Free Republic

I am looking for a Whirlpool Neptune front loader.

I have the Whirlpool Neptune front loader. Front seal is always mildewy despite repeated cleanings. Shakes like crazy. It does get the clothes clean and uses less water, but it stinks like mildew all the time.

Threw out a 3 year old maytag front loader... stay the heck away from them. The seals leak after a few years, and then the motherboard is fried. Everyone I've ever discussed it with had the same result.

Unless you really are into the style points for a front loader, better to go with a HE top loader. Use a bit more water, but they work. Gravity keeps the seals dry. Stay away from the very low end... parents bought one that had fill sensor problems after 6 months and flooded their floor.

Lovely fairy tale filled with best case liberal scenarios attempting to influence opinion.

In the real world, the employees unionize as soon as the business grows and gains market share. They demand restrictive work rules, and a “fair share” of profit, even though they didn’t develop the product, didn’t invest in it, and won’t be financially responsible if it fails.

They periodically threaten strikes to improve their negotiating position, and demand outrageous wage increases. When the company can no longer operate at a profit, the company has to take shortcuts by buying foreign parts and outsourcing anything they can to China so that they can meet contract terms. Eventually, they die of union strangulation, and are demonized by all of the out of work union members.

These union members spend the next 2 years on unemployment. They are unwilling to take $20/hour jobs that are readily available, because they aren’t the ‘good jobs’ they used to have. They can’t understand that the $40/hour jobs they had were paid unrealistic wages, and will not be returning. But the union bosses made their millions and moved on.

Guess they missed these little details.

Now, it seems to me (not legally, but logically) that both parties are assuming some risk in this transaction...

Both parties are assuming some risk in this transaction. The bank is assuming the risks associated with loss of the principle, and opportunity cost of the loaned funds. The bank attempts to migitate these by requiring homeowner's insurance, private mortgage insurance, etc. The bank still runs the risk that the homeowner will fail to maintain insurance requirements, and ultimately fail to pay. The bank risks that attempts to collect the remainder of the principal will fail if the borrower has diminished the value of the secured asset (damaged it, failed to maintain it, burnt it down, blown it up), has no other compensatory assets, becomes deceased during the term of the agreement and cannot satisfy the debt with estate proceeds, etc. The bank earns an agreed interest rate as compensation for the risk of nonpayment and/or loss of the secured asset, assured opportunity cost (the money the bank might have made investing the funds with the fed, etc.) and for forgoing any returns for appreciation of the asset (ie. the money the bank might have made if they had purchased and owned the property outright and later sold for a profit).

The homeowner's risk is that the value of the property will decrease. If the value of the property goes up, the homeowner gains all of the benefit. When entering into the loan agreement, the reasonable homeowner hopes the property will retain or increase its value, but understands a loss is possible.

If you wanted the bank to participate in the downside risk, then you would have to let the bank participate in the upside. I wouldn't be thrilled about having to cut the bank a check for part of my profit when I sold a home. If they were willing to participate in the downside they would probably just buy the property outright, and leave you out of the transaction.

As far as 'front-loading' the interest... the interest is charged based on the amount of money being loaned at a particular point in time. If the loan principal amount is $100,000, the first monthly payment includes interest based on the $100,000, and an additional amount to reduce the principal for the next month. The principal payments reduce the loan amount, which reduces the interest amount for the next period. With each period, the outstanding principal amount shrinks, so the interest amount shrinks. This increases the amount of principal paid in the next level payment until all of the principal has been paid off.

Nothing prevents the borrower from paying additional principal each month. The more the outstanding balance is reduced, the less interest is charged each month. During the initial loan period, additional principal payments can make a big difference in the total amount of payments over the life of the loan.

If the bank were to artificially spread the interest cost across the life of the loan (eg. charge the same amount of interest whether the remaining principal was $100,000 or $1), then they would risk a substantial loss if the loan was paid off early. For much of the life of the loan, the real interest earned on the outstanding principal would be far less than the market interest rate plus the time value of money. And ultimately the homeowner would be upset with paying $999 interest on $1 outstanding principal at the end of the loan period.

Ultimately, individuals seeking to buy expensive assets such as real estate benefit by access to loans. Over time, these assets tend to appreciate to levels in excess of market interest rates. Banks are only going to make loans if they can be assured of recovering their principal and making a market level return on their investment. The alternative would be to expect buyers to pay cash in advance.. but then there would be a significant segment of society complaining that they couldn't afford a home.

You are absolutely correct. I am more interested in how even I fell for what appears to be a sucker's bet. The bank making the home loan is not only getting paid for the loan (through interest, front loaded), but is also entitled to seize the property (at any value) if the borrower defaults, and can pursue a negative variance (in the event of decreased value) through seizure of other personal assets.

Not a sucker's bet, really. You got the loan because you thought the house was worth it when you asked for the loan. You probably expected the value to go up. When you signed up for the loan, you borrowed so much money for so much time, and agreed to pay it all back. You also agreed to let the bank collect the money using other means if you chose not to pay.

