Washington
payday loans

Fill the form below

General Information

Legal status Loan AL Loan terms Finance rates Finance charges Maximum APR
✅   Allowed (Our partner lenders provide paymentsin Washington) $700 or 30% of gross monthly income, whichever is less Max: 45 days 15%: first $500; 10%: remaining portion of the loan in excess of $500 up to the $700 maximum $15 390%
*APR - Annual percentage rate
*AL - amount limit

Lenders

LoanSolo

Payday Loans up to $1,000
Online Personal Loans up to $3,000

ExtraLend

Easy Online Form
Fast and Secure

LendYou

Get a quick decision after submitting your form
Funds are deposited directly to your bank account

YourFasterPayday

Applications get approved as soon as the next business day
Funds are deposited directly to your bank accoun

MoneyForHoliday

You can have the cash you need for the holidays
Get approved fast, direct deposit

UsaNewLoan

Personal financing simplified
Speak to a trusted lender. Get your funds

YourPayday

The loans you need when you need them
You’re looking for cash to pay bills, to buy a car or maybe something else

#Tags

#bad #credit #loan #washington #cash #loans #in #state #dc #consumer #payday #fast #pay #day

Discussions we
have been found

bad credit loan washington
Ok.. i have to admit i am feeling rather stupid about this who $700 billion bailout. now i see that they are saying it's $850 billion! how is it going to help anyone -- besides padding the corporations pockets? i don't want this bill to happen -- but i feel that the american public has no control over what is happening in washington. can someone please tell me what is really going on? thanks.
Dubya is making the same bet that investors did years ago when they wrote all of the loans to poor risks. He is essentially buying the bad debts and hoping the market will rise so he can sell the assets represented by that debt and get the money back. This ONLY works IF the market recovers, which it didn't the first time around which is exactly why we got into this mess. Dubya is repeating history hoping for a different outcome the 2nd time and the taxpayer is assuming the risk of non-payment instead of the corporations that lent the money in the first place. The only people who have made any moiney are the idiots that started the ball rolling. They sold bad debts at less than fasce value to someone gambling on the person repaying the loan, but since they did NOT, ended up in foreclosure and then the houses are not able to be sold for the amount of the debt, so everyone after the first person in the chain LOSES money. Investment bankers bet on poor credit risks and lost. Dubya wants to do the same all over, by buying all of the same investments FROM the investment bankers, letting the bankers off the hook and putting the taxpayer ON the hook instead. This is like watching a replay of a videotaped football game and expecting it to end differently, in my humble opinion, of course...
Without getting too detailed basically what has happened is the banks lent money that they didn't have to lend. This happened because they are allowed to use leverage to create money. The mortgages that they held were the collateral for the money that they borrowed and lent. When the mortgages started failing then the banks had to take the collateral off the balance sheet. This meant that the banks couldn't borrow or lend anymore money. It also meant that they couldn't meet their obligations. The bailout plan is simple. Because the securities and the assets are accounted for on more than one balance sheet if one company fails then the balance sheets of other companies will suffer or the companies may fail. The bail out plan will stop a "Deflator" effect. To give you an example if AIG failed then the economy would lose 125,000 jobs. This is close to the effect that 9/11 had on the economy. That is just the initial effect. AIG invested in the same securities that Lehman, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold. This would mean that the amount of credit would seriously erode. The collateral of more banks and insurance companies would disappear and more jobs would be lost. This is the Deflator effect. One thing bad happens and it causes another bad thing to happen and so on and so forth. Yes this plan will bail out corporations and some rich people will get richer, however, if we do not do it the economy will take a serious hit and more middle class jobs will be lost. The 125,000 jobs that would have been lost if AIG wasn't bailed out will be middle class jobs. If Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fail then 11,000 jobs would be lost and $12 trillion in mortgages would be in jeopardy. The FDIC is currently working to make sure that banks don't fail and further tighten the money supply. The bad part is that there are 7 more years of sub prime mortgages that can default and effect the economy. The way I see it we can bail out the country and the corporations now or we can fact the consequences for the next 10 years. $1 Trillion in the short term beats $15 trillion in the future. It is going to be taxpayer money one way or another.
Here's how it works: The Republican Party gives Big Business Tax Breaks in Congress so they can increase their profit margins and "trickle down" wealth to the lower class. The lower class experiences a tax increase for government programs. Investors in big business spend big money on the private lending sector: namely... housing.... They send their jobs overseas to India for cheaper labor... and they write loans with super tiny print and fund houses for the middle working class. The middle class loses their jobs to offshoring, gas prices rise, healthcare is unaffordable... and the "tiny print" in their loan comes back to haunt them. They can't afford their mortgage. So they take a second, and a third. Now... they are so far in debt they'll never get out. Millions of people fault on their loans. The big companies that invested in their lenders are losing money: fast. Then... stock begins to crash. Now, the same companies that were given tax cuts and breaks... are going to get subsidies paid by the middle working class taxpayers, so save their businesses so that the economy doesn't implode and we hit another depression. Its a sucky system. Its called capitalism. NOW... we HAVE TO HAVE this bailout. Most of the guys in washington agree... because if the economy fails on us... we will face MUCH more hardship than some increased tax liability. Like, skyrocketing unemployment, shrinking wages, unaffordable commodities like groceries and gas, and millions will lose their houses. The only stock that rised on monday was Campbell's soup... does that say anything? The reason everyone is fighting on capitol hill about the bailout is this: a. transparency: seeing where the money goes b. responsibility: do they pay the money back? or do we just give it to them... and hope that when they get back on top.. it will "trickle down" again? (thats dumbed down) :( sucks huh?
The money isn't exactly thrown away per se, but many would argue that it's a poor investment. To be perfectly honest with you, this is a matter that even most of congress can't comprehend because they have absolutely no insight into the world of economics, they are just acting on their basic knowhow, emotions and hearsay. If you want to understand this matter, then head down to your local library and pick up a few books on economy and marketing. It's actually quite fascinating how the economic system works.
In 1992 clinton signed a law stating more americans should have the ability to buy homes, versus rent. fnma and fmac (fannie mae and freddie mac) gave out money to banks and forced them to give loans to some poor creditworthy folks to buy those homes. the last five years have seen the worst practices of these subprime loans, with booming real estate prices, too many people buying too few properties, many people speculating to make money on flipping homes and unscrupulous congressmen taking money form fnma and fmac to keep the gravy train rolling. when the bad credit risk buyers realized they could not handle the costs of housing, heat and taxes they stopped paying the mortgages. these foreclosures resulted in record vacant and bank owned properties throughout the country, forcing prices back down. now the banks are failing all over the country as a result of bad loan portfolios, increased money withdrawals and too few dollars held to cover the losses. when it hit the big banks the government stepped in to prevent a major collapse of the financial markets. which is where we find ourselves today. billions to help keep the mess going on for a while longer.
The for dummies version of it is that the government stopped regulating banks and mortgage rates, which left the banks to get greedy and get people to sign these mortageges without a fixed rate, so the banks could make more money. They then gave out loans to people who could afford the initial payments but as the housing market started going down, the interest started going up, hence people couldn't afford their homes anymore. It will help people in the LONG run. I mean what else are they supposed to do? give it to us? Thats preposterous!
Well, if the corporations do well then more jobs are available. If more jobs are available, people get more money. If people get more money everybody wins! don't feel stupid for not knowing. It's kinda confusing. Also, if they don't bailout the corps. then the markets will go down and our whole money/stock market system will crash. Then if you have 10,000,000 dollars, it mine as well be worth 2 dollars because everything is messed. So, ya it's kind of important to bail them out because if they don't it'll effect everybody.
Ask Bush. It is his idea...along with his comrades in the financial world. The bill didn't pass the house, so no need to worry yet. We've got a month until we find out if we are going up a sh** creek without a paddle! Go to smartvoter.org to get educated about the election.
The government, in short, is trying to make it seem as if the US is not going into a depression, which we, i think, most certainly are. The bailout is just to try to keep the depression from becoming another GREAT DEPRESSION.
You work, pay taxes. Government gives your money to Wall Street. Wall Street gets to keep screwing us and making their political buddies rich. Got it?
bad credit loan washington
