I don't think the poor can handle much more of Bush's assistance.

Perhaps Bush thinks that by increasing the number of poor people by over-burdening the middle class, that...

Okay, I have no idea what he's thinking.

the "victim" in your linked story could have saved herself from harm by asking one simple question: "Does this payment amount include my taxes and insurance?" and another: "Will my payment ever increase, or is it fixed?"

You may be economically disadvantaged, but you still have a responsibility to know what the hell it is you are buying...

I would, however agree that unearned corporate welfare (bailouts) is as harmful handouts to individuals.

you still have a responsibility to know what the hell it is you are buying...

Son, you're grandmother needs to give you a swift kick in the ass. Yesterday on NPR a reporter gave a high-powered D.C. attorney one of these contracts. They gave him three days to determine how his payments would be structured over the course of the loan. He got it completely wrong.

One thing I learned in the story is that the Fed is entrusted with promulgating the Truth in Lending Act, which it has completely failed to do. So not only was that grievous little Randian troll Allen Greenspan pimping adjustable-rate mortgages (I wonder what the kickback was there?), he was failing to enforce the law that would have made it possible for people to avoid these cons.

Absolutely there are crooked lenders out there.

And this is acceptable, um, why?

Does "truth in lending" ring any bells?

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

when did caveat emptor stop applying?

It stops applying when the lender misrepresents what they're selling, and makes the disclosure so convoluted that high-priced D.C. attorneys (which she obviously couldn't afford) can't unravel it, much less the poor and elderly. The law requires that the disclosure be clear as well as complete.

This case isn't analogous to someone being talked into a pricier car or upsold options they can't afford. She believed, reasonably, that refinancing would get her a lower rate, just like millions of others. That was the entire purpose of the transaction. The mortgage broker knew that wasn't the case. That's fraud.

Son.

That sure was a funny way of "asking." Regardless, my apologies.

Why is it such a bad thing to exclude taxes and insurance from escrow? The article makes it sound like that's such a huge deal. I actually had to pay $375 to "settle" my escrow account so that I could pay insurance and taxes apart from escrow. That way, I earn the interest on the $ that goes into the bank, and I get the discount for paying early, not the escrow agency.

Now, it could very well be that this particular buyer isn't disciplined enough to pay like that, and I agree that some of the predatory lending practices going on out there are reprehensible, but not rolling these costs into escrow isn't one of them.

I think the idea of taxes and insurance in escrow is to protect the lender, who has taken on a pretty big liability. If the taxes don't get paid, they end up having to go buy their property back at auction. If it burns down and the owner has let the insurance lapse, they are out a huge bundle. Also, I thought they had to pay you interest on escrow accounts? (Maybe I'm mistaken on that...)

P.S. In this case, the way I read it is that they "reduced" this woman's payment by leaving it out and failing to mention that part.

Edens got banned?

"Son" is an insult?