If the value of your house had doubled, you would have made lots of money and the bank would have only gotten paid the amount you agreed in the mortgage. If housing prices skyrocketed, I think you would have been offended if the loan officer knocked on your door after few years wanting extra money from you commensurate with the increased property value.

The bank is just expecting you to pay what you agreed to pay -- the loss in the value of your home is not their fault or concern.

Market risk was present back when home prices were increasing rapidly, but historical market trends minimized this risk in the minds of the purchasers. Buying a home is an investment, just like buying stocks or commodities. The bank is not responsible if the value of the property goes down, and would not be rewarded if the value of the property goes up. The borrower is responsible for the value of the underlying asset.

If a bank loans a teenager the funds to buy a new Hummer and gas prices suddenly go to $10/gallon, is the bank responsible for the decreased value of the Hummer? Market conditions changed during the life of the loan in this case. The teenager would not have anticipated the decreased value of his asset before initiating the loan. Should the teenager be allowed to walk away from the loan because the value of his asset decreased?

If an individual purchases 100 shares of GM stock with borrowed funds, is it the lender’s fault when the price of those shares fall considerably? Did the bank’s responsibility increase because many people lost money when the price of GM stock fell? If the price of GM stock had doubled rather than fallen, the bank would not have been given additional compensation/reward for making the loan. If the bank offered very generous rates and terms when providing the loan, did they become more responsible for the loss or gain associated with the underlying asset? In this case the bank made a loan to the borrower in good faith, and the loss of the borrower’s value on the asset used with the proceeds of the loan is not the lender’s fault or responsibility. The fact that this loss also affected many other people does not make the lender any more responsible for the value of the underlying asset. The lender did not require the borrower to initiate the loan; the lender agreed to make the loan to the borrower on mutually agreed terms.

It’s hard for some people to separate the emotional aspects of the home purchase, because of their close personal daily interaction with their investment. They let irrelevancies cloud their judgment when considering the situation. The bank making the home loan did not require the homeowner to make the purchase; they agreed to make the loan the homeowner requested on mutually agreed terms. The bank is not responsible for the change in value of the property, and would not have shared in the increase if the market value of the property had increased.

The anger of underwater homeowners is misdirected. Instead of blaming the bank that made the loan on mutually agreed terms, they should blame those responsible for the overinflated prices.
* The Federal Reserve played a major part in reducing and maintaining interest rates at very low levels, which caused unrealistic market price increases. More people could afford loans, which lead to more demand, and higher prices.
* The Fair Housing Act pressured banks to make loans to un-creditworthy borrowers, which increased demand and raised prices. People who could not otherwise buy homes were now capable.. this increased demand and raised prices.
* In order to meet the demands of the Fair Credit Housing act, new loan instruments such as interest-only loans and aggressively adjustable rate mortgages made larger mortgages more affordable, which increased demand and raised prices.
* Congress created and expanded the Secondary Mortgage Enhancement Act, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 — These enhanced and expanded the creation of Mortgage Backed Securities which further encouraged loan origination.
All of this resulted in an overheated/overpriced housing market and unrealistic expectations of future price expansion in the home market.

In states and contracts where the owner has recourse to return the home in lieu of payment, the homeowner is well within their rights to return the home if they choose. No moral issue exists — the bank accepted the risk that the home might be returned when they accepted the loan. Any bank that would make a loan under these conditions deserves the consequences of their actions.

When the homeowner does not have recourse to return the home under the terms of regulation or their mortgage contract, they have the legal and moral obligation to conform to the terms of their agreement. The bank does not have any greater responsibility because housing prices fell, or the value of the stock went down, or the value of the Hummer tanked. The emotional attachment to the asset associated with the loan doesn’t increase the bank’s obligation.

In other words, it’s time to stop blaming the banks, and using that blame as an excuse to avoid legal obligations.

I think our soldiers in the field get this point clearly. They should be there to break things and kill people. Not kiss *sses and take names. If our soldiers risk themselves to take prisoners, you don’t turn the prisoners back over to the enemy unless you achieve a worthwhile objective by doing so (eg. tracking them back to their buddies so you can take out the whole steaming pile).

The liberal SOBs pulling the strings have other ideas. They think you can wage a selective war, and then your target will become your friend. Bullsh*t. Carrying on in this way is costing the lives of thousands of fine young soldiers. If liberal leadership doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to allow our soldiers to fight to win, perhaps the leadership should experience the environment first hand for an extended period.

If you need to start a war, then work toward finishing it as effectively and efficiently as possible. If you aren’t there to win the d*mn thing, don’t go in the first place or get the hell out. And releasing captured enemy so he can shoot at you again is not an effective means of winning.

This enemy will NEVER be your friend. Some elements of that society will appear to cooperate with you where they have to. They will gain some personal benefit, and some good intel in the process. They will steal from you, and stab you in the back the first chance they get. And when you ultimately get fed up and leave, they will return to what they have been doing for thousands of years.

