In Canada, If you are refinancing your mortgage and you have enough equity accumulated, you can consolidate other debts into your mortgage. However, if you are purchasing a home, you cannot roll other debts into your mortgage unless you get a 5% cash-back mortgage to pay off other debts. Call me to discuss. James Shinners. Mortgage Managers. www.mortgagemanagers.ca 1-877-996-6677.

Powered by

On the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good. i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could ti really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so whatbdo you think?

Yes it looks that easy to me but then the Politicians couldn't get up and beat their chests and claim they made all their buddies lots of money.

Powered by

Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following three steps: common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.

No one was victimized by bad sub prime loans. People always need someone to blame. Start with yourself. you should know what you can and cannot afford. I think this idea is a fine one. As for those whining about "my rate is high, why should someone else get a better deal" grow up. This isn't about you on an individual level, this is about what is best for America, not the individual person. If everyone would pay their bills on time, they wouldn't need sub-prime loans. The "people" wanted more equality, for the banks to be more fair. Personally, if the government continues to bail people out, then people will never learn to live within their means!

Powered by

On the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good? i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could it really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so what do you think? here is the link to the site: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_b ailout/index.html

I like it it seems well thought out instead of what is going on now it seems like someone just pulled a figure of 700 bil out of their a** and decided that is what we will need

Powered by

I am asking the same question yet again because i an honestly looking for more feedback. i have received some that i like, but so much is based on emotions and not facts. how about some facts! i do not like the idea of giving a hand out to anyone. but lets face facts-there is going to be some type of program passed-congress just can't pass it up. they love doing this stuff! if i have to have a bill forced on me, this is the idea i like best so far. on the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good? i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could it really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so what do you think? oops-i forgot the link! look under common sense fix: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_b ailout/index.html

I love Dave Ramsey. Anyone that hasn't heard him speak or taken a look at his plans for financial success should do so immediately. I had not heard this plan of his but I love it. I keep saying something needs to be done but this bailout isn't it. His plan sounds effective and much more economical. I wish congress would look at this instead of adding even more things to bankrupt the country. Just sent the plan to my Senators and Representative. Doubt they will look at it but one can only hope.

Powered by

I will try to make this as brief and clear as possible. in august of 2005, my wife and i went to a mobile home dealer and looked at a mobile home. i will refer to it as mobile home a. the cost of the home was $69k. we filled out a credit application and signed a contract to buy mobile home a. the sales contract specified we were buying mobile home a for $69k. we got approved for a loan in the amount of $84k. i put a down payment on mobile home a, but on the reciept it did not show what the reciept was for, it just stated "for down payment". the mortgage company said we had to borrow the whole $84k or be switched into another home [or so we were told by the salesguy]. i told them i did not want to take on an $84k mortgage and wanted my money back. the dealership said we could have mobile home b [a smaller version of a] for $49k and it would only require us to borrow $10k for land. [did i mention we were first time homebuyers?} so, the sales guy told me he had re-submitted a credit app with mobile home b on it [without my signature] and got us approved for that house and we needed to go find a $10k piece of land. again no contract to buy home b, nor my signature on anything to do with b. so, i went and found an acre of land for $10k to be rolled into the mortgage for a total of $59k. then on december 2nd of 2005, the supposed owner of the dealership came to the landsite and told us he had spoken with the city and the mortgage company and due to the size of the home [24x48] the bank would not finance it and the city wouldn't allow a "small" doublewide due to zoning [which was bull]. the "owner" of the dealership said we had to switch into a larger home. the owner of the delaer said he had just gotten in a 2006 fleetwood 28x60 that the bank would finance and the city would go for and he would let us have it for $49k even though it listed for $55k. fleetwood will be referred to as home c. so, we were in a corner,for reasons that will take too long we took the house. again we [my wife and i] never signed a new credit ap,nor was one submitted, nor did we sign a sales contract on home c [the one they delivered]. at closing, i noticed that the mortgage was made out on home a's price, and had home b's vin , so told them i wouldn't sign until my lawyer came to help us. the closing agent said she had called the bank and the bank told her to "white-out" home b's vin and put in home c. on several pages, the mortgage is made partially on home a,b and a partial vin on home c. the closer said if we didn't sign it, we would lose our downpayment, our credit would be ruined and the bank would immidiately call in the loan and they denied us having our attorney present and the dealer picked the closing place and picked the home insurance [which he was the agent]. big problem- in 3 years this house has never had a title issued [per state records], never had a lien on it [per state records and the bank is wanting to take possession of the house [foreclose] bc [as i have told them repeatedly] they don't know where to appy payments as there are 3 homes on the mortgage.i talked the bank into a short sale - problem title insurance could not be written bc of the scew up-s on the mortgage. i had to give the vin to our home to the bank, and the buyer [who backed out] and they foreclosed on the correct house but- the state says there has never been a lien on this house. i even took the vin to my bank, and they say it shows up with no liens. i hired an attorney. the land desciption is correct. the bank said in court they were going to give us the house [c] if we moved it but that they "foreclosed" on the right home, so they aren't going to do anything now. my lawyer has gotten a continuance, but is stumped. if there never was a proper lien,nor title, nor sales contract and the mortgage was obviously tampered with [changed] at closing- does the foreclosure over rule the fact that the bank never had a proper lien ? even they admitted it. or does the foreclosure over ride it , even though the house coulldn't be [and can't bc of the screw ups on the mortgage] sold? it all boils down to we got approved for home a, the mortgage states we own home b [in places] with home a's price, and it partially has home c's vin, but never was a lien, nor title put on home c. anyone with case law or statutes? please help. also, fleetwood voided the warranty on the house 3months after we took delivery bc they showed the house was still in inventory, and the house was manufactured 2months after the date on the reciept for the downpayment. the dealer went out of business the first time we tried to sue, also. plese don't send in derrogatory comments. this shouldn't happen to anyone. thank you. i did take everything to the state attorney general's office-- he said he knew the owner personally and he "would never have commited such a crime" <--atty gen.'s words in writing. just need to know if the mortgage is valid without a proper lien on the home and bc the mortgage was altered. thanks

