http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* "A good illegal alien is a dead illegal alien". Cannot be disputed. - 5
messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7bb25151da20dba3?hl=en
* Is it fraud or thinking ahead? - 14 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e2dd240757c24097?hl=en
* Is Buying A Hybrid Really Smart?? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbeb9906bdd8972d?hl=en
* Using laptop as full time "desktop"? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9a2018c122b61360?hl=en
* Please assist me, we both will benefit - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/46818ca865f770bb?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "A good illegal alien is a dead illegal alien". Cannot be disputed.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7bb25151da20dba3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 1:26 pm
From: trijcomm
On Mar 11, 2:53 pm, Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Never forget, never forgive those who have failed to protect American
> citizens from the invasion.
> Estimates range from 3 to 5,000 Americans killed last year by
> homicides and drunken illegal
> alien drivers.
>
> ted
>
> http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance
Doesn't that mean that American citizens are a bigger threat since
more citizens are involved than illegals?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:01 pm
From: NiGHTS
Ted wrote:
> Never forget, never forgive those who have failed to protect American
> citizens from the invasion.
> Estimates range from 3 to 5,000 Americans killed last year by
> homicides and drunken illegal
> alien drivers.
>
> ted
>
> http://www.amren.com/
American Renaissance
What's Superman's US Citizenship status?
--
NiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo]
I feel asleep!
"If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he fuck up on you?"
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:22 pm
From: "Patriot Games"
"Ted" <tedorn44@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e0e7e9b-8a55-4f8b-8945-93d5c66bfd78@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Never forget, never forgive those who have failed to protect American
> citizens from the invasion.
Here's who voted FOR or AGAINST Criminal Beaner Amnesty:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through
Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of
the Senate.
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 )
Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and
for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 53
Not Voting 1
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---46
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:24 pm
From: "Patriot Games"
"NiGHTS" <nightsintodreamsYOHOLMES@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63oa9pF25upilU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ted wrote:
>> Never forget, never forgive those who have failed to protect American
>> citizens from the invasion.
>> Estimates range from 3 to 5,000 Americans killed last year by
>> homicides and drunken illegal
>> alien drivers.
>> http://www.amren.com/
American Renaissance
> What's Superman's US Citizenship status?
> NiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo]
> I feel asleep!
> "If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he fuck up on you?"
Shut the fuck up Limey!
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 4:31 pm
From: "F~A~R~V~A: Cowboy in the Jungle"
iawtp
--
>>> _
>>> /'_/)
>>> ,/_ /
>>> / /
>>> /'_'/' '/'__'7,
>>> /'/ / / /" /_\
>>> ('( ' /' ')
>>> \ /
>>> '\' _.7'
>>> \ (
>>> \ \
"Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
---Scott Hall
#1 ranked poster in RSPW history....
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is it fraud or thinking ahead?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e2dd240757c24097?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 1:41 pm
From: George Grapman
Seerialmom wrote:
> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
If the foreclosure and ensuing sale does not cover the amount owed on
the house the lender can go after other assets such as the new house.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 1:48 pm
From: Al Bundy
On Mar 11, 2:37 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
There are some programs where certain lenders are allowing "deed in
lieu of foreclosure" as a way to speed up the lengthly process of
taking the property and selling it. The person in question may feel
they will be accepted for this program. I believe they would need to
also lie about their finances to qualify for such a program. I wish
them bad luck. My sense is the mortgage company will come after them
for the deficiency.
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote
> Seerialmom wrote
>> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a new house (not brand new..but newer than where
>> they are now). When asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to rent it out; this person
>> disclosed that they were still current on the house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
>> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit
>> rating for the next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
>> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
>> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
> If the foreclosure and ensuing sale does not cover the amount owed on the house the lender can go after other assets
> such as the new house.