Somebody needs to decide to either own the battlefield or leave it. Wandering aimlessly is killing the wrong people.

I would be less inclined to take prisoners in this scenario. Some of these prisoners were taken at great risk to our troops, when they could easily have been dispatched. Maybe the logical course of action in this situation will result in a change of the ROE.

What the heck are we paying them for? They spend most of their time out of their office. They are wined and dined constantly by special interests. And then they don’t feel compelled to do the primary task we require of them (understand the bills and represent their constituents when they vote).

Make the lazy SOBs take a test on each bill presented for a vote. Require that each senator/representative complete a comprehensive test of at least 200 questions on the content of the bill, and achieve at least 80% correct answers before being allowed to vote either way on the bill. Post all test scores publicly.

Senators/representatives would be forced to acknowledge that they knew what they were voting for. And they might actually put some effort and thought into their task. Their constituancy would get a true measure of how competent their leadership was: “Senator Smith failed to achieve a bill examination score higher than 15% during his tenure... let’s send him home for some remedial citizenship”.

Probably be seen as discriminatory though.

China doesn’t want the union pension problem. They want the GM technology and assembly line.

The UAW will go nuts bragging about how great their relationship is with their new China masters. They’ll be working overtime to disasemble ‘old’ machinery and give detailed training ‘tours’ to visiting ‘observers’.

Then one day the UAW will show up to work in an empty factory, and wonder where their jobs went. And the remaining shell of GM will collapse like a house of cards in a stiff breeze.

But it will be OK. We’ll all have to pay ‘just a little’ more taxes to fully fund their pensions and pay their unemployment after China leaves them hanging. And that new Cheri Silverado will be all the rage.
/s

Went through a similar situation on my 3 ton Carrier last July. The technician claimed it was the fan. After paying for 2 service calls, a new fan, and a new capacitor, I still had almost no cold air. Oops... they forget to mention that the compressor was shot. But they would make me a really good deal on a new system.

I fired the idiot, had somebody else come out that I trusted, had a new 3.5 ton unit installed, and chilled out the rest of the summer.

Definitely get a second opinion from a technician you trust before spending on parts for an old system. And let me know if you decide to replace the fan motor... I know where you can get one (used for 1 day) really cheap.

Shhhhh!

Don’t give the fool any ideas. He very likely has his useful idiots monitor FR for any juicy tidbits.

Flood lights, cameras, and another sign that says “Please steal this sign so that I can film you and prove that rats are the thieving scum we know you can be”. If your neighbors will cooperate, put cameras in the windows with neighbors on each side of you so you can get license plate numbers.

Then take the recording of the sign being stolen, and post it on youtube. Then file a police report, complete with video evidence.

Don’t use too much of that Oregano... we’re going to need all that cow flatulance once global cooling kicks in. We’ll be feeding them more beans.

I wonder how much we pay these scientists to come up with solutions for cow farts. If these scientists would just stop breathing, there wouldn’t be as much carbon dioxide in the air — don’t they care about the global warming crisis?

/sarc

Check out Jenison (between Zeeland and GR). Good compromise between rural and suburbs. Quiet, conservative, family friendly, close to the expressway to get to anywhere you want to go. A couple of miles off of 28th Street if you need something more more citified once in a while. Nice parks, close shopping. Large new-ish mall 5 miles away. Used to live there many years ago... if they had any jobs I would go back.

Coming up next: The 119’ers. Those long-term unemployed who have exhausted all available 119 weeks of unemployment benefits — have formed the American 119ers Union to lobby Congress to create a Tier VI of federal unemployment benefits...

How many acts to weaken or cripple our nation are required to constitute treason?

What would it take to route around the choke points? Gotta believe we can find a way to use wireless networks to bypass the traditional internet infrastructure if they try this. What roadblocks would there be to developing our own ‘outernet’ that we could bring up to bypass a kill switch?

Of course there will be taxes on Roth. Obama never saw a tax he didn’t like. If you have enough money to save for retirement, then you are more ‘fortunate’ than those who sat on their a**es waiting for their checks. In the dictator’s eyes, the wealth (everyone else’s anyway) should be spread around.

Sounds like the perfect setup for the next round of Chicago style thug politics. "We might be willing to help your state out with some unemployment money, but we need you to drop that pesky Obamacare lawsuit, and amend your state constitution to relinquish all of this 'state's rights' nonsense".

What? Half the people in this country don't pay taxes precisely because the pols have structured it that way to buy their votes. Now, they complain they can't use the income tax structure to raise taxes on poor people???

You know they will find a way to exempt 'those less fortunate'. That 47% that don't pay now won't pay the VAT, or will get a refund. This is just another way to extract more money from those that work or have accumulated wealth. That Obamination is continuing to pursue his misguided 'social justice' agenda. He doesn't get that it is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee equality of outcomes without making everyone equally miserable.