction.

Hi DrBoost,

I spoke in relative rather than absolute terms wherever possible to minimize the risk of offending anyone. The one unavoidable exception was in specifically indicating how much I save each year. Doing so was central to my point that excusing $150,000 in principle is analogous to destroying four years of my productive life.

Time is the most consistent commodity we share…that’s why society takes it away from you in the form of imprisonment when you do something wrong.

So, I’m asking what have I done to justify taking away four years of my time…boasting has nothing to do with it.

But nobody's taken $150,000 away from you. If you'd been "lucky" enough to get a bad mortgage from a bad lender, then have your house value crash, then not be able to pay your payments - you might have been one of the ones forgiven. But you can't exactly plan on that. What if you'd done exactly the same thing, but financed through a different bank? Then you'd be looking at living out of your car.

There are a lot of people in the US. Not all of them will get this forgiveness. Just because you didn't win that particular lottery doesn't mean you wasted four years.

Understand that I assume what you meant, and what it sounded like you meant, were two different things. There are only a few, a very few folks on this board that I think are pricks and would actually type what it sounded like you meant. You are not one of them (get what I mean? haha). And I would never say what I said above to them because it would just end ugly. Yer alright with me.
The thing about this whole housing crap is that most folks are in the situation they are in because they didn't use (what I used to think was) common sense. I remember, when I was shopping for my first house my sis-in-law told me to get the biggest mortgage I could. That I'd "grow into" the payment. That just sounded dumb, even to a doofus such as myself. I'm glad I didn't do that or I'd be in the same boat that a lot of folks are in. As it stands, I have everything I care about. A happy family, food in the fridge, and contentment. I'd like a few more bucks to play with my car hobby a bit more, but I can live with the trade-offs.

I have to agree with Keith. You aren't eligible for this lottery because you have the funds now. But in a way, because of the funds you had a few years ago (when many folks, myself included didn't) to win another lottery. The ability to buy a house at the low point in the market. The same way you feel you lost 4 years of your toiling in that way, you were able to purchase at least 4 years three years ago. I mean holy crap! I look at my neighborhood. 6 years ago the average house was going for 160K. Today, almost exactly 1/2 that. 3 years ago (I was unemployed) I wanted so bad to be able to buy what used to be a $300,000 house for $150K.
Somebody taught you good common and financial sense. I suspect it was your parents. You owe them a thank you.

The hoops and rings of fire and hot coals and the amount of crying poor will be way to much for most . Paperwork boondoggle . Sling some product on the side either women , drugs or moonshine to make up for your mortgage payments . Or buy and sell junk cars .

DrBoost wrote: But in a way, because of the funds you had a few years ago ... The ability to buy a house at the low point in the market.

Agreed. I bought my first house after graduating college and landing a job and getting my feet under me... this meant I bought my first place in June '06. Pop! If you only bought yours 4 years ago you're already way ahead in the game.

Oh well. Bought one I could afford. Pay my payments. Upside down huge now. Growing family, lost original job. Stuck with a stupid commute now. Not eligible for this handout.

Responsibility sucks some times.

RX Reven, You also ignored this part of the original article:

"The principal reduction offers from Bank of America Home Loans are the result of a $25 billion settlement agreement earlier this year with 49 state attorneys general as well as federal authorities who had been investigating allegations of abuses over the handling of foreclosures."

This is a direct result of the robosigning and other such scandals that the bank has brought upon themselves. This has nothing to do with whether or not you're a saint with money and everyone else is an irresponsible spendthrift. Bank of America berkeleyed up, and berkeleyed up bad, they know it, and they're paying the price. That it benefits some people that might be "other than optimal" with their financial habits should not be of primary concern to you.

We got our current house in 2006 - but we sold three houses as part of the process, so I figure I both benefited from and got burned by the bubble. So we're even.

The Canadian house would have been worth more if I'd hung on to it, but it was just getting too complex to deal with from afar so it was time to let it go. My first house. I still did well on the sale, but the guy who immediately tore it down and built an ugly duplex did even better. Bastard, that was my HOME!

I'm conservative in my financial matters. I'd possibly have more money in the bank if I wasn't, but also could have been burned pretty hard in 2008. As it was, running the Targa was a much more fun way to get rid of that money

Hi Keith,

I probably do have some issues…I’m pretty hardcore when it comes to planning and execution. So when I see rules being changed mid game, I’m guaranteed to slam my cards down and say Berkley you, I’m out of here.

Hi DrBoost,

That would be my dad, I’ll let him know you said hi.

Yeah, I agree that changing the rules midgame sucks. FWIW, I had a bad patch where things were catching up to me bad even though I have always been pretty conservative financially. So I called Smells Nargo to see if I could qualify for a short term (6 month) assistance with the rough patch.

I won't bore you with the details, but the answer I finally got was 'the investor who ultimately owns your loan will not allow a modification because you are still current'. Dammit, I'm calling because I WANT to stay current! I was then asked if I would do a 'short sale'. I stood there with my mouth hanging open; a short sale means that when the house was sold I could still be on the hook for any deficiciency ( that's called a 'deficiency judgement'). So whoever owns my loan gets theirs but I get the shaft after 8 years? And I have paid interest etc on time for those 8 years? Not just no but HELL no.

