Federal Jobs Are Plentiful

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Benji O. Anosike


Think we have a severe economic recession in the United States today, right? Or, at least, that the magnitude of the apparent severe unemployment situation that we have today, is such that you probably can't find any significant job openings existing just about anywhere in America today, and that there simply aren't any employer today who is making any significant hiring of new workers, right?

Well, think again!

Oh, I know. There's this virtual avalanche of grim economic news flooding Americans even by the minute these days out of Washington, telling about growing business and industry shut downs, worker lay offs and rising unemployment. And sure, it's real. But, this is probably the biggest job-related secret in America today, the common, conventional thinking of general joblessness in America today. Actually, the plain FACT is that there are, in fact, plenty of Federal government job hiring going on right now, and plenty of job openings available around the clock right this minute, and you'd just need the "informed tricks" that' are required for it, and you'd be able to properly job search for and dig out those Federal job openings, then properly apply for them and get one of them.

Point is, what we actually have here in the American job market today, is a diminution, or, if you will, a shrinkage in certain types of jobs. But there is no overall shortage of jobs, no complete dry-up of employment or employment opportunities in the totality of the American economy. Particularly, there is our own Federal Government of the United States. It has large job openings right now and continues to hire new workers in large numbers all along even as we speak right now. And, will not only continue to have need for new workers, and to hire sizable numbers of them in the months ahead, but in numbers even higher and larger.

In deed, several studies by respectable labor and manpower economists and experts, including a recent report by experts (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28948055; http://news.aol.com/article/despite-layoffs-federal-work-force-is/324326?cid=9), released in January 2009 by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, have amply projected that a large number of jobs are to be created by the Federal Government in this 2009 year, and beyond. For example, this latest study estimates that, just based on a $600 billion economic stimulus package by the new Obama administration (a higher amount of some $800-900 billion is what is currently being discussed), about 244,000 newly created government jobs at Federal, state and local levels, are to be expected by that measure alone.

In deed, this is actually totally in keeping with the expected Federal government role in times of unusually hard economic times or crises such as we have today. At such times, the Federal Government is expected and anticipated to have an even higher job-creation and worker and labor hiring load than usual, for one fundamental reason, which is simply that such a role is, in fact, the natural, responsible role meant for the Federal government to play. The Federal Government just has to step in, in such a dire national economic time (the kind we seem to have right now), and play the role of a stabilizer." In fact, the notion has become the common thinking among labor management experts and economists today, that in unusually severe economic times such as today when general employment continues to dwindle, and when major American employers (Microsoft corp., Pfizer, Caterpillar, Home Deport, and the Wall Street, to name just a few) are massively laying off workers, it becomes therefore the "natural, built-in" role of the Federal government to step in and try to pick up the employment slack by stepping up worker hiring, not lessening it.

THE CENTRAL QUESTION: Given the FACT, solidly established, that the Federal government has an abundance of job openings available, and is poised for even higher levels of new worker hiring in the near future, if you are a job seeker who is serious about securing a job with the Federal Government, what would you need to do to secure one of these Federal jobs? Essentially, what and what to do, fundamentally lies in the serious job-seeker making certain to have the vital knowledge, information and skill, to be able to properly job search for where the jobs actually are (in terms of the specific agencies of the Federal government having them, as well as their geographic locations across the country), and to uncover them; and having located those jobs, the other critical necessity is that the job-seeker has got to be able to know how exactly to properly apply for them in a way that will meet the special Federal job standards, and thereby result in his or her landing the priced Federal job.

The question, in short, will really boil down to this: which and which ones among the American jobless or those who want jobs, will be equipped enough and informed enough to be able to take proper advantage of these real, existing 'recession proof' Federal job openings, and therefore be able to walk away with those jobs for which they're qualified?

GETTING FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE MIDST OF SEVERE UNEMPLOYMENT CLIMATE!?