But it isnt hard to have the new house in someone else's name in some situations.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:08 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Mar 11, 1:25 pm, <h> wrote:
> "Seerialmom" <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0c06e12-f44d-4d78-a84f-a083ae19437b@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> > new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> > asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> > rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> > house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> > house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> > foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> > next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> > planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> > unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>
> Sounds bogus. How would they have qualified for a new mortgage without
> selling the old house? If they have sufficiently decent credit to qualify
> for a new mortgage, why wouldn't they sell the old house and pocket the
> profit? Even if they owe more than the old house is worth, the bank will
> require some sort of downpayment. I sense either a tall tale or someone who
> will be very disappointed at their closing, when the bank refuses to cough
> up the money. The only way this makes sense is if they have enough money to
> afford both mortgages AND the old house is worth less than they owe. Then
> they are just being sleezy by walking away from the old one, but at least
> their credit will be ruined.
Supposedly "on paper" they make enough to qualify for a second house
(if you don't count things like childcare expenses for example). As
for selling the 1st house; the explanation was that they had bought at
the top of the market but houses are selling for much less in that
area; they'd be underwater. No profit at all. But your last sentence
is close to what was said; they are qualifying for the new house
before they were in arrears on the old one.
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:09 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Mar 11, 1:41 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Seerialmom wrote:
> > Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> > new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> > asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> > rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> > house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> > house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> > foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> > next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> > planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> > unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>
> If the foreclosure and ensuing sale does not cover the amount owed on
> the house the lender can go after other assets such as the new house.
That's one of the things I was wondering about myself; whether they
could recoup from other properties.
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into
> a new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now).
> When asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going
> to rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into foreclosure.
> Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the next 7 years....
> I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart planning on their part
It can be if you're upside down on the original house.
> or just outright fraud?
Corse it is if the foreclosure is deliberate.
> At the least maybe unethical?
Corse it is.
> Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
Yes, its one way of operating when you're upside down on the original mortgage.
With the obvious downside of the big turd in your credit rating etc.
Thats not neccesarily a major problem for some, particularly when they can
move into the new house before letting the original one go into foreclosure.
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:12 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Mar 11, 1:48 pm, Al Bundy <MSfort...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:37 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> > new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> > asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> > rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> > house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> > house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> > foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> > next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> > planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> > unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>
> There are some programs where certain lenders are allowing "deed in
> lieu of foreclosure" as a way to speed up the lengthly process of
> taking the property and selling it. The person in question may feel
> they will be accepted for this program. I believe they would need to
> also lie about their finances to qualify for such a program. I wish
> them bad luck. My sense is the mortgage company will come after them
> for the deficiency.
Believe me...I was pretty shocked that they had this plan at all.
Sort of reminds me of the people who rack up credit card charges for
trips and luxury items...and then go bankrupt. However they did say
that the lenders wouldn't even talk to them about refinancing because
the value was lower than what they owe..and because they were
"current" on the payments, so the old house is stuck with an ARM that
keeps adjusting.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
h wrote
> Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a new house (not brand new..but newer than where
>> they are now). When asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to rent it out; this person
>> disclosed that they were still current on the house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
>> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit
>> rating for the next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
>> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
>> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
> Sounds bogus.
We'll see...
> How would they have qualified for a new mortgage without selling the old house?
Same way those who choose to rent out the original house do.
> If they have sufficiently decent credit to qualify for a new mortgage, why wouldn't they sell the old house and pocket
> the profit?
There may not be any profit available if they are upside down on that first mortgage.
> Even if they owe more than the old house is worth,
> the bank will require some sort of downpayment.
It may be quite feasible to provide that.
> I sense either a tall tale or someone who will be very disappointed at their closing, when the bank refuses to cough
> up the money.
Or someone who is upside down on the first mortgage and who is getting out from under that.
> The only way this makes sense is if they have enough money to afford both mortgages AND the old house is worth less
> than they owe.
And thats the most likely possibility given that the market has sagged considerably.