Subject: From a retired Banker on the current fiasco!!! WORTH THE READ...no matter who you favor for President-- FROM A RETIRED BANKER Written by Jack Kelly Thursday, 18 September 2008 Lending money to people who probably won't pay it back isn't good Business. If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they're still crummy loans. Your typical Wal Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn't. Ostensibly to aid the poor, the Clinton administration and Congress Encouraged lenders to give mortgages to poor credit risks. The Combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers By extending loans to poor credit risks sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis. Congress in 1999 repealed the law (the Glass-Steagall Act) that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors. Wall Street created 'derivatives' which multiplied profits in good times, but which also multiplied risk if there were defaults. Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage corporation (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market. Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can't lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up. Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae. Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe. President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003 but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the New Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people. 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial Crisis,' Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. 'The more pressure there is on these Companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'
Thats the Democrat mantra, "fairness to everyone", which meant giving people a chance to have a home, regardless of whether you could pay for it or not.
A lot depends upon where you live. Calgon is actually a water softener, it's not a washing powder and Calgon is not recommended for use in soft water areas-see the link below, there's an on-line water tester which enables you to check the hardness in your area. You can get an idea of how hard your water is from the ease with which you can get a bar of soap to lather. If you can get a lather easily it's soft but if it's difficult to get it to lather and a scum is left around the sink when you let the water out, it's hard. Another way is to have a look in your kettle. If a limy deposit forms fairly quickly, it's hard. So it's not just the washing machine you're protecting, if you wash with very hard water the soap or detergent does not wash as efficiently and the clothes may not be cleaned properly. You don't have to use Calgon, but if you live in a hard water area it would be as well to use something to soften the water.
Well I am a current banker working for a firm that has taken a big hit (although is not in trouble) from this and I'll tell you this is a load of partisan nonsense. The measure Clinton signed was not to encourage loans that could not be paid back- it was to prevent profiling including race stopping eligible credit-worthy minorities being given loans. It in now way reduced the criteria for such loans. As for Bush proposing change - he was actually bragging about the increased home ownership rate that eventuated as a result. Blaming Democrats for a law passed by a Republican congress, and not overturned by a Republican congress with a Republican President is nonsense. The reforms Bush proposed in 2003 and 2004 actually would potentially have heightened the risk (for instance allowing home loans in sub-prime markets of 100% of value and subsidizing such high risk loans) The fault lies largely in irresponsible behavior by the banks and in a dramatic lack of oversight which needs to be attributed to both parties. John McCain did not by any stretch of the imagination propose a strong reform bill in 2005. The bill was written in 2005 by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (who refuses to endorse McCain and whose wife endorses Obama by the way) but it was not until May 2006 that McCain added his name to the co-sponsors list. He had no part in writing the bill. Democrats did oppose the bill - but not the concept of more oversight. They were opposed to one particular clause in the bill. The refusal of Republican senators to compromise meant the bill never made it to the floor. McCain did not speak to the bill either on the floor or in committee. To say he proposed it is pure fiction.
What insulted me about tonight's debate was when McCain was asked about the economy by a person, and he told him that it was because of "Organizations like Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac, organizations you probably never heard of" Please don't insult my intelligence, I'm a non home owner and I've heard of them. Is it just McCain's constituency thats naive on the subject?
Ok i totally am not gonna read all that, but anyway america is doomed we all know that already :l this country was built off of greed, and everyone is at fault not just one or two people
Proof that everyone is at fault. Dems Reps the people THE BANKERS!
Anyone can say anything in America and people will say *Yeah ..that is right* ...this is why National Enquirer is Number ONE
For Republicans to pretend like they had nothing to do with 'de-regulation' is like Al Qaeda pretending they had nothing to do with 9/11
bad credit loan washington
Out there in the heart land disappointed they were responsible and lived within their means? Are they disgusted they didn't spend beyond their financial capabilities and purchase a 5,000 sq. ft. home and have the government step in and adjust it's value in half and drop the interest rate to 4 percent? Is this reward for bad behavior similar to the wal street bailout? Does this send a message to us hard working citizens that we should begin ducking responsibility and begin to play the system? Then can we blame it on someone else like Washington blamed China for lending us the money in the first place?
Me and my wife have tried to live very responsibly, even so the last few years have been hard on us. She was making almost twice as much as I do, but the company she worked for went out of business last year. However, before that I was in a car wreck and shattered my left arm, and then she fell on some black ice and broke her ankle and miscarried. We accumulated quite a few medical bills. I admit I’m not as good with credit cards as she is or as I should be. I’m behind in more than one card, but my priorities have always been the house and the cars first so despite hard times we are not behind in them. Its going to take some time and some sacrifice on our part but the credit cards will get paid and we will not need a bail out to do it. I came from that ever dwindling group that was taught to take responsibility for your decisions. I see everyone with their hand out looking for the government to make it all better and I wonder what happened to the America I grew up in, and the spirit of the people that made this county the best place country on earth. The spirit of individualism, of fending for your self. There was a time in this country that accepting charity even when needed was embarrassing and taken reluctantly. Now it seams everyone that gets a little behind has their hand out and is looking for the government to bail them out. I’m seeing freedom die and the youth embracing it lost. I’m not mad, I’m sad and a bit scared because even though I am fighting against it I’m seeing my freedom being lost, nay stolen away from me in the name of the good for all. People do not choose to get terminally ill, and I would never begrudge a child a last wish. But those that are in debt chose to be in debt. They chose to use their credit cards, or get a loan for a house or a car. Foreclosures do not just happen; choices were made that brought it about. I can sympathize I can even empathize after all I’m in debt myself and having a ruff time. But I do not expect or desire to have others pay for my bad decisions. I made those decisions and I will face the consequences of those decisions. I have enough trouble of my own so why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s bad decisions. That’s what the bail outs are. Forcing tax payers to pay for some one else’s bad decisions. And the amount of money the government is spending now will be paid for not just by us but also our kids, and their kids. The only way government has money is if they take it from us first. Those that have their hands out are stealing from our and their children, and they aren’t even embarrassed about it.
NO. I don't need a pat on the back for doing the right thing,neither do I feel the need to gloat over those less fortunate.If you will look pass the media lie that has been put out there you will see,its not at all the homeowners fault,at least not every case.Do you honestly believe that 150,000,000 people ALL made the same mistake? No,that is simply not possible.Case in point,a family married 22 years,working the same job for 17 years no outstanding credit cards,has 2 years left on mortgage,a free and clear home in only 2 years payment under $500 dollars a month(you can barely rent for that) now are facing foreclosure.WHY????? Even my brain can not wrap around that but I promise it is TRUE. ANd you have no Symphony for this?? See that is what happens when we judge and judge wrongly.I feel these people need saving don't you?
Yes. We bought our home 3 years ago. We decided to only finance the amount that we would be able to afford if one of us lost our jobs. We also left room in our budget to save for a rainy day. All of this meant that we couldn't buy a newer home with a large yard. We chose a 90 year old bungalow on a small lot. The worst has happened. Our home value has dropped 53% in three years. I was the main wage-earner but my company closed. However, because of our frugal decisions, we won't have to worry about losing our home. My co-workers who earned the same salary as I did who chose to buy homes for three times as much will benefit under Obama. My taxes will fund their decisions. There is yet another benefit for them. Since their property values have went down, the government will allow them to lower the principle that they borrowed. For example, if they paid $150k and their value has dropped to $100k, their loan will be reduced (at the expense of tax payers). Then if the value goes up, they will enjoy the profits. Meanwhile, I will still be here in my little bungalow being frugal and living below our means while funding their poor decisions.
Don't be so self-centered. That's that since little Johnny with terminal cancer got to meet a celebrity through the "Make a Wish Foundation," then all healthy children shouldn't be disappointed that they are healthy and don't get to use the "Make a Wish Foundation." The housing market is at the heart of the economic crisis and it needs to be addressed in some way. If this means doing something about the massive foreclosures, so be it. These people who can't pay their bills are going through FAR more stress and problems then people who were responsible and mature from the beginning; that should be reward enough for you. But hey, if that's not enough, just drop making mortgage payments, ruin your credit history and credit score, cause all the interest rates on your credit cards to skyrocket, watch your credit limits shrink, your FICO score fall, your insurance premiums rise...shall I continue? These are all the things people who weren't responsible are suffering and you are not. You should be grateful you haven't been laid off or lost your health insurance, or both.
