Ok. Sad story. What if they didn't refinance? I mean, you know, back in the day when you didn't do a HELOC or refinance, what do you do? Sell the house? Borrow from friends and family? Do some other job? Buy a cheaper place? God forbid - go back to renting?
I feel bad for them. But people that rent have health problems too. Is the government going to pay their rent?
It's not sad at all. They knew they were living beyond there means. They just thought they could quit their jobs and live off the 100k a year ATM machine. "Oh wait, we have to pay that back? utoh!"
670k in debt-505k morgage= 165k in auto and CC debt
23k CASH
~100k to pay off past CC debt (and fees)
So they doubled their $$, got 265k in stuff or services, and lived there for 13 years. They dont get to keep the house and paid an arm and a leg in interest over the years. Sounds pretty close to "fair" to me.
DWCap, it would be fair if they are going to pay all this back. Obviously they are going to discharge everything in bankruptcy, and of course since the govermnent has been bailing out holders of such high risk debt like Bear Stearns it is ultimately the taxpayers who will pay for these dufuses.
I was more addressing the last sentence in the article when she complains it is all not fair. I have been seeing that alot more in articles that I read about housing. As if a bank taking a house you stopped paying for months ago is "unfair".
I totally agree that it isnt fair to society, or to you and me who will get hit by it all. But apperently we cant stop the gov from screwing those that dont spend like they want us to.
I was sympathetic when I read about the unexpected medical bills from knee surgery, because if you aren't at a good career/job and don't have good insurance, that will bite you.
BUT, then i read about the couple having a 5th child despite them already being financially strained. Ok... I'm not against having kids. Far from it. But from a financial perspective, 1,2, or 3 is doable.. BUT, 4 or 5?? Kids do cost money. And they were already in bankruptcy.
I was sympethetic till I read about the CC payments and such. They got unlucky with the illness, this is when the GOV should be encouraging workouts, when injury and illness get in the way of life. However, they had a repayment plan, and were ok with it for a few years. Good for them, all ok. Then they got greedy with the CC, and stupid with the loans. This is when the gov needs to step out. I feel bad for them, but I dont think they should get anything special that the people who lost the house origionally didnt get. (I am assuming that "at auction" means a previous foreclosure.) Maybe I am just a jerk thinking that they are not more special than the people before them.
DWCAP , I was guessing the CC payments were a result of the medical bills. Quite often, when one doesn't have insurance, you end up having to guarentee your treatment on a CC. I would have guessed that they simply couldn't afford the medical payments, and let the interest on the CC ratchet up.
However, like I said, I can't think of why a reason for the 5th child. I mean, it's not exactly "oops" on the 5th child. You think one would have learned on the 3rd or 4th "oops".
Yeah. I have a response. What?
Ok. Sad story. What if they didn't refinance? I mean, you know, back in the day when you didn't do a HELOC or refinance, what do you do? Sell the house? Borrow from friends and family? Do some other job? Buy a cheaper place? God forbid - go back to renting?
I feel bad for them. But people that rent have health problems too. Is the government going to pay their rent?
I still say no bailout. Tough love!
It's not sad at all. They knew they were living beyond there means. They just thought they could quit their jobs and live off the 100k a year ATM machine. "Oh wait, we have to pay that back? utoh!"
I don't feel sad for them at all. They are high-carbon footprint parasites.
670k in debt-505k morgage= 165k in auto and CC debt
23k CASH
~100k to pay off past CC debt (and fees)
So they doubled their $$, got 265k in stuff or services, and lived there for 13 years. They dont get to keep the house and paid an arm and a leg in interest over the years. Sounds pretty close to "fair" to me.
DWCap, it would be fair if they are going to pay all this back. Obviously they are going to discharge everything in bankruptcy, and of course since the govermnent has been bailing out holders of such high risk debt like Bear Stearns it is ultimately the taxpayers who will pay for these dufuses.
I was more addressing the last sentence in the article when she complains it is all not fair. I have been seeing that alot more in articles that I read about housing. As if a bank taking a house you stopped paying for months ago is "unfair".
I totally agree that it isnt fair to society, or to you and me who will get hit by it all. But apperently we cant stop the gov from screwing those that dont spend like they want us to.
I was sympathetic when I read about the unexpected medical bills from knee surgery, because if you aren't at a good career/job and don't have good insurance, that will bite you.
BUT, then i read about the couple having a 5th child despite them already being financially strained. Ok... I'm not against having kids. Far from it. But from a financial perspective, 1,2, or 3 is doable.. BUT, 4 or 5?? Kids do cost money. And they were already in bankruptcy.
selfportrait
----- Sour grapes for everyone!
I was sympethetic till I read about the CC payments and such. They got unlucky with the illness, this is when the GOV should be encouraging workouts, when injury and illness get in the way of life. However, they had a repayment plan, and were ok with it for a few years. Good for them, all ok. Then they got greedy with the CC, and stupid with the loans. This is when the gov needs to step out. I feel bad for them, but I dont think they should get anything special that the people who lost the house origionally didnt get. (I am assuming that "at auction" means a previous foreclosure.) Maybe I am just a jerk thinking that they are not more special than the people before them.
DWCAP , I was guessing the CC payments were a result of the medical bills. Quite often, when one doesn't have insurance, you end up having to guarentee your treatment on a CC. I would have guessed that they simply couldn't afford the medical payments, and let the interest on the CC ratchet up.
However, like I said, I can't think of why a reason for the 5th child. I mean, it's not exactly "oops" on the 5th child. You think one would have learned on the 3rd or 4th "oops".
selfportrait
----- Sour grapes for everyone!
"However, like I said, I can't think of why a reason for the 5th child. I mean, it's not exactly "oops" on the 5th child."
Maybe they're Catholics?