Here, in a nutshell, are some of the major things that my own new publication, published by the Self-Helper Law Press of America, titled The Handbook of Federal Jobs: How to Job Search for, Apply for and Get Federal Job (www.GetFederalJobNow.com), provides you, as it methodologically guides the reader, in a simple, step-by-step outline, through a maze of the entire Federal job hiring process:

information on the present and projected civilian job openings and career opportunities that are continually available in the federal government;

the present as well as the projected future areas of Federal job growth and openings, and where exactly those jobs are or will be in the future (in terms of the particular government agencies that are applicable, as well as the jobs' geographic locations);

how to search for them and to find them, how to understudy precisely the actual core qualifications required for the job, and to "decode" them;

how to properly apply for the jobs using precisely the appropriate Federal-style procedures and standards (including the Federal-style job interviewing, job resume and KSA writing standards), and

how to successfully process your job application, from the very start to the end, in such a way as to win the Federal hiring officer's nod for the job, etc.

IN SUM: "Just arm yourself with a copy of this Handbook," chimed Dan Benjamin, the Sales Manager of the book's publisher, "and you'll see yourself go quickly, from the ranks of the despairing long lasting unemployed, to the ranks of the happy newly Federally employed."

In this ground-breaking Federal job-hunting Handbook, the Publishers of this Handbook have become even more encouraged and more emboldened by one major, new, unique development that was not earlier unanticipated but which busted lately on the American economic scene, to make an even better and more compelling case for why it's now almost like a dire necessity of life for any serious Federal job hunter today to hurry and grab a copy of the book: the new Obama Presidency! The projected infusion of humongous sums into the economy out of the Obama economic stimulus program, some one trillion dollars or so of it, will clearly mean far more big-government programs and initiatives, and, hence, the creation of a lot more new government jobs across the board in the months ahead. And, even more so, still more new Federal government civil service jobs and new federal hires to be had!

Those are the virtually GUARANTEED new Federal job opportunities that are either already here, or are soon to come! Again, which American jobless or job-seekers would have been properly equipped, informed, and adequately prepared, to take proper advantage of these opportunities? That's the central question! Having in hand this prime essential tool you'd need for it (a copy of The FEDERAL JOBS HANDBOOK), according to author Anosike, will assure precisely that you'd be up to that challenge - an the tremendous opportunity to become a prized Federal employee.


About the Author:
Benji O. Anosike, has been characterized by one analyst as "one of the keenest-eyed Federal government employment researchers and experts around." His latest new study just released, is titled THE FEDERAL JOBS HANDBOOK: HOW TO JOB SEARCH FOR, APPLY FOR AND GET FEDERAL JOB. SUBTITLE: "America's Biggest Job Secret: How the Federal Government is Loaded with Jobs, Where they are, and How to Get Them." (http://www.GetFederalJobNow.com). A recognized national expert on self-help law and consumer cost-saving techniques, Dr. Anosike, holds graduate degrees in labor management economics and a Ph.D. in jurisprudence, and is the acclaimed author of some 26 books, guidebooks and manuals, including several best-sellers, on various topics of American consumer interests and savings.

Understanding The Due On Sale Clause On Your Home Mortgage

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Cory Shrader


The "Due On Sale Clause" is among the most frequently misunderstood and most-feared legal terms in American contractual law. In this article, we are going to take a look at what it is, what it is not, and how to avoid violating it.

What Is The Due On Sale Clause?

On nearly every home mortgage and loan contract written in the United States, the Due On Sale Clause is one of those fine print inclusions that a lot of home buyers overlook.

In essence, the Due On Sale Clause is a legal term that means that if a mortgage holder transfers interest in a real property to a third-party, then the bank or other lender has the "right" to call the loan "due in full", and if the mortgage holder cannot pay the loan in full at that time, the bank has the right to foreclose on the property.

It must be noted however that many banks and lending institutions do not enforce their rights in association to the Due On Sale Clause. Banks and lending institutions are "not required" to enforce the Due On Sale Clause, but they have the "right" to do so at their discretion.

