Mitt Romney Still Paying Texas Couple's Mortgage From Real Estate Deal

The New York Times:

MISSOURI CITY, Tex. -- Look closely and it is there, sandwiched between Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Partners II and D3 Family Bulldog Fund: the mortgage on Timothy and Betty Stamps's modest home on Gentle Bend Drive here.

Read the whole story at The New York Times

Comments

[msminnie]

09:52 PM on 08/10/2012

I don't understand the headline- it sounds like Mitt is paying for someone else's mortgage. The NY Times article states that the couple living in the house in Texas "...have been writing $600 monthly checks to “Willard M. Romney” for 15 years..."

The headline in the Times is, "In Real Estate Deal, Romney Made His Loss a Couple’s Gain". I took that to mean Mitt gifted a house to a couple but I was wrong. The "gift" was that after Mitt's investment that included the Texas property tanked, he offered to be the mortgage company for the couple, who didn't qualify for a mortgage otherwise. Mitt chose to do that rather than take a loss on the property.

We are learning almost daily what a successful and creative money manager Romney is. Good for him. But I have a hard time joining the group of people who want to give him credit for being generous and altruistic, especially financially, when the reality is very different. Mitt's goal in life is to make as much money as he possibly can whether the method is legal, illegal, shady, ethical or an outright scheme.

[Brad Antone]

09:06 PM on 08/11/2012

It was a way for Romney to dodge taxes.

[Gestas]

12:34 PM on 08/10/2012

Let's find out if the People are Mormons....They have a tendency to take care of each other.

[KatRB]

12:26 PM on 08/10/2012

"Mr. Romney jumped into a speculative deal geared toward “affluent free enterprise capitalists who desire a quality investment with tax shelter benefits,” according to a prospectus."

When capitalists seek to make money and not pay tax on that money they are destroying our great country.

[usereasonalready]

03:10 PM on 08/10/2012

GOP response: "but, but, but it's perfectly legal." Yeah, and apparently most of what Wall Street did to help cause the recession was legal, too. Glass-Steigal, where art thou?

[Djay0252]

12:06 PM on 08/10/2012

Still waiting to to see the Bishop's tax returns.....it's going to cost him millions..........of votes!!!

[tangelan]

11:57 AM on 08/10/2012

It's pocket change to someone that's probably a billionaire. I would've given the people the house.

[ponderingtoo]

12:52 PM on 08/10/2012

Why would you just give some random person a house, triggering gift taxes for yourself? You're not just doing away with the asset, but having to pay taxes on top of it. There are better ways to make charitable contributions.

[tangelan]

02:18 PM on 08/10/2012

Why would I? Look at Mitt's wealth. This is the equivalent of him giving $20 to a homeless person.

[msminnie]

10:35 PM on 08/10/2012

Did you read the Times article? Mitt's choices with the property, acquired in a speculative deal that tanked, were to rent the house or sell it. The couple renting the house didn't qualify for a mortgage so Mitt became the First National Bank of Romney and provided the mortgage himself. They have paid $600/month to Willard for the past 15 years and they recently refinanced for another 30 year mortgage.

Why would you give someone else a house? Maybe because you're richer than God and want to do a good deed for someone else? Consider this couple who couldn't qualify for a loan 15 years ago. They're paying a relatively small monthly mortgage which was half paid off a couple of months ago, assuming the original mortgage was for 30 years, BUT they just refinanced for another 30 years.

It's possible the family refinanced for reasons other than digging themselves out of debt or because one of them is ill and they have no health insurance. I suppose they could have refinanced to open a new business but that would be contrary to what the GOP wants us to believe about the economy.

Back to your question- If I had the kind of money MR has I would have probably gifted the house to this couple long ago. The interest earned on the mortgage is pocket change to Mitt and I bet the $600/month saved would feel like a million to this couple. It would to me.

[Mediorite]

11:25 AM on 08/10/2012

Mitt saw “affluent free enterprise capitalists who desire a quality investment with tax shelter benefits,” and thought "THAT'S ME!"

[Ifeomamn]

11:08 AM on 08/10/2012

Funny how hard the media is so trying to prop the lying bishop Up.

It is Not working.

[Piojo]

12:22 PM on 08/10/2012

yep, they are achieving the opposite.

[demisfine]

10:43 AM on 08/10/2012

One family of five.
That means 80% didn't end this way.

[Dewy Bradford]

10:40 AM on 08/10/2012

So he was able to turn a tax shelter and a profit loss over into a tax shelter and a gain over time... and the couple benefited.

Is there any speculation as to what he would have done if profit meant tossing the couple out?
If his resume was littered with this stuff, I'd give it more credit... but as it is, I'm glad the couple got lucky.

[SaucePolicy]

10:27 AM on 08/10/2012

Let's hear more about SON OF BOSS scam.

[larmarch5]

10:43 AM on 08/10/2012

That's over on The Daily Beast

[TeeSC]

10:20 AM on 08/10/2012

Give credit where credit is due.
I'm sure to these homeowners, Romney is a saint.
I'm pretty sure I would too.

[DeeFromTheD]

09:18 PM on 08/10/2012

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Coming soon, the media failed big time on this:

Romney & Son Investigated for 8 Billion Ponzi Scheme with Stanford

Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/romney-son-investigated-for-8-billion-ponzi-scheme/#ixzz1uFhGDkKp

http://www.liquidatingtrustee.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/mitt-romney-ponzi-scheme_n_1069427.html

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/chart1.png

[karencares]

09:55 AM on 08/10/2012

Why do I think Mr. Romeny's actions, which in reality helped these people, was not purely altruistic?

[Piojo]

12:23 PM on 08/10/2012

Because you are a reflexive being.

[demisfine]

08:46 AM on 08/10/2012

So, Mitt the Businessman, makes a BAD decision, and his effort is largely a LOSING prospect.
Still, Mitt manages to avoid taxes, while helping one couple stay in their home.
So, one bright spot, but the GREED of Mr Romney gets overshadowed.
The couple pays $600 monthly to own their home. $7,200 a year.
Mitt earns $2,500 a year - tax free, of that $7,200.
So 1/3 of their payment goes to Mitt.
Generous?????

[ponderingtoo]

01:13 PM on 08/10/2012

Romney loaned them the money to buy the house. All of their payments go to him. Part of it is interest and part of it is principal reduction. He clearly offered better terms than they could get through a bank or else they would have gone through a bank.

[demisfine]

01:59 PM on 08/10/2012

Yeah.
He's all heart.

[rhenz]

08:07 PM on 09/03/2012

If he wanted to "help" he would have given them the cash--he woudn't have missed it. So why did Romney NEED another $600 a month??? There can only be one answer: greed. I don't remember Jesus LOANING to the poor...