> Then they are just being sleezy by walking away from the old one, but at least their credit will be ruined.
They may not care if they can get the mortgage on the new one before defaulting on the first one.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 1:41 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Seerialmom wrote:
>>> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
>>> new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
>>> asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
>>> rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on
>>> the house payment where they are now....but once they move into the
>>> other house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
>>> foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for
>>> the next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
>>> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
>>> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>>
>> If the foreclosure and ensuing sale does not cover the amount owed on
>> the house the lender can go after other assets such as the new house.
>
> That's one of the things I was wondering about myself; whether they
> could recoup from other properties.
They cant if you are careful with ownership, like for example
having the new house in one of the adult kid's names etc.
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:37 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Mar 11, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into
> > a new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now).
> > When asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going
> > to rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> > house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> > house they're buying the old house would eventually go into foreclosure.
> > Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the next 7 years....
> > I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart planning on their part
>
> It can be if you're upside down on the original house.
>
> > or just outright fraud?
>
> Corse it is if the foreclosure is deliberate.
>
> > At the least maybe unethical?
>
> Corse it is.
>
> > Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>
> Yes, its one way of operating when you're upside down on the original mortgage.
>
> With the obvious downside of the big turd in your credit rating etc.
>
> Thats not neccesarily a major problem for some, particularly when they can
> move into the new house before letting the original one go into foreclosure.
That's pretty much the plan from what I understand.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:45 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into
>>> a new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now).
>>> When asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going
>>> to rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current
>>> on the house payment where they are now....but once they move into
>>> the other house they're buying the old house would eventually go
>>> into foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating
>>> for the next 7 years.... I'm still trying to figure out if this was
>>> smart planning on their part
>> It can be if you're upside down on the original house.
>>> or just outright fraud?
>> Corse it is if the foreclosure is deliberate.
>>> At the least maybe unethical?
>> Corse it is.
>>> Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>> Yes, its one way of operating when you're upside down on the original mortgage.
>> With the obvious downside of the big turd in your credit rating etc.
>> Thats not neccesarily a major problem for some, particularly when
>> they can move into the new house before letting the original one go
>> into foreclosure.
> That's pretty much the plan from what I understand.
Yeah, I can see why some do that, particularly when the market
has turned down substantially and they are on an ARM etc.
Clearly unethical, but then plenty of banks are that in spades and bankruptcy is that as well.
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:00 pm
From: George Grapman
Seerialmom wrote:
> On Mar 11, 1:48 pm, Al Bundy <MSfort...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:37 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
>>> new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
>>> asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
>>> rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
>>> house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
>>> house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
>>> foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
>>> next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
>>> planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
>>> unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>> There are some programs where certain lenders are allowing "deed in
>> lieu of foreclosure" as a way to speed up the lengthly process of
>> taking the property and selling it. The person in question may feel
>> they will be accepted for this program. I believe they would need to
>> also lie about their finances to qualify for such a program. I wish
>> them bad luck. My sense is the mortgage company will come after them
>> for the deficiency.
>
> Believe me...I was pretty shocked that they had this plan at all.
> Sort of reminds me of the people who rack up credit card charges for
> trips and luxury items...and then go bankrupt. However they did say
> that the lenders wouldn't even talk to them about refinancing because
> the value was lower than what they owe..and because they were
> "current" on the payments, so the old house is stuck with an ARM that
> keeps adjusting.
I knew someone many years ago who knew he was being terminated from
his job in a few weeks. His plan was to run his cards up to the limit
and then file for bankruptcy. One of the creditors checked with what had
become his former employer and they volunteered the fact that the
company had given him 45 days notice that his contract was not being
renewed. The creditor informed him that running up a debt when you know
that you will not be able to repay it constitutes fraud.