The people I know who are losing their houses are not irresponsible people who bought mansions. They are people who were making their way through life like everyone else when their adjustable rates doubled just as their home values dropped, precluding a refinance, or their jobs were downsized, or they had medical bills that overwhelmed them. I doubt if very many of them think they really pulled one over on the rest of us because they "got away with it" nor do they think we are suckers because we paid our bills and managed not to get laid off. If you are jealous of them, then by all means, stop paying your bills so you can enjoy their rewards. If you want to place blame, place it on the lenders who caused it in the first place with their unusual "products" and who are now refusing to lend money to anyone without a 780 credit score, or the appraisers who filled in the blank for any overpriced home 3 years ago and now are so afraid for their jobs now that they are being watched that they undervalue everything making sales or refis impossible.
bad credit loan washington
I see an obvious similarity. He says he believes in economic responsibility but he wants to spend money in a crazy way while we're in the middle of a recession. And the Democrat-run Congress was glad to spend freely as well. They obviously are not capable of fixing our failing economy since they can't be responsible with our money. If I were to find out that I'm going bankrupt, personally, I'd stop spending except for live-or-die items and start trying to get my account out of the red. The only person in Washington who is standing up for a temporary spending freeze in light of our current recession is John McCain. At least he has some financial sense...Obama said in the last debate that he'd still be spending money all over the place, once he gets into office.
Lara...at least someone else out there actually read my question...thanks. If you say McCain reminds you of Bush, prove it. Being in the same party does not mean equivalence. McCain - check his voting records - often did NOT vote the party line. They share the same party but fight over issues. McCain is FAR more fiscally conservative than Bush. His voting record shows that he believes in dealing with problems, not just throwing money at them. If you say McCain reminds you of Bush, you are just repeating your party's line. You obviously haven't done any research on voting records, so you are speaking out of ignorance. Once you do research and prove what you say, I'll listen to you.
While I will concede that Bush has been over the top with spending, that is where the similarities with Obama end. Obama scares me much more than Bush ever could. He is a socialist at best, and that is the last thing that our country needs to have in office. If he is elected he will destroy what is left of our economy with his ridiculous ideas. He wants to require people to insure their children. What the hell kind of idea is that? While I agree that it sounds good in principle it isn't practical. Anyone who has ever priced health insurance can attest to that. He and socialists / Marxists like him may think it is a great idea, but we are supposed to have the freedom to choose what is best for ourselves and out families, not the government. He wants to increase taxes. History shows that this is a bad course of action, when Herbert Hoover raised taxes in a recession it lead to the Great depression; contrary to popular belief the stock market crash was a symptom not the cause of the depression. When Jimmy Carter did the same thing it lead to mortgage rates of 21.5% and a national unemployment rate of 12 %. Not until Reagan came into office and initiated deep running tax cuts did the tide begin to change. While Obama wants to increase spending like a mad man everywhere else, he wants to slash military spending. In today's world that isn't bad judgment it's just plain stupid. If we deminish our ability to respond to threats and attacks, then we are effectively painting a big target on ourselves and saying come and attack us, we won't do anything about it! Obama want's to sit down and talk to our enemies. That sounds good at first glance too, but when you consider that he wants face to have face meetings between the president and their leaders, with no prequalifiers, it becomes a foolish idea. If the President of the United States meets with the leader of another country it gives credibility to that leader and his positions. It effectively tells the rest of the world that the United States accepts their policies at face value. Obama likes to talk about rebuilding our reputation in the world, but how will he do that by legitimising a country like Iran which supports terrorism. There is one answer to this question that says a government spending freeze will worsen the recession. That is bull, because it assumes that credit is a result of government spending. The problem exists because government pushed the lending institutions to make bad loans. Loans to people who weren't able to pay them back. None of Roosevelts "New Deal" make work plans were responsible to lifting us out of the depression. The depression was broken when WW II came about. It required huge amounts of manufacture, which meant good jobs and good incomes. The people had more to spend and this lead to more lending. Obama's plan is just another failed "New Deal". Daddy government will make it all better. A temporary spending freeze shows fiscal responsibility. So no I don't see him as the same as Bush at all once you get beyond the desire to spend too much money. He is a much more dangerous man than Bush for our country's future!
This whole credit crisis -- happened because the banks stopped lending money to each other. When the news announces that they are cutting the "fed funds" rate -- this means that the Federal Reserve is cutting the interest rate that banks charge each other when they lend each other money. When the banks lend each other money-- that allows them to loan you money (to buy cars, houses etc). So- a major part of the credit crisis is the freezing of money. If you go back into your history-- you will find that FDR instituted policies that put money into the economy. The TVA did not work for free. By putting money into the system - the country came out of the Great Depression. Freezing spending is one of the worst things the government can do. It will only make the economy lock up more and make the credit crisis worse. That's why you have not seen a bunch of economist jump on the McCain's freezing idea. That's why McCain has backed away from his position on Freezing spending in favor a 300 Billion Dollar program to purchase bad subprime loans. But even then-- that plan is getting very poor reviews. So- no- Obama is nothing like "W" and, in my humble opinion, Obama's plan is more sound. Your car's engine will lock up if it runs out of oil. The economy will lock up if it runs out of money. Money is the "oil" that keeps the gears in the economy turning. That's why the plans to get the economy going again all involve an infusion of cash.
I think, in actuality, Obama will be WORSE than Bush. During this economic crisis, not to mention the dems want to send out another stimulus package, if Obama gets into office, he's going to raise taxes during THESE times! Every economist (well, except those support BO, will tell you that when the economy is bad, the worse thing you can do is raise taxes)...and don't think it's not going to be raised in the middle class either. Bush had a lot of bad cards dealt his way. He had 9/11 and Katrina. And liberals seem to forget that..hmm...I wonder why. Even though he's spent more money moreso than a lot of Repub presidents we've had, the Dems still want more. They're never happy unless they have more for their programs. They want to see this country heading towards socialism, and in some aspects, it's already there.
Yeah, I agree. McCain actually wants a spending freeze which is very smart. My husband and I are having financial issues so we are having a "spending freeze" in our household except necessary items. That is what we need to do with our economy...and that is why McCain has my support. And yes, Obama is reminding me more of bush daily. who knew that Bush was such a freaking socialist...he just throws money at everything! Money we do not have.
"(Now Obama outsources terrorist interrogations to countries who actually torture)." Actually, that has been a common US practice for decades. Why do you think we had such close ties to Egypt's military? Whenever we had a captured suspect that wasnt giving information, we would threaten to send them to be interrogated by the Egyptians. Usually, the just the threat would get them talking but we did often send people to get tortured in nations outside of US jurisdiction. You are completely delusional if you think this is a new tactic. It was highly prevalent throughout the Cold War.
No he does not. At all. An FYI for you; A freeze does not make financial sense. You seriously need to research what that would do to the Country.
Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton.
No but Mccain does. Speaks like the dad & has the mannerisms of the son.
Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter!
Obama reminds me of what a bad job Bush has done.
bad credit loan washington
Wall Street bankers were accused of "Redlining" loans for mortgages by only giving loans to people who's credit and income assured that they could pay them back....Washington drafted the Community Redevelopment act in 1977 to stop this and they went full force with it in 1993 to make banks set aside a least a certain number of loans to lower credit scores and lower income levels and tracked them by giving banks credits towards annual CRA goals...This practice became known as drafting "Subprime" mortgages....Then in 1998 (Under Clinton) Fannie Mae and Freddie Max began securitizing these loans by cutting them up and selling them as bonds which infected the financial system...The original Community Reinvestment Act was a Democrat tool for re-election when they announced that they were going to make sure that anyone could qualify for a home loan..... This was all back in the 90's...I was offered a sub prime loan in 1998 but passed on it and went with a relatively high fixed rate loan on a condo.... Now that the roof has falllen in the writers of the Act Chris Dodd Henry Waxman and it's proponents Barney Frank...Are all on the panel that is calling the Wall Street's bankers...irresponsible predators who destroyed the economy. So when Washington is blaming Wall Street for foolish business practices...does anyone really know the back story that these Wall Street bankers didn't even want to give out these loans in the first place and they had to to reach Federal CRA mandates? HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH THIS AND HOW THE HECK ARE PEOPLE NOT PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER?
These banks would not have loaned the way they did if the government had not told them do so. ie; Fannie and Freddy. and the C.R.A. community reinvestment act. What we are seeing is the after math of what happens when the big bad government pokes its nose in the private sector. Dems cry out racism and unfairness to the "working man". Just like when they raised the tax on gasoline and then blamed the oil companies. My friends , socialism does not and has not ever worked. We will all see here shortly. Less government = Big Liberty. always has, always will.