It all worked out in the end but lemme tell ya that conversation ranks as one of the worst I have ever had. If you have ever seen 'Harry's War', well I coulda made a sequel very easily.

This isn't a wholesale "rule change". It's a few people getting lucky. It's as if the slob down the street just discovered that the oil running down his driveway wasn't from his crappy old Aerostar, but was actually a big oil strike. Woohoo, he struck it rich without doing any work! But that doesn't make everyone rich.

This policy by BoA doesn't affect everyone, but a small percentage of homeowners. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a reward for those who acted irresponsibly. But it's not a rule change. And you still get to keep your house and your own financial plans don't change.

Seeing someone else get lucky always sucks. But so it goes.

Duke wrote: Because we, as a culture, have spent the last 80 years making that the case.

Eh, gotta (respectfully) disagree with ya on that one, Duke. I really think that if there had been more federal regulations on lending, a lot of those people wouldn't have qualified for loans (especially as home prices rose) in the first place.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

Duke wrote: Because we, as a culture, have spent the last 80 years making that the case.

Eh, gotta (respectfully) disagree with ya on that one, Duke. I really think that if there had been *more* federal regulations on lending, a lot of those people wouldn't have qualified for loans (especially as home prices rose) in the first place.

The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

MG Bryan wrote: The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

True enough about the "left's" desire for more homeownership, but also recall that a lot of that deregulation was from the party of "less government". The truth lies somewhere in the middle. I personally think a lot of the housing bubble was because banks no longer had to keep their commercial business and their investment business separate.

Yeah- to the OP- military man here. Made some off a house, put it all down on another in Hawaii. There's only so much land, right? Every "expert" I talked to said that buying there in 2005 was a good choice. I lost $175k in four years. I sucked it up, and the gov't helped a bit with the Homeowners Assistance Program for military folks forced to move during the downturn. I don't know how good I feel about it, but here's the irony about what I learned: Don't put all your cash into a house. I put 33% into a $575k house there, no problem making payments, only to lose it all and more. We moved, and I got a VA loan for this house. I'm keepin' my cash. We were lucky to get out of that without losing everything (including my security clearance).

Look, I'm with Keith here. You aren't getting screwed. You have a pretty serious case of sour grapes (please read Aesop's fable before misconstruing this). If you've got it so bad, and those down the street have it so good, I implore you to trade lives with them for a while. Then suck it up and get back to your good life you are building for yourself- which it sounds like you are well on your way to doing. Without sarcasm, I would like to congratulate you on your fiscal responsibility. My family has similar values and saving habits.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

True enough about the "left's" desire for more homeownership, but also recall that a lot of that deregulation was from the party of "less government". The truth lies somewhere in the middle. I personally think a lot of the housing bubble was because banks no longer had to keep their commercial business and their investment business separate.

As long as the feds will bail them out when they screw up, they'll keep screwing up.

You want a good regulation that I could agree with? Make the board of directors, the ceo and all upper management personally responsible for the dealing of their companies. The company goes broke and screws the investors, they do to.

One thing to consider (really doesn't make it any better): The money they are excusing is on the value of the house that does not exist anymore. So in a way, they are not "getting" anything, just not overpaying as much as they were.

MG Bryan wrote: The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

This is a VERY small part of the whole problem. To say this is the reason (not that you did) is a very narrow view. Kind of like blaming the damage on the lighting of the match, not the laying of the fuse or the placing of the 200 lbs of dynamite.

BTW - I recently heard the the government profited a LOT of money when they recently sold those loans (mortgage back securities) back:

Fed turns $2.8 billion profit on AIG bonds

If Country Wide BofA ect made the loans, why did the Fed pay AIG for them.... well, remember the 200lbs of dynamite I mentioned?

aircooled wrote: One thing to consider (really doesn't make it any better): The money they are excusing is on the value of the house that does not exist anymore. So in a way, they are not "getting" anything, just not overpaying as much as they were.

MG Bryan wrote: The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

This is a VERY small part of the whole problem. To say this is the reason (not that you did) is a very narrow view. Kind of like blaming the damage on the lighting of the match, not the laying of the fuse or the placing of the 200 lbs of dynamite. BTW - I recently heard the the government profited a LOT of money when they recently sold those loans (mortgage back securities) back: Fed turns $2.8 billion profit on AIG bonds If Country Wide BofA ect made the loans, why did the Fed pay AIG for them.... well, remember the 200lbs of dynamite I mentioned?

My comment was solely in regards to the idea that there was ever a chance that the government could have prevented all of the recent economic issues.

As with most things, no, there's any singular cause. An educated public would go a lot further than government intervention - I'm not trying to take a liberal or conservative side. Good regulations were removed and bad initiatives were enacted; both ends of the spectrum screwed us and we let them do them.