He wound up marrying an obnoxious ,demanding woman whose family
happened to have money and paid off his debts. I saw him a few years
after the wedding and what had been a happy go lucky person had become a
silent defeated man.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:04 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT), Seerialmom
<seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
>new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
>asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
>rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
>house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
>house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
>foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
>next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
>planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
>unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
You continued on to say they had an ARM that the bank was not willing
to renegotiate, which is a very important part to have left out.
What you are seeing is called hardball.
The owners tried to negotiate their way out of a mortgage that was
going to be increasingly bad for them, with the house upside down AND
the bank wanting to charge more interest.
Since they approached the bank, and the bank refused to accomodate
them, they then took the clause in the mortgage contract that
ORDINARILY works only to the advantage of the lender - foreclosure.
In foreclosure, the collateral of the home usually has enough equity
that the bank or lender does not lose a dime, and sometimes actually
gains money. Heck, I did that on a mortgage that I held. The people
walked away, I took back the house, and resold it for close to twice
the amount they had paid, and only had a years worth of missed
payments to eat. If the next buyer had repeated that performance
again, while the market was still going up, I would have been elated.
Now, when the house is upside down, the bank or lender takes a hit
when it has to foreclose. If I had held the paper, I would have seen
the writing on the wall and been as accomodating as possible to avoid
having to foreclose. I'd even have forgone interest payments for a
year if I had to, just to keep the owner in the house to keep it safe,
and to have some income coming in.
If both parties signed the documents in good faith, and the collateral
for the loan was only the property, then all the buyer is doing is
exercising a little used clause of the document. The fact that it
dings their credit and makes the bank eat the loss is beside the
point. It fits the legality of the document they both agreed to.
I'll finish the thought out after this sidebar:
If you think this is odd, you ought to be privey to some of the tenant
landlord negotiations and shenanigans in shopping centers.
A few years ago, motion picture exhibitors were going bankrupt by the
bucketload. In order to secure positions in major shopping centers,
the landlords had increasingly required rents that were far above the
grossing potential of the theatres. The companies went along, having
the older theatres support the new ones, until a breaking point was
reached. At that time, they went into bankruptcy and forced the
landlords to rewrite the lease terms or lose them entirely. All of
this was seen as just business as usual by all parties. It was, after
all, the free marketplace in action, warts and all.
Similarly, the homeowner simply leveraged his position, and when the
bank played hardball by refusing to negotiate, he played hardball
back.
Remember back in the old days when if Gramma Jones was a little short
for grocery money until the crop came in? The smart store owner would
cut her a little slack and give her some credit. A lot of businesses
have lost that concept, so they reap the empty field instead of the
crop that eventually comes in.
Now to continue the thought from before:
There is a minor sleaze factor, but in most cases those ARMs were sold
to people who didn't have a rats ass chance of ever meeting the bump
in rates, and the lenders knew it. The deception was on the part of
the lenders, and the buyers were too caught up in the game to
recognize the downside. What some folks don't think about in all
these foreclsures is that the lenders were banking on the idea that
the borrowers would have to bail out because of the ARMs _WHILE THE
MARKET WAS STILL GOING UP_
The ARMs were DESIGNED for people to have to dump them. Unfortunately
for the lenders, the dump is happening while the market has tanked,
and each foreclosure is dragging the market lower. The lenders are
only getting back what they tried to foist on their customers.
Welcome to Capitalism 101.
Sleaze factor? If I were the homeowner, I wouldn't worry about it.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:34 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Mar 11, 3:04 pm, hchick...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT), Seerialmom
>
> <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Ok...so yesterday someone I know said their family was moving into a
> >new house (not brand new..but newer than where they are now). When
> >asked if they had sold their current house or if they were going to
> >rent it out; this person disclosed that they were still current on the
> >house payment where they are now....but once they move into the other
> >house they're buying the old house would eventually go into
> >foreclosure. Aside from the major "ding" on the credit rating for the
> >next 7 years....I'm still trying to figure out if this was smart
> >planning on their part or just outright fraud? At the least maybe
> >unethical? Just curious if anyone had heard of doing this before?