Yes, they were greedy and thought housing prices would continue to go up. They sold the mortgages as fast as they approved them. You are talking about the 1990's here's what happened in the 2000's In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[16] In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.[36] In early 2005, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) implemented new rules that – among other changes – allowed thrifts with over $1 billion in assets to meet their CRA obligations without regard to services for, or investments in, their communities. In April 2005, a contingent of Democratic Congressmen issued a letter protesting these changes, saying they undercut the ability of the CRA to "meet the needs of low and moderate-income persons and communities".[37] The changes were also opposed by community groups concerned that it would weaken the CRA.[38] The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Controller of the Currency put a new set of regulations into effect in September 2005.[39] The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks.[10] "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, which allows these banks to opt for examination as either a small bank or a large bank.[39] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[16]
People aren't putting the pieces together because they aren't being given the information and don't care to find it themselves. They would rather believe the democrat line that its Republicans'/greedy Wall Street CEOs' fault. After this whole fiasco, Obama has the gall during his speech to say that we need, as part of the stimulus, to free up mortgage credit. Isn't that a big reason we are in this mess to begin with?
They had to make their mandates from our Politicians if you want to know the truth. Still does not make what any of them did right. I think people should stand up for what is right, even if it goes against the politician grain.
bad credit loan washington
Why do the House Republicans insist that they did not vote for the Rescue Plan because it did not protect the taxpayer enough yet their plan does exactly the opposite? They want to lower captial gains Taxes and allow banks to buy insurance instead of use the funds to add liquidity. Obviously, the reason they want to lower the Capital Gains Tax is so that all of their wealthy friends who have made a LOT of money with short positions (esentially betting on an economic crash) will have to pay less tax on those capital gains when they have to close their short position since the assistance will help stabilize the market. In other words they simply want to be able to keep MORE of their profits. How is that suporting the average, main Street "taxpayer"? The reason they want the insurance is so that the banks executives can keep their ridiculous salaries and golden parachutes. By using the insurance option they rant about, the Execs will not have to give those things up. I wish the average person would know about how the market works and will be able to see through these unAmerican manipulations.
Let me add that I do, reluctantly, support the rescue plan in its current form because it should help stabilize the market, bring liquidity back and, by doing so, lower rates and allow credit to flow freely again (which is the MAIN problem). The current plan includes provisions that have the potential to actually make all the money back and possibly even profit from the rescue plan. How can that be bad for America? Yes, it sucks we have to do it but not doing it will make the global economy falter and we simply cannot allow that to happen.
There are several reasons on this failing vote yesterday: a) The constituents of those no-voting districts only listened to the News Media's mis-leading information, believed the bail-out is for the rich people not the economy that carries America to survive b) Majority of the Congress men and women are all poorly educated and know little how the economy works c) McCain and Republican's cruel and stupid approach and political propaganda on this issue All these led to the failure of passing this bill, a historical fall on Wall Street. Yet there is no free lunch in this country. This is what are going to happen during next a few months: a) Educated voters will take their revenge to vote all the Republicans out of Washington and Americans will put Obama in White House b) The economy is moving towards a deep recession and a great depression c) More businesses will be closing down, more people will get laid off d) More home foreclosure, more homeless people on the streets, higher crime rates we have never seen, long waiting line at soup kitchens e) Higher inflation and national deficit f) No foreign nations will be willing to make a loan to US g) Banks are to reduce people's credit card spending limit I believe McCain has gambled big this time. He and his party won yesterday's vote but will loose American's trust forever. Too bad Republicans. I used to be a long time Republican supporter. But this time you Republicans had pushed me hard towards the Democrats!
All of their wealthy friends are losing their a$$es in the stock market. So, your rehearsed objections aren't very valid. Never the less, I agree that lower the Capital Gains tax is no more the solution than funneling money to Special Interest groups when these bad mortgages supposedly become profitable (the Democrat plan). The reason for insurance is to tell a bank that "the Fed has your back" if they want to go forward and start making loans again. Of course, they've been bitten, so it's not like they'll make bad loans now. I appreciate your assertion that "the average person" needs to learn more. I consider you "an average person" on this subject.
At the very least that puts the pressure on Wall Street to fix the problem and its not coming out of our pockets in a loan or social investment of our tax dollars. They were right to vote this bill down because it was a raw deal for Americans. There are better plans out there than both of these plans. Many economists believe that the freeze we are seeing right now is artificial and temporary, simply for the fact that banks are waiting to see if they can get a better deal on their bad paper from the government than they can get in the market. A market still exists for this paper. The problem is that those holding it won't admit its true value (because they are going to lose money) and those that can buy it know its true value is not what it is selling at right now and they have yet to meet in the middle on a price. The economy can fix itself. The government needs to just keep out of it. The current bill being presented (or should I say the bill that was presented) does not protect taxpayers. Sure we could make money but we could also lose it. Furthermore, it did not offer much oversight or a gurantee of what would happen with that money in the future. If we make money is it used to pay down debt or does the government just spend more that year? It does not explain stipulations of how the money would be used, it was just a blank check of $700 billion. This bill, from what I have heard, was also full of pork. It had billions of dollars going to the ACORN organization. Lastly, there was nothing in this plan that would help the homeowners. If we are going to bailout the dummies on Wall Street, wouldn't it only be fair to also bailout the dummies on Main Street? 166 of our nations top economists said this bill sucked and would not help our economy. In fact there are many that have said it would take a problem that could be solved in just a few years and would drag it out over 10 or more years...
The only unAmerican manipulation would be $700 billion dollar buyouts of bad loans by the government. A lowering of Capital gains will spur investment and is advantageous for all investors and home owners. I don't really care what the bonus structure of CEOs are as long as I'm not being asked to dole out money..
IN RESPONSE TO POLITICAL EXAM answer you gave- http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtXkx.sh9JLFphb63PPgGDfg5gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080930111208AArmFAq well when people want the president in and cant avoid the vice president from following, it may be a check on minimal awareness of politics. discrimination against unqualified candidates is "fair" discrimination. Any form of paid employment usually has these checks before applicants progress to the next stage of evaluation, especially jobs that involve a high level of responsibility and importance. You wouldn't allow a job applicant to become manager of a hospital if they had no general knowledge of procedure. That's just an example.
If this is the case we need to keep at them. This type of behavior from elected officials will not be tolerated. It is unacceptable for their to be the allowance of even one golden parachute for the crooks that did this. There was once a time when we had this great thing called capitalism and companies would rise and fall of their own merit. I urge you all to take a few minutes and think that this bail out is the equivalent to 2000 dollars for every man woman and child in the us. Voice your opinion and remind the elected officials who they work for. Contact the places below and change our history!
So far, you are the only person here I've seen who understands this.
bad credit loan washington
I had over 20% equity before the housing crash. It is gone now because of all the foreclosures caused by the sub-prime loans that THEY funded. The poeple with the subprime loans are getting rock bottom interest rates and even principal lowered. Yet I am stuck with my high interest rate because I bought a house I could afford and made my payments.
Probably not. The banks didn’t cause this problem. The government and its social engineering politicians did. Most of the sub-prime loans were made under pressure from the government and its CRA guidelines. In many cases, the banks forgave part of their principal and lowered interest rates to avoid foreclosures. If you lost your equity because of the housing bubble burst, you would have been far worse off if we had even more foreclosures. You should write your congressman and your senators to protest the social engineering engaged in by Washington. Banks don’t deliberately make bad loans, but they were given very little leeway by the government. So you and I paid a heavy price to keep unqualified buyers in their homes. Those of us who bought homes we could afford lost most or all of the equity in our homes, and as taxpayers and shareholders in the banks that held the bad loans, we absorbed much of what the banks lost. So we got a double whammy. When the government interferes in the credit markets in the interest of social engineering, we all take a hit. Many of the “homeowners” who got relief are still having trouble making their payments and will eventually lose their homes. And, with foreclosures on their records, most of them will never be able to qualify for a mortgage loan in the future. Most of our politicians are lawyers who have never taken a course in accounting, economics or finance. They don’t know what they are doing – other than buying votes for themselves. They steal our money to buy our votes. We should vote them all out in future elections.