Understanding The Foreclosure Process

This is an area that most consumers simply do not understand. In fact, just ten years ago, even I believed that if a home were foreclosed, the bank would hold the property until they could sell it at its full retail value.

But the truth is that banks and lending institutions generally do not make money when they foreclose a property. Instead, most banks will lose tens of thousands of dollars if they are forced to foreclose on a property.

Here is the reason why.

When a bank forecloses a property, they cannot afford to have non-performing real estate on their books. Banks and lenders also borrow money and have debts to service. So a piece of real estate on their books that is not generating an income is contrary to the lenders business model.

As a result, when banks foreclose on a property, they need to sell that property quickly. Foreclosed properties are sent to a sheriff's sale, usually within 90 days of the completion of the foreclosure process.

Now, here is where we get into the dollars and cents of why your lender is going to lose tens of thousands of dollars when they are forced to foreclose your property. The average property sold at a sheriff's auction will only generate 20- to 40-cents return against the retail value of the property!

So, if you have a 40% equity stake in your home at the time of foreclosure and your bank will only be able to collect 20% to 40% of the homes' retail value at auction, your bank is still going to lose 20% to 40% of the retail value of the property at auction. If your home is worth $100,000, you will lose your 40% equity in the property or $40,000, and your bank will lose 20% to 40% of the retail value of the property or $20,000 to $40,000 when they sell your home at auction.

When you begin to understand why a bank or lender would not want to foreclose your home, then you begin to understand why a bank or lender may choose not to exercise its rights under the Due On Sale Clause.

The History Of The Due On Sale Clause

The Due On Sale Clause began to work its way into mortgage contracts during the 1970's. Homeowners who took loans in the 1950's and 1960's were getting really low interest rates on home loans. But, during the 1970's, interest rates began to spiral upwards.

Home sellers who were willing to entertain "creative financing alternatives" to sell their homes began to sell their homes to other parties through Contract For Deed arrangements. This enabled buyers to avoid going to the bank to get new loans, which would require a much higher interest rate than the rate the current homeowner was paying on the home.

The math was easy to follow. The existing homeowner was paying 2% to 4% interest on his or her mortgage. Buyers getting new loans would be paying 8% to 16% to buy the same house. Assumable mortgages were a clear winner for homebuyers, due to the higher interest rates on new loans, and they were a clear winner for home sellers who would be able to sell their homes more quickly to motivated buyers.

Banks viewed the Due On Sale Clause as a method to force buyers into a higher interest rate. So banks began to include the Due On Sale Clause on all mortgage contracts.

Early on, a few states sided with buyers who felt that the Due On Sale Clause was tantamount to predatory lending practices. So in the late-1970's and early-1980's, state governments began to outlaw the Due On Sale Clause.

However, the federal government sided with the banking and savings and loan industries and passed a law in 1982, The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, that made the Due On Sale Clause legal in all fifty states - with a few exceptions defined by the legislation: (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00001701---j003-.html)

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 Exceptions

As with any document filled with legalese, the language can be somewhat confusing, leaving room for interpretation in the law. As a result, many real estate investors operate on the fringes of this legislation, doing things that some people consider legal and other people consider illegal.

In the 27 years since this legislation was passed, the federal government has not taken steps to clarify any of the ambiguity in the legislation. As a result, it is entirely possible to find lawyers who argue for each side of the specific interpretation of the legislation.

Although some elements of this legislation remain ambiguous, some elements of the legislation are crystal clear. (As always, you should consult with an attorney before signing any contract.)

One point that is crystal clear is that any loan written on a manufactured home (mobile home) cannot include a Due On Sale Clause. All loans made on a manufactured home may be assumed by a third-party. Vanderbilt Mortgage, one of the largest lenders on manufactured homes, makes the process super easy. They will send you a credit application for your buyer, and if the person passes credit check, that person can take over your home loan immediately under whatever terms you set.

Another exception includes the ability to sign a lease of up to three years, so long as that lease does not include an Option To Buy.