For the record, I'm firmly in the "there's no sense complaining about this now" camp... unless maybe you have B of A stock.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: Yeah- to the OP- military man here. Made some off a house, put it all down on another in Hawaii. There's only so much land, right? Every "expert" I talked to said that buying there in 2005 was a good choice. I lost $175k in four years. I sucked it up, and the gov't helped a bit with the Homeowners Assistance Program for military folks forced to move during the downturn. I don't know how good I feel about it, but here's the irony about what I learned: Don't put all your cash into a house. I put 33% into a $575k house there, no problem making payments, only to lose it all and more. We moved, and I got a VA loan for this house. I'm keepin' my cash. We were lucky to get out of that without losing everything (including my security clearance). Look, I'm with Keith here. You aren't getting screwed. You have a pretty serious case of sour grapes (please read Aesop's fable before misconstruing this). If you've got it so bad, and those down the street have it so good, I implore you to trade lives with them for a while. Then suck it up and get back to your good life you are building for yourself- which it sounds like you are well on your way to doing. Without sarcasm, I would like to congratulate you on your fiscal responsibility. My family has similar values and saving habits.

Let me translate…

“You’re not getting screwed” = “these aren’t the Droids you’re looking for…move along, move along” and “sour grapes” = “we mock people that live by principles such as reap as you sow”.

Teh E36 M3 is right. This isn't all about you.

The old days were much more to my liking where you could man up

It's time for this.

I wrote a check for $40k at the end of feb to sell my house. I am not good at getting bailouts, but I am pretty good at paying taxes.

Everything that has happened since the 2008 financial 'crisis' has been to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. If you play by the rules you simply just get screwed, but at least you can still have your dignity and honor. It is funny that after 4 years of incentivizing bad behavior both by consumers, corporations, and especially banks, people who did that seem surprised that things are not getting better and seem a bit perplexed that the actions they've provided incentives for have increased not decreased.

MG Bryan wrote:

aircooled wrote: One thing to consider (really doesn't make it any better): The money they are excusing is on the value of the house that does not exist anymore. So in a way, they are not "getting" anything, just not overpaying as much as they were.

MG Bryan wrote: The federal government brought those loans to be, pushed for many of the lending practices that got us here. Everyone deserves to own a home, ya know?

This is a VERY small part of the whole problem. To say this is the reason (not that you did) is a very narrow view. Kind of like blaming the damage on the lighting of the match, not the laying of the fuse or the placing of the 200 lbs of dynamite. BTW - I recently heard the the government profited a LOT of money when they recently sold those loans (mortgage back securities) back: Fed turns $2.8 billion profit on AIG bonds If Country Wide BofA ect made the loans, why did the Fed pay AIG for them.... well, remember the 200lbs of dynamite I mentioned?

My comment was solely in regards to the idea that there was ever a chance that the government could have prevented all of the recent economic issues.

"All"? Nope. No way. "Some"? I think so.

MG Bryan wrote: As with most things, no, there's any singular cause. An educated public would go a lot further than government intervention - I'm not trying to take a liberal or conservative side. Good regulations were removed and bad initiatives were enacted; both ends of the spectrum screwed us and we let them do them. For the record, I'm firmly in the "there's no sense complaining about this now" camp... unless maybe you have B of A stock.

Yeah, you're right (about the regulations & the cow out of the barn). I still feel funny about the whole meltdown, I got lucky on the housing side--but only because I was unlucky on the employment side.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/locksmithing/45685/page1/

I remember furious about being turned down for a loan before the crash because I hadn't borrowed money in 20yrs., and people making a lot less money than I was were being approved because they had "credit history". Things sure seem different now. Even if I end up collecting soda cans, I have a roof over my head--as long as I can find enough cans to pay the property tax.

HiTempguy wrote:

bastomatic wrote: A graduating veterinarian for example can expect to make on average $60k, some more, some much less. Average student debt from Vet school alone is more than $120k. Explain to me your solution.

Already had this discussion with SVreX a while back, apparently everyone can gets tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships by working hard, having good grades, and really pushing for the money. But that is not how it works. The people who get schooling completely paid for NOT by parents is few and far between.

Somebody doesn't sound happy.

Is there a reason you keep bringing this up?

The people who get schooling completely paid for NOT by parents is few and far between.

Grammar like that will not help you get scholarships.

SVreX wrote: Grammar like that will not help you get scholarships.

Very true, which is why it is probably a good thing I graduated "long" ago. ;) I also received numerous scholarships, but that's neither here nor there.

I simply find it astounding of how when you made those remarks "oh so long ago" that you are so convinced anyone can get an education paid for. It simply isn't the case. Beyond the fact that your daughter is obviously a smart individual with strong drive, she simply managed to do everything better than the others who competed with her for the same money. I say "simply" because as you yourself stated, it wasn't all about marks/grades, which therefore means that her receiving her scholarships was not a strictly objective endeavour.

So in short, yes, what you said previously bothered me a lot. I can not fathom ever paying the costs required to go to a well known college in the US. One of the best universities in Canada for engineering degrees (UofA) is $10k/year, and that degree means something country-wide. That is still a lot of money for someone just graduating high school, no ifs and or buts about it.

Anyways, what was this thread about again? Oh yea, irresponsible people and how the good guys get screwed.