?? What a bizarre concept. You agreed to a value for the property, as did the bank. You agreed to a certain interest rate, as did the bank. Now you want to sue THEM because they won't re-write the agreement? No, you can't. Your bank did not cause the housing crisis, people buying homes they could not afford did that.
No you cant sue the bank they have a right to refuse a loan based on any reason they want or no reason at all its their choice. And if you only lost 20% you did pretty well some people lost as much as 50%
No, you can't. You can, however, seek out another mortgage company to re-finance you. Unfortunately, the government bailed out the banks, not the homeowners....
With the economy as it is, banks aren't touching anybody. You must remember banks are private companies only regulated by the government, they call the shots
Blame Obama, Geithner, and the rest of the bailout buddies in Washington.
No.
Welcome to the world of liberal entitlement.
cash loans in washington state
It sounds like most people's homes are already owned by the bank- If my friend still owns theirs & there is still a bit of time left - also If the home sold for the amount owed plus the fee's & the amount of payments behind it would just about equal the current market price - so nothing fishy just a person getting a loan & buying a home. So why would the lenders think it not an arms length transaction when all of the details are the same as just a normal sale? Are there any lenders out there who will loan in washington state with this situation? BTW The owner is not simply a dead beat who didn't pay the bills - They actually became ill - lost their job and couldn't work - then when they were going back to work their vehicle blew up and it put them back a bit. I would appreciate actual information about this without snide comments I noticed some remarks in another post-. Also does anyone know who is in charge of lenders rules ? dept of finances? dept of commerce? I would like to approach them with this situation.. Thanks
The mother qualifies for a loan it would have to be a 2nd home or vacation or rental loan - also the mother doesn't have 22 K which is what the loan servicer thinks their fee's and the past due payments come to - the reason catching up on the payments isn't feasible is because the interest rate is 7.85 and the payments would still be too high for right now.
If the mother qualifies and is paying enough to cover all liens on the property the bank will not care if it is arms length or not. The mother will need 20% cash down and closing costs in order to obtain a loan,
If the house is worth it, why doesn't the mother just give or loan her daughter the money to get caught up on the payments? {Unless you are saying the mother is not flush with money, but could afford the terms of a 30 year loan. But ... where is the mother living now?} Probably best to let the house "go away" and start over, maybe by renting. But the people involved need to do the legwork to find a lender if they want to keep the house. Not too many lenders check out these web sites.
The bank will not sell to the mother for less than is currently owed on the property, including penalty fees, past due interest, etc. If mother is willing to pay what is owed, there is no reason that a lender would refuse her offer to do so.
Sure, but the sales price will need to be large enough to cover all the mortgages and other debt on the property. Otherwise, no.
bad credit loan washington
We force banks to lend to people with bad credit, no steady employment, AND with NO down payment! Then we deregulate the derivatives market, bundle the mortgages of people with bad credit, no steady income AND NO down payment, then we trade these bundled mortgages as derivatives. It will only take about 8 years for this collapse to happen, and people won't even realize it's happening because the economy will be good with all these homes are being built>>>>>>to sell to people with bad credit, no steady income, AND NO down payment. By the time these loans begin to collapse, many people will already have made billions of dollars trading these derivatives, so no skin off of their backs. Too bad we the taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab as these banks collapse, but hey, that's what we get for being the STUPID poor and middle class. At least that's what the powers that be in Washington seem to think. We are too stupid, you know, the poor and the middle class. We will never know what hit us because they are smarter than us. So, whose in for another round of "the poor and middle class DESERVE to have a home so you better give it to them, even if they have BAD credit, NO steady employment record, AND NO DOWN PAYMENT? Sound like a plan?
Look this stupid *** administration is already trying to bring back Sub Prime again, If you can believe that. But they sure as hell are trying to weed it back into the system.
Derivatives are already pretty unregulated. You're describing basically what happened starting in the 1970's and leading on to 2008's collapse. And to some extent, this is still happening.
The Dems beat you to it by 10 years.
Sounds like corporate socialism bro! What marxist evil clown puppet came up with this idea dude?.. Oh some gramm cracker dude with an R behind his name.
I wasn't aware you posted on YA Mr. Obama.
I think some people have already beat you to that idea.
I think someone else has already beaten you to it. I think we both know who that is
That's pretty accurate.
bad credit loan washington
Http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_o...What in the world?!?! He's trying to MAKE the people in Washington do what he says??!! Isn't this ILLEGAL?!!? Don't the people in Washington have a LEGAL RIGHT to NOT do what he says?!?! I'm not asking if what Obama is wanting is right or wrong, good or bad. I'm just asking if it's illegal, him trying to MAKE them do what he wants. WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Saturday that current financial rules exploit consumers and he put critics of his proposed overhaul on notice: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one." Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to defend his recent proposal, which is intended to prevent a repeat of the breakdown that has sent the U.S. economy reeling. But such major changes face a fight in Congress and opposition from some leaders in the banking and insurance industries. In the address, Obama focused on a consumer watchdog office that he wants to set up. "This is essential," Obama said. "For this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely on credit cards, home loans and other financial instruments." The Consumer Financial Protection Agency would take over oversight of mortgages, requiring that lenders give customers the option of "plain vanilla" plans with clear and affordable terms. "It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want and actually understand," Obama said. "Those ridiculous contracts — pages of fine print that no one can figure out — will be a thing of the past. You'll be able to compare products, with descriptions in plain language, to see what is best for you." More broadly, Obama's changes would begin to reverse the easing on federal regulations pressed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Democratic leaders in Congress are promising legislation will get passed this year, but that depends in part on how Congress answers big questions about the overhaul, including the role of the Federal Reserve. "I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," Obama said. "But what I will not accept — what I will vigorously oppose — are those who do not argue in good faith." By that, Obama said, he meant those who defend the status quo at any cost. He didn't name any people or organizations, but said special interests are already mobilizing to fight change. He called that typical Washington. "These are the interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited," Obama said. The president said he would stand up for his plans, saying: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now."
He wants to put the entire financial sector under the Fed and have the Fed only report in limited fashion to the executive branch (violating the Constitution's separation of powers which puts money and the purse under Congress) and PS the Treasury Secretary it would report to was formerly head of the NY Fed. The fed has no accountability and refuses to even answer questions about what it is doing. And what is it doing? Look at the chart at the bottom of this article for what it has done to our money supply in the last 8 months. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR...The thing is, Obama unconstitutionally AGREED to do this with foreigners in the G20 accord. READ IT, it is only 10 typed pages long. He agreed with them first, then comes to us saying it is an emergency and he is going to fight for it and it must be passed immediately because the house is on fire. Does this bother no one else? - scott b, I don't care what he is SAYING. What he is SAYING rarely has staying power over what he DOES. Look at the plan itself.
It's illegal to break the law in pursuit of such an outcome. There's no law I know of that prohibits a sitting president from twisting arms to convince reluctant actors to go along with a certain undertaking that has a positive public purpose in mind. If he crosses a line you'll hear about it, believe me. Read the article closely. This that you're upset about is not inherently illegal. buckeye
"Make people do what he wants" You mean obey the law? You mean he's introducing legislation that would hold financial lenders accountable? He's introducing legislation! For crying out loud, that's the way our system of government WORKS! "Isn't this ILLEGAL?!!? Don't the people in Washington have a LEGAL RIGHT to NOT do what he says?!?!" "I'm not asking if what Obama is wanting is right or wrong, good or bad. I'm just asking if it's illegal, him trying to MAKE them do what he wants." Where in the blue blazes did you get the idea that he's trying to "make people do what he wants? He doesn't have the ability to "make people do what he wants." He can introduce legislation, congress can vote on it, he can sign or veto whatever congress passes, and it either becomes law or is rejected. Have you taken any government classes?
I am shocked that some people think that we don't need to re-regulate the financial markets after the disaster that we have just experienced, are still experiencing and will be paying for, for several generations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Obama said.
Obama wants total control over Americans, too bad some people are still blind to this fact.
