{link » Reasons for ARMs}
Now the gamblers who lost are asking the government to bail them out, using money provided by taxpayers, many of whom did NOT bet the "farm" but, rather, lived within their means, either with a fixed-rate mortgage or by renting, both of which alternatives are much more amenable to long term budgeting. These pitiable ARM losers are not properly viewed as those who have lost their home, however, but those who have lost their wager. Now they must do what every other person who can no longer afford to stay in his residence must do — move.
Perhaps this sounds harsh to all the bleeding-heart liberals who want a nanny government to nurture them from cradle to grave. But a nanny government comes with a price too — loss of liberty to live as you please within the law. Because, if you want your government to take care of you, the government will restrict what you can and can not do, just as your parents did when they were taking care of you. Is this a life for an adult American to aspire to? Our founding fathers would have been horrified.
“ARMs [adjustable-rate mortgages] generally permit borrowers to lower their initial payments if they are willing to assume the risk of interest rate changes.Pity the poor ARM borrowers, but not because many of them are undergoing foreclosure. No, pity them because all of them are gamblers, many of whom bet the "farm" and lost their wager.
For the borrower, adjustable-rate mortgages may be less expensive, but at the price of bearing higher risk. Many ARMs have ‘teaser periods’, which are relatively short initial fixed-rate periods (typically one month to one year) when the ARM bears an interest rate that is substantially below the ‘fully indexed’ rate. The teaser period may induce some borrowers to view an ARM as more of a bargain than it really represents. A low teaser rate predisposes an ARM to sustain above-average payment increases.”
— From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the gamblers who lost are asking the government to bail them out, using money provided by taxpayers, many of whom did NOT bet the "farm" but, rather, lived within their means, either with a fixed-rate mortgage or by renting, both of which alternatives are much more amenable to long term budgeting. These pitiable ARM losers are not properly viewed as those who have lost their home, however, but those who have lost their wager. Now they must do what every other person who can no longer afford to stay in his residence must do — move.
Perhaps this sounds harsh to all the bleeding-heart liberals who want a nanny government to nurture them from cradle to grave. But a nanny government comes with a price too — loss of liberty to live as you please within the law. Because, if you want your government to take care of you, the government will restrict what you can and can not do, just as your parents did when they were taking care of you. Is this a life for an adult American to aspire to? Our founding fathers would have been horrified.
The most amusing part of all this for me is the tendency to call these folks "homeowners".
ReplyDeleteLook, if I get a 0% down mortgage and make a dozen or two payments, my equity interest in the home is basically 0%. Contractually, the bank owns the house and I'm paying rent.
So I suggest leaving the keys in the mailbox and going back to renting with a less onerous and more easily negotiated lease.
Of course, Barney Frank disagrees and insists on conjuring up some free equity for the debtor by fleecing the lender.
That's bound to open the lending spigots, for sure.
Of course you are right, Apostate. I have also observed (as I am sure any rational person could, upon reflection) that a zero-down mortgagor is indistinguishable from a renter. I am a renter and I have also been a fixed-rate mortgagor before my retirement. If my rent ever exceeds my budget, my plan is to move to an apartment I can afford. I do not plan to pose as a poor senior citizen who has lost his "home". I am sick of such disgusting un-American bullshit.
ReplyDelete