>
> You continued on to say they had an ARM that the bank was not willing
> to renegotiate, which is a very important part to have left out.
>
> What you are seeing is called hardball.
>
> The owners tried to negotiate their way out of a mortgage that was
> going to be increasingly bad for them, with the house upside down AND
> the bank wanting to charge more interest.
>
> Since they approached the bank, and the bank refused to accomodate
> them, they then took the clause in the mortgage contract that
> ORDINARILY works only to the advantage of the lender - foreclosure.
> In foreclosure, the collateral of the home usually has enough equity
> that the bank or lender does not lose a dime, and sometimes actually
> gains money. Heck, I did that on a mortgage that I held. The people
> walked away, I took back the house, and resold it for close to twice
> the amount they had paid, and only had a years worth of missed
> payments to eat. If the next buyer had repeated that performance
> again, while the market was still going up, I would have been elated.
>
> Now, when the house is upside down, the bank or lender takes a hit
> when it has to foreclose. If I had held the paper, I would have seen
> the writing on the wall and been as accomodating as possible to avoid
> having to foreclose. I'd even have forgone interest payments for a
> year if I had to, just to keep the owner in the house to keep it safe,
> and to have some income coming in.
>
> If both parties signed the documents in good faith, and the collateral
> for the loan was only the property, then all the buyer is doing is
> exercising a little used clause of the document. The fact that it
> dings their credit and makes the bank eat the loss is beside the
> point. It fits the legality of the document they both agreed to.
> I'll finish the thought out after this sidebar:
>
> If you think this is odd, you ought to be privey to some of the tenant
> landlord negotiations and shenanigans in shopping centers.
>
> A few years ago, motion picture exhibitors were going bankrupt by the
> bucketload. In order to secure positions in major shopping centers,
> the landlords had increasingly required rents that were far above the
> grossing potential of the theatres. The companies went along, having
> the older theatres support the new ones, until a breaking point was
> reached. At that time, they went into bankruptcy and forced the
> landlords to rewrite the lease terms or lose them entirely. All of
> this was seen as just business as usual by all parties. It was, after
> all, the free marketplace in action, warts and all.
>
> Similarly, the homeowner simply leveraged his position, and when the
> bank played hardball by refusing to negotiate, he played hardball
> back.
>
> Remember back in the old days when if Gramma Jones was a little short
> for grocery money until the crop came in? The smart store owner would
> cut her a little slack and give her some credit. A lot of businesses
> have lost that concept, so they reap the empty field instead of the
> crop that eventually comes in.
>
> Now to continue the thought from before:
> There is a minor sleaze factor, but in most cases those ARMs were sold
> to people who didn't have a rats ass chance of ever meeting the bump
> in rates, and the lenders knew it. The deception was on the part of
> the lenders, and the buyers were too caught up in the game to
> recognize the downside. What some folks don't think about in all
> these foreclsures is that the lenders were banking on the idea that
> the borrowers would have to bail out because of the ARMs _WHILE THE
> MARKET WAS STILL GOING UP_
>
> The ARMs were DESIGNED for people to have to dump them. Unfortunately
> for the lenders, the dump is happening while the market has tanked,
> and each foreclosure is dragging the market lower. The lenders are
> only getting back what they tried to foist on their customers.
> Welcome to Capitalism 101.
>
> Sleaze factor? If I were the homeowner, I wouldn't worry about it.
Good explanation. I don't think they're concerned at all and I guess
the "bright side" is that someone else was able to sell a house? In
other words, they didn't just walk completely away from home ownership
and perhaps the old house will go to a first time buyer who is smart
enough to get a fixed rate. Who knows...maybe it'll go into one of
those "auction" houses we hear about and get sold for the same owed.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Buying A Hybrid Really Smart??