I see nowhere that is says he's going to force people to obey him or do what he wants... "I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," Obama said. "But what I will not accept — what I will vigorously oppose — are those who do not argue in good faith." TO ME, that statement right there is saying, if you don't agree come debate me but make sure you're well informed and know your facts and i'll consider it... I THINK YOU are an idiot that took this completely how you wanted.
Where in that article does it say he's trying to MAKE people do what he says??? On the contrary. I see quotes like, "I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," That sounds to ME like he's welcoming opposing viewpoints. And, "The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now." You're right on that one, though. How DARE he try to fight for responsibility!! You either have some comprehension problems, or are so blinded by hatred, you just see what you want.
Well I think we just provoked the A-Team some more. We were already in motion and this will just add fuel to the fire. Fire Congress next term, all of them.
? He is saying that the regulations need to change and he will fight to see they are fair, not just what the credit card lobbyists say they want. It's a good thing.
Obama ready for a fight? he just surrendered to north korea.
bad credit loan washington
Nixon took us off the gold standard and that didn't help, because then came inflation. Affordable Housing Act 1994: Americans started getting into debt because the banks were loaning to anyone, bad credit, no credit it didn't matter. Banks also get money off of sub-prime loans that were garbage and yet made billions off of these. Derivatives were not regulated, so banks didn't go by how much they made from the loan itself but the number of loans it loaned to consumers. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac the largest mortgage company in the US also did indiscriminate loaning to homeowners. Companies could leverage their assets to the hilt because they didn't have to monitor their loans. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994: This opened up cheap third world labor, so corporations didn't have to pay their employees as much in another country because there were no labor laws. Things could be made cheaper and American workers cost more to hire, which cost corporations more money. Businesses went out of the US as far as manufacturing, again because of the cheap labor and taxes. 9/11/01: This tragedy was also an attack on US finances, because the financial impact in the US and worldwide was steep. 53 billion dollars went through the WTC Twin Towers including having Cantor Fitzgerald the company that handled the finances for the largest business insurer in the world, Lloyds of London was destroyed, it lost 65% of it's employees and BILLIONS of dollars. After the 2nd plane hit WTC 2, NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange shut down for a week, this had not happened since WWII. The airlines were grounded for weeks, some airlines went broke, the transportation industry in the US was minimal even months after the attack. New York City alone lost over 40 billion dollars in tourism, over 11 billion dollars in liability insurance, over 10 billion in property damage alone. This also ushered in the War on Terror, which cost over 500 billion dollars. Barney Frank refusing to regulate Wall Street in saying that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were "fine" when he took over the Financial Securities Commission in 2007. A bi-partisan agreement between George W. Bush, John McCain, dems Joe Lieberman and the late Ted Kennedy was ignored by Barney Frank and the Democratic controlled congress and senate, a year later the HOUSING BUBBLE occurred. Instead of letting GM and Chrysler go under, file for bankruptcy and reorganize the Obama administration bailed out these two with 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money, in which now GM is only worth 34 billion dollars. Regulations and taxes on small businesses regarding the EPA and Obamacare are crippling small businesses. There is no accountability in Washington nor Wall Street and that's the problem.
1. Civil rights =/= good economy 2. Obama = bad economy
Jimah Cahta. The 70's. Inflation. The Malaise, we all must suffah. Ah, the aspirations of Dems.
The economy is in better shape than the 50's and 60's. The distribution of wealth is just WAY out of wack.
Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas, a greater gap between the top and bottom, less upward social mobility and mass illegal immigration are all major players.
Half the population isn't paying taxes, and everyone is on some form of government entitlement program. We are going broke. When I was born people were ashamed to have to use food stamps or admit they are on welfare. Now I wish I had food stamps and free money! No shame anymore.
Unrestrained Liberalism, comes immediately to mind.
Industrial loss, inblance of government money taking in/ spending, wars, ect.
How come the single paycheck families from back then are so rare today?
bad credit loan washington
I live in an middle class neighborhood with both retirees and young families. There is only one house under foreclosure in the neighborhood. This home was owned by a very nice, hard working family with two small children who bought this house three years ago on an ARM. They really tried to keep up the home, work every day and take care of their children who were dearly loved. For the past six months that house has set empty, the lawn is overgrown and the house sits vacant. I don't know where they went, I simply know their mtg. pmts., doubled and made it impossible for them to keep this up, pay property taxes, etc. Will the Stimulus help them. Can they move back into this house? Will they be able to purchase a new home since their credit is now ruined. This is a human face on a bad situation. Should they just quit their jobs and live on welfare, food stamps, lose their self-esteem and become a burden to the taxpayers. Those two beautiful babies and their children will have to work awfully hard to repay China, etc., to repay China, Japan, etc., which we borrow from them for a 'short time fix' that has profited them nothing.
You have just outlined the basic problem with Democrat "feel good" legislation. These unfortunate people were suckered into a loan they couldn't repay, based on the false promise of the government that the "economy couldn't possibly fail". They were, and are "dependent" on government....exactly what the Democrats want. The worst part is that the kids were uprooted, lost their home, and they will be forced to pay for that lost home because of the irresponsible people that have taken over Washington.
No this plan will not help. It is just a give away by the dems. The thing with an ARM is that you need to refi before it is up. A lot of people got caught up in this because barney frank and friends were getting kick backs from Fannie and Freddie so they had no desire to fix what was wrong. What gets me is that barney and friends refuse to take any responsibility for this. And that is just wrong. They are the ones who should be in jail.
The bank bailout of last September was supposed to stop this, but that has been ineffective so far. In a mad rush to get that passed, there was no accountability and no rules. Let's make sure the spendulus plan does something other than line the pockets of people that don't deserve this money.
No, the current bill will not help them at all. The democrats rejected 5 plans that would have put money directly into their hands. One such plan was the Gohmert tax holiday bill that would have let them keep the income and payroll taxes normally deducted from their paycheck. Here comes the change.................Welcome to assimilation into the ObamaNation
The majority of the money goes to jobless benefits and health-care. Very little will go into job creation. There are several more very expensive bailout plans coming down the pike. Get your monopoly money ready for use.
Being in the back of on your student loan in all likelihood gained't influence your rebate. The loan is with a monetary organisation, no longer the IRS. in case you get so a ways in the back of that you default on the non-public loan, then the IRS pays off the non-public loan through giving money to the monetary organisation who consists of the non-public loan. The IRS will then attempt to collect the money from you...
I don't think it will help the poor the Greedy Rich People sure
They will not get a thing. Only the Bill for this misspending bill. Get out your wallet.
Not a chance.
It won't help it is a porkulus plan.
bad credit loan washington
Fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in billions for years are now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street, of course, wants the public to believe that this "deal" is too complex for the American people to understand. That's nonsense. This is YOUR money going to Wallstreet head honchos who are walking away with literally MILLIONS in federal money for having run their respective companies into the ground while their subordinates tricked citizens into homes they knew people couldn't afford . When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's akin to check kiting, which is is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. That's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane. Further, the money isn't necessarily “borrowed”. It is created out of thin air which in turns makes the money you receive in your paycheck worth less and less. Think of it this way, if there is one whole pie and you receive an inch of it for your work, that inch has a value. Now lets say someone just creates more pie and gives it away. Your one inch of pie is now less scarce and as such is now worth less. This is fine when the economy is working as it should and is creating more value which needs to be accounted for in money but when value is disappearing, the last thing we need to do is create more debt to cover it. This will drive up the cost of already expensive food and fuel. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion - an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending." When people say that the credit crunch will cause a freeze in loans which would then destabilize the economy, one must wonder what they are talking about. Do they mean Chase can no longer lend GEC money? If so, what are we afraid of? Americans have always been resilient and if it does anything, this should help shake things up and allow us to shed the artificially inflated corporations that currently dominate many industries. This would allow many new (and in turn, more efficient!) companies to sprout up in their place. Competition = good as it results in more consumer options, greater efficiency and an overall healthier economy. Corporate welfare = bad as it helps to create a culture of corruption that prevents us from bettering our structure as it compares to other nations and their industry (capacity to effectively compete on a global scale). Of course Wallstreet doesn't care if this results in the collapse of our economy as they will have already swindled us out of a tidy 700 billion but you, the every day citizen with kids to put through school, should care! We bailed out the airlines so that they could cut pay across the board by 30% while CEOs received multi-million dollar bonuses for “cleaning things up”. Now imagine that on a national scale. Fortune 500 companies have had record low pay increases over the last year while also sporting record high increases in executive bonuses. These banks own huge stakes in many of these super corporations. The banks are the shareholders (owners) and as so, are your boss. So, think about it this way, they cut your raise down to 3% this past year, huh? Don't worry about it, they'll take that back in the form of inflation/taxes to cover their own bailout.
