The following Daylilies should now be eliminated from my available list. SINGULAR SENSATION EVELYN KLOERIS NEBULOUS NEARNESS SPACECOAST CRANBERRY KID Thanks Punch

Well, I'd started this thread hoping to discuss the AIG failure & its far reaching tenacles into America but it's been all about housing. I've got one arm tied behind my back in that area but I can discuss 50-year mortgages. Fifty year mortgages are typically 5/1 ARMs at a quarter percentage point higher than a 30-year loan. Over the first five years of the loan, the borrower pays about 0.25% more than a typical 30-year fixed rate mortgage, but after that, the rate adjusts annually to match the prime lending rate. Since we have no idea what will happen with interest rates five years down the road, the only way to really evaluate the 50-year loan is over the first five years. Lets say that were buying a $250,000 home and we have a $50,000 down payment. We can either take a 30-year loan at 6%, or a 50-year loan at 6.25%. On the 30-year mortgage, your monthly payment would be $1,199.10. With the 50 year mortgage, your monthly payment (for the first five years, as mentioned above) would be $1,089.95. So far, so good for the 50-year mortgage but if we keep comparing it's not so great going forward. Lets say that in 5 years youre ready to sell the house and move on. Also assuming that your house value went up 10%, so now its worth $275,000. For the 30-year mortgage, you still have a balance of $185,840, which means that you now have $89,160 in equity in the house. On the other hand, with the 50-year mortgage, you still have a balance of $196,544, which means you have only $78,456 in equity in the house. With the 30-year mortgage, you have $10,704 more in equity after five years. Now, the difference in your monthly payments is $109.15, so over 6-months, youll pay $6,549 more with the 30-year loan, but you end up with $10,704 more in home equity. Thats a 63% return over five years, or about 11% a year. I dont know about you, but if I can afford an investment that returns a guaranteed 11% a year, Im quite willing to dump $110 a month into that investment. In short, a 50-year mortgage simply isnt worth it. A 30-year mortgage is actually an extremely good investment versus a 50 year, and were not even considering the bad things that can happen when your rate adjusts with the 50 year. Theres pretty much no reason to ever consider getting a 50 year mortgage unless you enjoy handing a lot of money to your mortgage company with nothing in return. I watched CNBC last night until 9:00 p.m. The future were at +215 when I got up at 2:00 a.m. to use the facilities. Now, since the announcement of the MM fund guarantee they've jumped to +338. It's going to be another interesting day. This is a very far-reaching legislation. I know there was a run yesterday on MM funds & something had to happen quickly but I sure hope they take the time to think this thing through carefully...sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease?? Blocking short sales is draconian, IMO, & really interfers in the free market. Shorts help us to spot problems (remember Enron?). Don't like this blocking short sale business at all. If somebody's spreading negative rumors & then short trading on those rumors...that's already illegal. Gosh, I've traded short several times over the past year & I'm certainly no "corporate raider". Anyway, there's LOTS to digest this morning & probably more to come... /tricia

"Bottom line? IMO..so much money was involved here that one would be hard pressed to find a politician that did or does not have his hand in the cookie jar somehow, some way." Here are a few more folks who have made out handsomely at the communal 'cookie jar'. Namely, Henry Paulson and his close circle of friends... Who is Henry Paulson? By Tom Eley September 23, 2008 The plan to rescue the US financial industry arrogates virtually unlimited money and power over the financial affairs of the state to the office of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson is a figure with a long history of intimate connections to the political and financial elite. In 1970, fresh from the Masters program of the Harvard Business School, Paulson entered the Nixon administration, working first as staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense. In 1972-73, Paulson worked as office assistant to John Erlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs. Erlichman was one of the key figures involved in organizing President Richard Nixon's notorious plumbers' unit that carried out illegal covert operations against the president's political opponents, including espionage, blackmail, and revenge. Ehlichman resigned in 1973, and in 1975 he was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy, and was imprisoned for 18 months. Utilizing his connections, Paulson went to work for Goldman Sachs in 1974. In a 2007 feature, the British newspaper the Guardian wrote, Not only was he well connected enough to get the job [in the Nixon White House], but well connected enough to resign in the thick of the Watergate scandal without ever getting caught up in the fallout. He went straight to Goldman back home in Illinois.... A link that might be useful: www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paul-s23.shtml

Several things about this upset me. I was one of the people needing a non disclosure loan to get a home. Long complicated story behind that but I deserved a chance and my credit rating was well above 700 so I was a decent credit risk. I hate to think that they will totally eliminate all non disclosure loans because they can help some people. But... when I got my loan I was well educated on the loan process and knew exactly what I was getting into and knew for sure that I could repay the loan. I have never been late with a house payment in about 30 years. We bought a home that our income would let us repay. Many of the people in this mess did buy way over there heads and were duped by the lenders. Maybe, there should be something in this new plan to teach the idiots that took out the bad loans more about credit and how it works, especially for home buying. Also, why should the people that had overinflated ideas of what they needed or wanted get a bail out and the rest of us that have worked so hard to pay our bills be left out? That is kind of like punishing your well behaved child for the panks of the more poorly behaving child. It is totally unfair!!! Have you heard the logic that we (the home owners not in default) will benefit because our home values will be higher than if we foreclose on all of the bad ones? That is a true statement but still I would like to have a more luxurious home and be forgiven for getting in over my head because I would benefit more from the bail out than the guy who worked hard and spent wisely! Everyone is paying for this mess one way or another but it would be nice if the ones that played by the correct rules got a penalized less than the ones who created the problem.