take all this information to your state attorney general and file a complaint against all parties. hopefully somebody goes to jail.

Powered by

I'll try and be as brief as possible with the history, the only way to get the time of day from anybody: - my wife, son, and i used to pay my mom $500 / month (at this time, more than 1/2 the monthly mortgage) for a tiny bedroom while i restore my credit. - i paid off all my debts and begin to restore my credit. - i co-signed on my mom's refinance mortgage to help my struggling mom get a lower monthly payment, and to help me restore my credit. she rolls her property tax and homeowners insurance into this mortgage payment. monthly cost: $1600. she makes (which i didn't know at the time) $1800 + $500 from me. - mom still can't afford her mortgage, so my wife, son and i are kicked out so she can prep the house for the market. we offer to pay more, she declines. she stops paying the mortgage, and rolls the payments back into the mortgage. - months go by, house looks exactly the same and it's not up for sale. - my mother has bad surgery by a shady doctor, begins malpractice proceedings, misses a lot of work, and is in a lot of pain. - my brother, a graduate of purdue who works full time, still lives at the house rent free. - my credit score drops below 600 for the first time ever. - i contact a lawyer to find out what option i have to save my credit. lawyer says to sue her and force a short sale. - i tell mom she must sell the house now, and "f" how it looks. mom initiates workout program with the bank instead. - bank offers to drop payment by $700 per month. when i originally signed, it was $1600 per month. it jumped to $2100 after all of the missed rolled into it. the workout will bring it to $1400 per month. she can't afford that. - my wife and i offer to move back in and pay more than 1/2 the mortgage. she declines, saying (get this), "i can't kick your brother out!" she wants to stay in the house until april, hoping the market will come back up. i know she can't afford it, the market sure as hell will not recover by april (ha!), and the only way she can get the workout is if i sign by wednesday. should i sign, should i force action by not signing, and/or sue her to sell the house? i don't want my credit to be destroyed. we're a young family. if it goes to foreclosure, i won't be able to get credit for a house until i'm 40 and i won't be able to pay those loans back before i retire. i'm completely pissed that she has destroyed my life financially and she continues to give my brother (whom i love) a free ride.

this is your credit we are talking about and on top of that you co signed with her.....you have rights Sell the house and your brother graduated from college he needs to leave that house and be an adult.