Well the village idiot is not only Bush but the conservative republicans that believe the bill has "too much regulation". I can't wait for them to be tossed out on their collective conservative azz's. "...Other conservative Republicans argued the bill would be a blow against economic freedom. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., said the bill posed a choice between the loss of prosperity in the short term or economic freedom in the long term. He said once the federal government enters the financial market place, it will not leave. "The choice is stark," he said..." http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
This is not the end. American's have always risen above the occation. The best resolutions come during the most difficult times. A matter like this should not be rushed.
Uhhh, no. It just means that the village communists won't get their way. Calm down, take your meds...everything will be ok. The market fluctuates from time to time. It'll be ok.
This is great, the greatest country in the world is to stupid to manage its own money, they take, they spend and in the end, we the people have nothing but spit to show for it. whens the next flight to Mexico, there economy is booming
No, The New Administration will have to make several changes and will have fix this mess
Who is this Nostadaus guy? does he make Tacos? (Nostradamus)
So Congress fails yet again and it's Bush's fault? (Yawn...)
This is all dem stuff not Bush
Oh yes, yes it is. *stamp* stupid.
cash loans in washington state
Im twenty, live in Washington state. have purchased and payed for a 7k car(completely paid off) with cosigner. i have 1500 cash and am looking to buy a 6k motorcycle. is this possible? or does this seem like a shot in the dark? monthly payment cost? +insurance(if required)? the bike is an 08 Buell xb12scg for 6k. reasonable or will i get scoffed at?
Full coverage insurance WILL be required if you take out a loan. Get insurance rate quotes BEFORE signing on the dotted line. Occasionally some asks what to do given they cannot afford the insurance and payments because they purchased BEFORE getting rate quotes. One pool soul was paying over $4,000 a year for insurance. Couldn't afford to ride the bike, but was upside down on the loan. Bike worth less than the remainder of the loan. As for loan rates, in my opinion, do not take out a loan for anything over 4% interest. Bank accounts are barely paying 0.5% and CD's are just over 1%. But don't be surprised if the interest rate is over 10%. Paying that much is a waste of YOUR money. Say you borrowed $4,500 for 3 years at 12.99%. Monthly payment of $151.60. Your 2008 Buell in 2014 will have cost you $6,958. What will the bike be worth in May of 2014? Something to think about. Personally I would pass on this so called deal and save more money until you can pay cash. Don't forget, to be properly kitted out in riding gear can set you back up to $1,000 or more. Good Luck
That bike new in 2010 was a bit of 10k. Your lightning is two years older and you don't talk about miles or condition. Add to that, Buell doesn't exist anymore, though Harley Davidson will continue to make parts for the bike for another few years and Eric Buell Racing is producing motorcycles again, so maybe the special parts might be available for a few more years. 1500 is a good down payment, but 6k is too much for that bike, even in exceptional condition.
Do you hae any style of workplace work explaining the reason at the back of fee? Like a rfile which you signed affirming your motive to purchase the motor vehicle? if so, that ought to be evidence which you paid a value for an predicted product or provider. because of the product boost into no longer gained or boost into withheld from you may propose you're entitled to be re compensated. In different phrases, in the event that they do no longer supply you your a reimbursement. you've one heck of a case against them in courtroom. only a private piece of advice: sooner or later, on no account pay something in direction of the acquisition of an merchandise till your comprehend you're a hundred% particular you may properly be approved for something of the quantity.
Yes it is. I wouldn't spend that much on a Buell though.
The down is good, work out a low APR if possible and WTF (*) did you choose a Buell ?!?
Yup
cash loans in washington dc
Hello, My father wants to get equity out of his investment condo near Washington DC. Unfortunately he is retired and no longer works. The bank is refusing to give him equity out of his investment condo which is already paid up. What are his options? I was thinking he can turn over the property to me and I'll have it refinanced under my name since I work and have excellent credit. I own two other investment property so I'm not sure how the Bank will react to it. Second option is I would ought right buy the property and he'll get the money he wants. Again, I own two other investment property so I'm not sure what would be a factor in the purchase with the bank. What is my best option for my father to get some finance? Ideally I don't want him selling it since it has a lot of potential and if he does have to sell it I would like to take over. How easy is it to sign over the deed to my name and if so, how do I manage this under my 2012 tax report and package this up in a mortgage? Since I do own two other property this would definitely be another investment property but I lack the 25% down payment but my father has agreed to put up the difference but does that get eye raised from the bank loan officer since there will be excess of $100k put in my account.
Your dad really wants to sell this property - let him. Let him have a bit of money in cash to enjoy his retirement. You won't qualify to buy the property from him.
If your house is available, you purely isn't waiting to refinance; the creditors will look into countless issues past to approving a private loan or maybe if in case you think of your credit is good, your lender won't think of so. in case you have lots of fairness and you do no longer owe lots, thinking your a protracted time (with all due admire) why no longer look right into a opposite very own loan? i've got not worked with this way of very own loan lots as i now paintings in foreclosure yet i've got heard this is a extra useful decision for a great type of the 'older' couples. good success!
consumer payday loan washington
The CCF is a front group for such industries as meat, fish, dairy, alcohol and payday loans. They run a lot of Web sites. You can find the list at BermanExposed.org. The CCF began with money from Philip Morris and was designed to be a front group for the tobacco industry. When that industry was investigated by the government, the CCF branched into other areas. It's run by Washington, D.C., lobbyist Richard Berman. Check out this link for what his son thinks about him: http://diggingthroughthedirt.blogspot.com/2009/01/bermans-son-calls-him-human-molester.html The CCF claims to care about consumer freedom, but it doesn't. It spends a lot of money to have facts hidden from consumers and to spread misinformation.
fast cash loan washington
Fat Cat Universities Don’t Need Any More Money College affordability is a problem, with tuition, room & board averaging above $31,000 a year. Reason to boost government aid, as the incoming Speaker says she will? Nope: That “solution” will only make things worse. Here’s why: Colleges charge outrageous prices knowing that Washington always deflects cost. Consider that qualified students are eligible to receive $4,050 in Pell Grants per year and up to $23,000 per undergrad degree in Stafford Loans (the two main sources of federal student aid). That means there is at least $16,200 in Pell Grants and $23,000 in federal loans currently set aside to offset costs. That’s a whole lot of green college administrators can play with—$39,200 to be exact—when calculating the sticker price. What incentives do schools have to be price-friendly and economically resourceful when the opposite behavior will multiply its piggybank? The government’s “helping hand” gives colleges a perverse market incentive to inflate costs. Think that’s far-fetched? Consider that congressional spending for higher education jumped 686 percent between 1973 and 2005, the Office of Postsecondary Education tells us. Taxpayers shelled out $72.4 billion in 2005 compared to just $9.2 billion (in 2005 dollars) in 1973. Outlays rose 95 percent from 1995 to 2005 alone. Yet this soaring spending has not brought prices down—instead, it’s goosed them up. Tuition’s grown more than twice as fast as inflation over the last 30 years, indeed, faster than the costs of food, clothing, and shelter. Here’s the ironic part. Whenever tuition prices climb, we don’t get angry at the ones actually jacking them up. Politicians don’t probe college presidents over college affordability. Instead, they just whip out Uncle Sam’s (our) checkbook. What assurances have we been given by the new Congress that increasing aid this time around will do what’s been long promised and lower cost? You’d think from the Left’s rhetoric that there’s a direct relationship between more aid and lower prices. Not so. Every time aid increases, tuition increases. The College Board—which tracks all these figures— reports that since Congress ratified the Higher Education Act in 1965, tuition has escalated 44 percent. It’s not like colleges and universities are short on cash, either. The endowments of the nation’s top 50 schools all tower above one billion dollars and sport return on investments (ROI) that would make Morgan Stanley jealous. The big players, reports The Chronicle of Higher Education, contain gigantic investment accounts. Harvard’s endowment is more than $25 billion with a 19.2 percent ROI. Yale’s $15 billion endowment raises the bar with its 22.3 percent ROI, and Princeton scrapes by with an $11 billion endowment backed by a 17 percent ROI. Harvard’s endowment, in fact, is bigger than the gross domestic product of some Latin American countries. The nation’s top 50 colleges and universities are not the only ones sitting on huge investment portfolios. Two hundred and twenty-seven colleges and universities have endowments ranging from $100 million