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbeb9906bdd8972d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 1:57 pm
From: barbie gee
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Dennis wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:42:10 -0500, barbie gee
> <barbie.gee@NOSESPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>>
>>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Even so, the Prius does not get its energy entirely from gas. You are
>>>> simply wrong on that statement. A good deal of the battery recharging on a
>>>> Prius comes from what Toyota calls "regenerative braking" which takes
>>>> kinetic energy that would have been wasted from the brakes and uses it to
>>>> recharge the battery. Its quite ingenious.
>>>
>>> Just to be technical, the kinetic energy from the moving car was
>>> provided by the gas engine. This means that all the energy came
>>> from gas to start with.
>>
>> even when it's running in battery only mode?
>
> Yes, even when it's running in battery only mode. The energy in the
> battery came from the gasoline fuel, by way of the engine and
> alternator.
>
>> this starts to look like a bit of hair-splitting, dontcha think?
>
> Not at all. Where else would it come from? Does the Prius convert
> sunlight or windpower? No. Every joule of energy used by the Prius
> comes from the gasoline put in the tank.
>
> Now, if you do want to split hairs, you could claim that the initial
> charge in the battery when it was installed was not produced by the
> gasoline in the tank... ;-)
that's exactly what I was thinking!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 4:17 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:09:11 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
> Now, I wonder about using some other engine. Stirlings could make an
>efficient battery charger. That would require a larger battery as you
>would be running primarily off the electric motor, but I suspect that
>the mileage could be very good. Now, I don't expect anything like this
>in the near future, but I suspect in 25 years stirling hybrids and
>plugins will be common.
>
If gasoline energy becomes much more expensive than NG/coal/nuke
electricity - per mile - I suspect all-electric plugins will become
common very quickly thereafter.
That's where we're headed.
--Vic
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 3:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:09:11 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Now, I wonder about using some other engine. Stirlings could make
>> an efficient battery charger. That would require a larger battery as
>> you would be running primarily off the electric motor, but I suspect
>> that the mileage could be very good. Now, I don't expect anything
>> like this in the near future, but I suspect in 25 years stirling
>> hybrids and plugins will be common.
> If gasoline energy becomes much more expensive than
> NG/coal/nuke electricity - per mile - I suspect all-electric
> plugins will become common very quickly thereafter.
> That's where we're headed.
Nope, we'll be using natural gas well before that.
Plenty of ours do that already, particularly taxis that almost all do that now.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Using laptop as full time "desktop"?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9a2018c122b61360?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:00 pm
From: barbie gee
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, me@privacy.net wrote:
> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> This is one reason why I continue to use a desktop at home. Once you
>> plug in an external mouse, keyboard and monitor you're pretty much
>> back at square one, and since my desktop is a mini-tower that sits on
>> the floor, it doesn't steal any workspace. Portability is nice, but
>> that's become less important to me than in the past and I can still
>> transfer critical work files on a small (and inexpensive) UBS drive or
>> by way of a network connection.
>
> My concerns above as well
>
> I'm thinking abt building a small cheap Shuttle based
> desktop
>
> Then using a N810 or PC as cheap mobile device since
> they are REALLY small
If you get a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, then you're only plugging in a
monitor. Or you could go with a docking station, and have the best of
both worlds.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please assist me, we both will benefit
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/46818ca865f770bb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 11 2008 2:48 pm
From: do phone
Are you or a loved one seeking one last moneymaking prospect: are you in
need, drowning in medical bills, or credit card debt?
Due to my own situation, I offer a partnership for mutual financial
benefit? Please visit web page below...
http://www.geocities.com/do_phone/
Wanted white male, age 30 to 40, dying of AIDS, or some other incurable
and terminal illness, [an example, AIDS or the final stages of cancer].
This is not a personal advertisement! I'm not looking for love, merely
looking for a financial partnership -- for mutual monetary benefit...
I am not seeking a romantic attachment. This is a financial
opportunity: in the form of a financial alliance, [partnership].
========== Desperately Seeking A Partner ========
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment