Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tarnished, i think not. Have ever tried to get a house loan and been turned down because the pecentages didnt make the bank think you were a safe bet. Then to have someone step forward and say i will carry that mortgage for you. Sounds Saintly to me. I have a mixed family and these brothers and sister are there for each other and they dont have 10 Million dollars like Obama. The differance is Romney is a giver and Obama is a taker.
Tarnished, i think not. Have ever tried to get a house loan and been turned down because the pecentages didnt make the bank think you were a safe bet. Then to have someone step forward and say i will carry that mortgage for you. Sounds Saintly to me. I have a mixed family and these brothers and sister are there for each other and they dont have 10 Million dollars like Obama. The differance is Romney is a giver and Obama is a taker.
It's saintly when you offer someone a mortgage on a home you don't own but not when it's Vendor Takeback Mortgage on a property with monthly expenses that you can't unload otherwise. Then it's just desperation. A VTB is always an owner's last option.
Don't think what Romney did was bad, but it was certainly not the height of generosity the OP would like to portray it as. Romney was trying to get rid of the house, the people had lived there for 5 years and obviously, to live there for that long, had a good payment history and kept the property up. His properties were under water and the banks were not loaning, so he made the only deal he could to get out from under these rental houses.
Worst case scenario for Romney was that they would default and lose their down payment and any monthly payments and he would get the house back. Not a big risk on his part, and since they have made the payments he got rid of the property (his goal) and also is still making interest on the loan.
It was a business deal. Generous would have been if he had given them an interest free loan or a greatly reduced price on the house, applying the 5 years of rent towards the price, or something else that actually cost him something. Not the case here.
Obama's brother had to borrow money from stranger to save his sons life. Obama has millions and his brother lives on 12 dollars a year. I think we can see who actually cares about people and who just talks about it.
It's saintly when you offer someone a mortgage on a home you don't own but not when it's Vendor Takeback Mortgage on a property with monthly expenses that you can't unload otherwise.
When the market fell he could of dumped that turd and took a tax right off. He didn't do what most of the investors did when Obama caused the housing crash. Face it Romney made two peoples dreams come true.
When the market fell he could of dumped that turd and took a tax right off. He didn't do what most of the investors did when Obama caused the housing crash. Face it Romney made two peoples dreams come true.
He tried to dump the house and couldn't. This was a way he could make money. Period.
BTW, how do you figure Obama caused the housing crash? First off, this was in the early '90's, and secondly, Obama wasn't in office when the housing market crashed.
I believe you are suffering from a temporal anomaly. It's common on these forums.
Because in 1994 a young lawyer named Obama sued Citibank to change housing loan qualifications so that minorities could buy houses they could not afford. Over half of these loans ended in foreclosure. So you see the housing crash which started the down turn of the economy was Obama's fault.
Because in 1994 a young lawyer named Obama sued Citibank to change housing loan qualifications so that minorities could buy houses they could not afford. Over half of these loans ended in foreclosure. So you see the housing crash which started the down turn of the economy was Obama's fault.
You might want to check out the Snopes version of that tale.
No, read the article, Mitt invested in real estate scheme that failed when housing prices collapsed and this was the only way he could get out without losing money.
Mitt bought 5 Houston houses... in a “a marvelous scheme” to help renters who could not qualify for a mortgage to eventually buy their houses, while allowing investors to write off depreciation and mortgage interest on their taxes without risking their own money: most purchases were 100-percent financed with first and second mortgages from Texas banks.
The prospectus for the investment, called the Gem Plan, played up the tax shelter benefits, saying it was structured “so that deductions are projected to be twice the amount of the cash required each year.”
The housing market collapsed and Mitt owed more on the homes than he owed. The only way out without losing money was to give a mortgage to his tenant.
It's a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage - not unusual on hard to unload properties when the owner is stuck with expenses.
Sucks when it is proven that the OP was willfully misstating what happened. Romney is no more a saint than Obama is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