to $900 million. And an additional 141 have endowments that surpass $50 million. Why is it that when ExxonMobil posts record billion-dollar profits amidst soaring oil prices, liberals demand price controls and government investigations? But when colleges post record endowments despite soaring tuition prices, liberals demand more federal funding? It’s just as outlandish for the government to subsidize ExxonMobil as it is for the government to subsidize academic establishments with abnormally deep pockets. Don’t look for Pelosi to probe any college presidents over “windfall” endowments or swelling tuition prices or demand that they pay their “fair share.” At least the extra aid goes toward instruction, right? Wrong! Ohio University Professor Richard Vedder saliently noted that from 1977 to 2000 only twenty-one cents out of each increased dollar spent per student actually covered teaching. So where’s the money being squandered? Administrative salaries and fringe benefits, for starters. Those two categories jumped 26- and 31 percent respectively over the past 5 years, even though the consumer price index only increased by 14 percent. Another reason: bloated staffs and needless vice presidents, deans, provosts, and campus life directors—many of whom are pocketing salaries that average $195,000 a year and controlling six- and seven-figure budgets, reports the Chronicle. Boston University’s administration, for example, includes one president, two provosts, and 11 vice presidents. There’s a vice president for government and community affairs, a vice president for operations, a vice president for auxiliary services, a vice president for information services, and a vice president for enrollment and student affairs, to name a few. Many colleges and universities are administered the same way, clogging staff with too many deans and chief diversity officers who carry out politically correct agendas. We often complain about government bureaucracy growing out of control. The same has been occurring in higher education. As taxpayers, we should demand that Congress review the real reasons behind skyrocketing tuition: federal funding and explosive bureaucratic growth. Pelosi and her liberal allies in Congress do not plan on addressing these concerns. Instead, their sights are set on dumping even more of our money into higher education—a move that will only expand the problem of affordability while allowing schools to amass even larger fortunes on the backs of beleaguered American taxpayers.
Seriously, universities have plenty of money between state grants, donations, tuition and alumni.
Virginia in-state tuition, books,classes food and an apartment...$1600/month. if uncle sam wants to get the "f" out of the middle east and kick in some snaps on my son's monthly bill, bring it on.
Of coarse they don't,Just like the rest of the schools.They are used as a reason to raise taxes, but never get any better.Private schools are much more effective.
pay day loan washington
I'm reading a biography on George Washington by Ron Chernow, and the book says that Hamilton (under Washington's administration) favored a policy in which the debt would not have to be retired "at once", but could be retired "in future years", by "setting aside revenues at predictable intervals". I'm aware that Hamilton favored a plan for federal assumption of state debt, but I believe (though the book doesn't state clearly) that the above quote is in reference Hamilton's public policy on *national* debt. Later on, the book details a speech in which Washington favorably "pointed to the appreciation of American debt as a direct consequence of Hamilton's program." A friend has informed me on the reasons why Washington and Hamilton might have favored an increased national debt, but I find myself wondering what the specific public policy was that these two held on the matter. Did they (publicly) favor increasing the national debt while the new country was still trying to get off the ground, and then retiring the debt some day down the road, perhaps after Washington's presidency? The reason why I'm specifically asking about their *public* policy, is that the book mentions Jefferson fearing that Hamilton "wanted to make the federal debt so gigantic that it would never be distinguished." So whatever Hamilton and Washington's *public policy* on the matter may have been, Hamilton may have harbored secret intentions to the contrary.
Thanks for your knowledgeable answer! As I mentioned though, my book suggests that the national debt actually increased during the first few years of Washington's presidency (I'm not sure what happened to the debt throughout the rest of his presidency, since I haven't finished the book yet). So under Washington and Hamilton, did the national government pay off all the debts accumulated during the Revolutionary War, while simultaneously incurring new debts of a greater total value?
Washington was committed to the U. S. to paying off all debts incurred in fighting the Revolutionary War. When he took office in 1789, the U. S. owed about $41 million in IOUs to thousands of merchants, bankers, and citizens who loaned money to Washington and other leaders for guns, supplies, and food. We also owed about $11 million to the French for financial (and military) aid in overcoming the British. Some American politicians wanted to renege on these debts, or only pay part of them off. But Washington and his Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton recognized that U. S. credit and international integrity could only be obtained by paying back our creditors all that we owed them. Thus, Washington supported a tariff–usually 5%–on all imports, and he supported a whiskey tax as well as the two methods of raising money to pay off our national debt. In his Farewell Address, he urged his countrymen to avoid “the accumulation of debt,” and asked them not to throw “upon posterity the [debt] burden, which we ourselves ought to bear.” Hamilton felt that some debt was good as long as it could be paid off in a reasonable way. Paying off debt would establish good credit for the United States.
bad credit loan washington
I was purchecing a vehicle in 2006 from a dealership in oregon, car problems started three months into the aggrement, the dealership wouldnt fix the problems and i didnt know any better but i went and had 2,000 dollars worth of work done and now the car wont run i complained to the owner of the car lot he said dont worry i will take care of the mechanic bill and find a different car. well to make a long story short i got stuck paying the mechanic bill and quit paying off the car on 5-19-06 i have never heard back from the car lot after many attemts to get an answer, they have never come to get the car i still have the car, what do i do? can i get a title for this?
The car is in my yard easy acsess and not locked in a garage, the car lot is still in buisness but i dont think i defaulted on the loan cuz, the owner is a friend of mine and with in the three months this is the third car i have gotten form him, i have a letter from him stating 'dont worry about paying any more on the car i will find a different one for you in a couple weeks' this letter is dated 5-23-06 and the owner actualy lives about 4 blocks from me but hes never home
It sounds like you probably have things well documented, but they probably don't know what to do with the car any more than you do. It will probably cost more to fix than the car is worth. I would write them a certified letter, that you have copied and had notorized before you send it, stating that if they don't come and remove the car you will have it towed to the street outside the lot. The loan for the car may be a different problem however. If the loan is through the car dealership, then you are on more solid ground (since the lot owner said 'don't worry' this may be the case). But if you have the loan through another firm, a bank, credit union or finance company, then you are still responsible for the loan even if you don't have the car or it doesn't run. Contact them, let them know the problem and provide a copy of the letter where the owner agreed to get you a different car. Then let them pressure the dealership to stand by their promise and see if they can't secure your loan with the new car. You should not have to store their non-running car on your property for this long when they said it would be 'two weeks'. Contact the loan company before you do anything to the car. And hold on to any paperwork or ads showing they have a 90 day guarrenty on the car and for all the work you paid for. You should be entitled to go to court to recover your costs if they were to have paid to repair the car and didn't. Take pictures showing where the car is located, how it's been well treated, etc., just in case. Too bad Oregon's lemon laws are as strong as Washingtons. But you should eb able to file in small claims court and not have to have a lawyer. Sounds like you have the key letter with the owner agreeing to pay for the repairs.
Can you get a title????? You defaulted on the loan!!!!! You don't get the title unless you pay off the entire loan balance. As for them not repossessing the vehicle.... I don't know, maybe they went out of business or something. Or just forgot. Or you have it locked away in a garage where they can't get to it. But the main thing is the dealer is NOT responsible for fixing your car, especially 3 months after the purchase. All used cars are sold "AS-IS"....... You better pay up or work something out.... for all you know they may have reported it as stolen and the next time you drive you might get pulled over. If they don't answer their phone, drive over there and work it out ASAP.
You should talk to a lawyer, I can see this going sour for you.
I'm afraid bob shark is right.......find a good lawyer....explain your situation ....they will be able to advise you..............good luck!
payday loan in washington
How od you not know?
I'm confident that you must find every financial clarification at: loandirectory.info- RE How do I find out how many payday loans I've had in Washington state? #EANF#
You'll be able to instanly find a quick payday loan up to $1000 employing this site: http://loans.servermatrix.org I acquired our payday loan although I have extremely bad credit history.
My honest opinion is if you haven't kept documentary records of your loans then you seem to lack the common sense to have any credit facility at all. Only you know how many loans you've had - nobody else has this information
If you paid intrest on these pay-day loans than the answer someone else gave you was the correct. Use the three major reporting companies and obtain your FREE reports. They will have the info you seek. GOOD LUCK.
Sounds like you haven't paid for years and forgot all about them. I have a sneaky suspicion your credit reports are a disaster if this is the case. When was the last time you checked them? They are free once a year (all 3) at: Annual Credit Report.com https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/i...

Find out Payday Loan in
your State & City

A-C
D-F
G-I
K-M
N-P
R-T
U-W
Y-Y