What your are talking about UCgal, has possible shades of ethical gray. The “diner and dasher” didn’t put down a payment for a fine steak and get Hamburger. What if the person feels entitled to use the free rent as repayment of the down payment they were “tricked’ into putting into a good sound investment that wasn’t. What if they feel entitled to recoup just for the inconvenience of it all?
I think some people figured that if they could borrow money, it meant it was a good idea because the great U.S. doesn’t do stupid things.Some people trusted. Stretching things a bit, it was even patriotic to get in game. There must be a reason for it all?
We can’t realistically expect that every bubble buyer had an idea of just how foolish the goings on were or how significant the consequences would be(even though piggs did).I don’t think most were trying to game anything from the onset.
Many of the subprime people were immigrant ,first generation homeowners.Some were just very unsophisticated. All the people “analyst” mentions in his opening thread were goading them into buying and lying to them when they asked questions about the viability or the investment.
Just trying to put myself in someone elses shoes.Not sure I want to blame them for taking a break if it is legal , even though I take the idea of personal ethics very seriously.[/quote]
Russell, I completely concur. I know several people underwater and they are ALL paying their mortgages. Some friends sold a condo and bought a house in 2006, and while in escrow, the lender kept attempting to get them to get a subprime loan, when in fact, they were fully qualified for a 30 year fixed. They were fighting with this lender to stay with the 30 year, and the lender continued to badger them about getting the subprime loan. They switched lenders, got the 30 year fixed, and that was that. Now, how many people could have been snowed with lender’s salespitch to get the subprime loan? This couple happenned to be more knowledgeable and experienced.