Allowances for an exception to the Due On Sale Clause have been included to reflect the possibilities of the death of a borrower or a couple getting a divorce.

One more important exception to the Due On Sale Clause has to do with Inter Vivos Trusts. Also called a Living Trust, the Inter Vivos Trust is a legal instrument that permits the transfer of the ownership of the property from the individual to a legal trust, managed by a trustee and held by the homeowner as beneficiary. This was important to note, because many real estate investors use this as a tool to protect the interests of the buyer and seller in the real estate transaction.

If you want to know all of the specifics of this legislation, please refer to the Cornell Law URL included above.

The Due On Sale Protects The Lenders' Interests

Although banks and lending institutions have the "right" to enforce the Due On Sale Clause, most lending institutions will not exercise that right.

Some of the ambiguity that accompanies the legislation regarding the Due On Sale Clause is whether a borrower is required to notify his or her lender of a transfer of interest in a property. While it is fraud and a crime to mislead your lender, some argue that if you don't tell your lender, then you will have circumvented the legal ramifications of violating the Due On Sale Clause. After all, if you don't lie to your lender, then you have not committed any fraud.

The people who take this approach also believe that if the lender never figures it out, then nothing is lost if the buyer continues to make all of his or her payments on time every month.

Personally, I prefer that you play straight with your lender. As someone who buys homes that have a mortgage, it is in my best interest also, if the lender is aware of our intent to do a transaction. I would hate to buy your house under contract, pay on that house for one payment or dozens, and then have your lender discover that you did not tell them that I was buying your house. If your lender calls the Due On Sale Clause after I have worked out a purchase deal with you, then that would be a pain in my you-know-what.

Some lenders will not hesitate to call the Due On Sale Clause, although most are happy so long as they continue to receive on-time payments for the life of the loan.

That is why I suggest always to call your lender with a "If I wanted to" scenario. Don't tell your lender "you did it". Tell your lender before you sign the paperwork "you would like to do it".

Test the waters with your lender before you venture into the deal. Chances are that your lender will agree, so long as the buyer knows that if the payments come late, that the bank may exercise its right to Due On Sale.

One More Note

Someone asked what a Demand Clause was and if it is similar to the Due On Sale Clause. It is similar, but very different. The Demand Clause allows the lender to demand full payment at any time for any reason. With the Due On Sale Clause, then full payment can only be required if the interest in the property changes hands.

In Conclusion

Tens of thousands of deals are done every year, where the mortgage holder sets up a Contract For Deed deal with a buyer, and the lending institution permits the transfer to happen unimpeded - even though the lending institution has the right to stop the transaction at any time under the terms of the Due On Sale Clause.

If you want to sell your home during this housing crisis and credit crunch, your first best bet is to call your lender and have a discussion about "If I wanted to sell my house through a Contract For Deed" scenario.

If your lender says that they would call the note, then you know that this option is not for you. However, if they indicate that they would be happy to let you go through with such a deal on certain terms, then you will know that you have another option for getting out of that house that you do not want anymore.


Author's Note: This article originally published here:
http://www.libertyhomesellers.com/blog/2009/02/due-on-sale-clause/


About the Author:
Cory Shrader writes for the Liberty Home Sellers website. Liberty buys and sell homes in Oklahoma and has regular contacts with other real estate investors in many U.S. states, who also offer single-family homes for sale. If you are looking to sell a home, buy a home, or buy handyman specials, please visit our website and fill out the appropriate form on our website: http://www.LibertyHomeSellers.com

Is Government Working For You - Or Are You Working For Government?

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Fred Vanhoosen


The new Congress and President are hard-at-work trying to push through a new economic stimulus package. Our elected leaders are claim the stimulus package will cost $825 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - which is known for its accurate accounting - says that with interest costs, the package will actually cost $1.1 trillion.

To put the $825 billion into perspective, Glenn Beck suggested today that the government could give a $17,000 check to every American and the numbers would add up to the same amount of the new "stimulus" package.

