It’s July 1 and that can only mean one thing! Yes! That’s right!
If you have a pre-existing medical condition , have been denied coverage and have been uninsured for the last 6 months you can now apply for medical coverage thanks to “Obama Care.”
Get the facts here.
Most considering a reverse mortgage do so for 4 primary reasons:
My clients have used reverse mortgage proceeds to do a variety of things including (but obviously not limited to) foreclosure bailouts, fixing leaky roofs, taking trips to Europe, to pay for health care costs and starting new businesses. The needs/wants for tapping home equity are almost limitless and is clearly an individual decision. There are no right or wrong reasons.
However, before considering a reverse mortgage it is important to do your research. Here’s a good place to start.
Oh, and I’ll address reason #4 above in a separate post.
That’s according to a reporter at the Wall Street Journal and I concur!
Historically, people have sought reverse mortgages as a way to make ends meet, as they balance the costs of health care, housing and other basic needs in their retirement years. But in today’s housing market, it has become more common to see people using them to eliminate their monthly mortgage payments, Mr. Bell says.
“We have people who, in a more normal environment, might have sold their home and moved to a different type of housing,” he says. “But since they can’t sell their home in this environment, they’re using a reverse mortgage to sustain themselves in the home until they can sell it.”
Some distressed homeowners also are finding relief in reverse mortgages. “For others at risk of foreclosure, it could be a lifesaver,” Ms. Stucki says. “They could risk losing the house, and if they can defer mortgage payments, that makes sense.”
Still, a reverse mortgage isn’t right for everyone. For one, it probably makes the most sense for people planning on staying in their homes for more than a few years, Mr. Lewis says. “If this is a short-term financing situation, you might have other options that you can consider.”
Read more here
Sen. Kaufman brings a dose of reality to the financial reform debate:
What walls will this bill erect? None. On what bedrock does this bill rest if the nation is to hope for another 60 years of financial stability? Better and smarter regulators, plain and simple. No great statutory walls, no hard divisions or limits on regulatory discretion, only a reshuffled set of regulatory powers that already exist. Remember, it was the regulators who abdicated their responsibilities and helped cause the crisis.
Thus far, on the central aspect of “too big to fail,” financial reform consists of giving regulators the authority to supervise institutions that are too big, and then the ability to resolve those banks when they are about to fail. Upon closer examination, however, the former is virtually the same authority regulators currently possess, while the latter – an orderly resolution of a failing mega-bank – is an illusion. Unless Congress breaks up the mega-banks that are “too big to fail,” the American taxpayer will remain the ultimate guarantor in an almost certain-to-repeat-itself cycle of boom-bust-and-bailout.
snip
It is true that under the current Senate bill, regulators could potentially invoke the Volcker Rule, which would prohibit commercial banks from owning or sponsoring “hedge funds, private equity funds, and purely proprietary trading in securities, derivatives or commodity markets.” I applaud former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker for his critical leadership on these issues, which the Administration has endorsed. Unfortunately, the legislation now being considered by the Senate requires the council first to study the Volcker Rule before deciding whether to enforce it. In the end, it could issue a recommendation not to enforce the Volcker Rule at all. Or the council might recommend simply that regulators mandate capital requirements that are adequate for any risky proprietary activities a particular bank might undertake, a power regulators already have.
The reality is that regulators have long had the authority to prohibit speculative activities at banks, but never opted to do so. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to terminate an activity or control of a non-bank subsidiary (such as a broker-dealer or an insurance company) if that activity or subsidiary poses serious risk to the safety, soundness or stability of the holding company.
As we all know too well, in the past, these very same bank regulators failed utterly. Indeed, as the “umbrella regulator” for all bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve could have increased capital and other requirements for these institutions, but instead farmed out this function to credit rating agencies and the banks themselves.
Hey! Look who received stimulus money. Whirlpool! Guess who is closing down another US manufacturing plant and moving 1100 jobs to Mexico?
Whirlpool!
19 million in stimulus money to be exact.
It’s the story of Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue
I’ve always wondered when Clinton’s scheme to “reduce the welfare rolls’ would come back to bite us in the ass. It’s one thing to reduce the number on welfare by making it harder to qualify. It’s another to actually solve the underlying reason for needing welfare in the first place.
Since she was 16, Eva Hernández has worked a string of low-wage jobs. She’s prepared chicken at KFC, run the register at Dunkin Donuts, packed and sealed boxes at a produce company, and held other similar jobs in Hartford, Connecticut, where she was born and raised. These jobs haven’t paid enough for Eva, now 28, to support herself and her two young daughters. So for almost three years in the last decade, she’s relied on welfare to supplement her income. Most of the time, though, she’s simply found another low-wage job, a task that in this economy is proving almost impossible.
Frustrated may be an understatement……
Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure – Cincinnati News Story – WLWT Cincinnati.