We all know it - the government is not going to send any of "us" a $17,000 check in the mail. This stimulus is about helping political causes as opposed to helping the people who are suffering in a bad economy.

If the current stimulus package will cost us $17,000 each, then the TARP funds cost us the equivalent of $14,000, just a few months ago. Between the two stimulus packages, the government is spending at least $31,000 for every American in 2008-2009, and that number only accounts for the "emergency stimulus"; it does not even take into account the governments normal spending habits.

I don't know about you, but $31,000 is equal to more than half of what I earned last year.

If we believe in our leaders, we would be safe to assume that the government will not come to us to collect the full $31,000 they borrowed in our names. Instead, our leaders would have us believe that you and I will get a tax cut and "the rich" will pay all of that debt back to lenders. 95% of us will get a tax cut and the 5% who are rich will pay our tax bills for us. So every rich person will pay the tax bill for the 19 of us who are in the middle- and lower-income tax brackets.

If this is an accurate assessment of the cost of these two stimulus packages, then "the rich" will be responsible for an additional $589,000 each. If the rich are really those who make more than $250,000 per year, then I suspect that most of "the rich" people won't be able to pay off our debts for us. But what do I know... I am not a politician.

What Do I Know?

I will tell you what I do know. I do know that I cannot manage my own family's finances with the same fuzzy math that government uses to manage its money.

I know that if I only have $3500 per month to pay my bills with, then I only have $3500 per month to pay my bills with. I also know that if I can find a mortgage company to finance my next home purchase, at a monthly payment I can afford to make, then I can buy a home. I also know that if I can find a finance company, which will loan me the money to buy a car, I can buy a car on credit.

At every step in the process, I need to know that I can reliably make all of my payments; within the context of the money I will reliably earn every month.

When my income drops, I need to find something to cut from my monthly expenses. If I cannot afford something this month, then I will not be able to afford it next month either. Rather than to try to live beyond my means, I have to cut something from my monthly expenses, because in the end, I need to do what is best for my family.

If the cash shortfall is temporary, like when I need to pay the mechanic to fix my car, or my wife gets another speeding ticket, then I can look to a payday loan company to help me cover that short-term cash shortfall.

In my case, the cash advance or payday loan is cool to use, but only if I am using it to cover a smaller, unanticipated expense. On the other hand, if the cash shortfall is expected to last several months, like when I needed to pay out $1100 over several months to pay the transmission shop for the new transmission in my car, then I would never consider a payday loan. Instead, I would find something that I could do without for several months and then do without that item.

Why Is This A Difficult Concept For Politicians To Understand?

At all times, we do what we can to live within our means, If we need to borrow money, we only do so when we are reasonably sure that we can pay that money back. If we cannot afford to borrow the money, then we look for things in our budget that we can cut.

But our politicians will never do such things. Even cost-cutter Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot seem to figure out how to stop spending money. Experts are now suggesting that the State of California is only collecting 60 cents on every dollar it spends! OMG... Where does it end?

So, California is looking for money to borrow, and the federal government is borrowing money and printing money so that they can spend well beyond their means as well. And why are the politicians still spending money like this? Because we are in dire economic circumstances!

You and I cannot borrow our way to prosperity, so why would the politicians believe that the U.S. Government could borrow its way to prosperity?

If you ask me, it is because our elected officials are just plain stupid. They have decided that you and I exist so that we can take care of the needs of the government, instead of the government existing to take care of our needs.

"The rich" are not going to be able to afford to take care of all of the costs or our government, so in the end, you and I will be paying out of our very limited budgets to take care of the financial needs of our government. They have stopped working for us - now, we work for them. We just don't know it yet.


About the Author:
Fred Vanhoosen writes about the payday loan / cash advance loan industry. Occasionally, he feels compelled to comment on the financial habits of our government. To learn more about cash advance loan products, he recommends visiting the following website: http://www.fastcash4all.net/