Famed Columnist gives rotten mortgage advice

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
I think what the legalistic types are missing is that ethics come before the law. [/quote]

I take the contrary view. Law are what make us civilized and ethics are derived from laws (perhaps a chicken and egg question).

If ethics were so superior, then we wouldn’t need laws.

Contracts and laws are what allowed us to advance.

The penalties of the enforcement of laws are what prevent people from behaving badly.

[quote=patientrenter]
The law is just our primitive best efforts to make rules out of our a fundamental drive for ethical social treatment of ourselves and others. The law is crude and often wrong. Driving our behavior from the law when it conflicts with ethics leads to a less civilized world.[/quote]

Our fundamental drive is the law of nature. The big animal will eat the little animal.

Money, guns, tanks and the like allow little human animals to become big animals.

Without financial laws (and the penalties of enforcement) the loan sharks would rule the land.

Without labor laws, children will again be working in coal mines.

Without environmental laws, people and industry will be dumping waste in rivers.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[propertysearchaddiction]

It sounds like this guy is just whining.

“The lender offered me a first mortgage refinance at a rate of 4.65 percent plus one point for 30 years, with no PMI, and no income or asset verification.”

Are you for real?

Take the refi and then pay your mortgage. Your 2nd mortgage is probably at 3%. What are you whining about?

You made a choice and now your lender is bending over backwards to help you out? They usually aren’t that anxious to help. Be grateful and move on with your life. What is the problem?

P.S. I get the 155% LTV. That is a risk you take when you don’t use a down payment.

[propertysearchaddiction]

It sounds like this guy is just whining.

“The lender offered me a first mortgage refinance at a rate of 4.65 percent plus one point for 30 years, with no PMI, and no income or asset verification.”

Are you for real?

Take the refi and then pay your mortgage. Your 2nd mortgage is probably at 3%. What are you whining about?

You made a choice and now your lender is bending over backwards to help you out? They usually aren’t that anxious to help. Be grateful and move on with your life. What is the problem?

P.S. I get the 155% LTV. That is a risk you take when you don’t use a down payment.

[propertysearchaddiction]

It sounds like this guy is just whining.

“The lender offered me a first mortgage refinance at a rate of 4.65 percent plus one point for 30 years, with no PMI, and no income or asset verification.”

Are you for real?

Take the refi and then pay your mortgage. Your 2nd mortgage is probably at 3%. What are you whining about?

You made a choice and now your lender is bending over backwards to help you out? They usually aren’t that anxious to help. Be grateful and move on with your life. What is the problem?

P.S. I get the 155% LTV. That is a risk you take when you don’t use a down payment.

[propertysearchaddiction]

It sounds like this guy is just whining.

“The lender offered me a first mortgage refinance at a rate of 4.65 percent plus one point for 30 years, with no PMI, and no income or asset verification.”

Are you for real?

Take the refi and then pay your mortgage. Your 2nd mortgage is probably at 3%. What are you whining about?

You made a choice and now your lender is bending over backwards to help you out? They usually aren’t that anxious to help. Be grateful and move on with your life. What is the problem?

P.S. I get the 155% LTV. That is a risk you take when you don’t use a down payment.

[propertysearchaddiction]

It sounds like this guy is just whining.

“The lender offered me a first mortgage refinance at a rate of 4.65 percent plus one point for 30 years, with no PMI, and no income or asset verification.”

Are you for real?

Take the refi and then pay your mortgage. Your 2nd mortgage is probably at 3%. What are you whining about?

You made a choice and now your lender is bending over backwards to help you out? They usually aren’t that anxious to help. Be grateful and move on with your life. What is the problem?

P.S. I get the 155% LTV. That is a risk you take when you don’t use a down payment.

[patientrenter]

briansd, it sounds like you are assuming that we are purely selfish unsocial creatures with no altruistic tendencies.

You and I and any student of human nature know that is not true. Whether you characterize it in flattering terms like altruism or ethics, or less flattering like “pack-like”, we are inherently and instinctually social creatures that strive to work cooperatively in groups. Yes, we do some antisocial cheating and all in between, but if the downsides of that were not outweighed by the upsides of the cooperation, we’d never congregate in social groups, and we always do.

Anyway, if we didn’t have inherent drives to cooperate (and adopt supporting common standards of behavior, aka ethics) then we’d have no one pushing the laws. All those laws would be there, unsupported by human nature. Do you think people would obey them after they began to notice that no one else supported the laws?

I don’t think it’s even close to chicken and egg. That’s like saying that people educate their kids because there are schools. People make sure there are schools so they can educate their kids.

[patientrenter]

briansd, it sounds like you are assuming that we are purely selfish unsocial creatures with no altruistic tendencies.

You and I and any student of human nature know that is not true. Whether you characterize it in flattering terms like altruism or ethics, or less flattering like “pack-like”, we are inherently and instinctually social creatures that strive to work cooperatively in groups. Yes, we do some antisocial cheating and all in between, but if the downsides of that were not outweighed by the upsides of the cooperation, we’d never congregate in social groups, and we always do.

Anyway, if we didn’t have inherent drives to cooperate (and adopt supporting common standards of behavior, aka ethics) then we’d have no one pushing the laws. All those laws would be there, unsupported by human nature. Do you think people would obey them after they began to notice that no one else supported the laws?

I don’t think it’s even close to chicken and egg. That’s like saying that people educate their kids because there are schools. People make sure there are schools so they can educate their kids.

[patientrenter]

briansd, it sounds like you are assuming that we are purely selfish unsocial creatures with no altruistic tendencies.

You and I and any student of human nature know that is not true. Whether you characterize it in flattering terms like altruism or ethics, or less flattering like “pack-like”, we are inherently and instinctually social creatures that strive to work cooperatively in groups. Yes, we do some antisocial cheating and all in between, but if the downsides of that were not outweighed by the upsides of the cooperation, we’d never congregate in social groups, and we always do.

Anyway, if we didn’t have inherent drives to cooperate (and adopt supporting common standards of behavior, aka ethics) then we’d have no one pushing the laws. All those laws would be there, unsupported by human nature. Do you think people would obey them after they began to notice that no one else supported the laws?

I don’t think it’s even close to chicken and egg. That’s like saying that people educate their kids because there are schools. People make sure there are schools so they can educate their kids.

[patientrenter]

briansd, it sounds like you are assuming that we are purely selfish unsocial creatures with no altruistic tendencies.

You and I and any student of human nature know that is not true. Whether you characterize it in flattering terms like altruism or ethics, or less flattering like “pack-like”, we are inherently and instinctually social creatures that strive to work cooperatively in groups. Yes, we do some antisocial cheating and all in between, but if the downsides of that were not outweighed by the upsides of the cooperation, we’d never congregate in social groups, and we always do.

Anyway, if we didn’t have inherent drives to cooperate (and adopt supporting common standards of behavior, aka ethics) then we’d have no one pushing the laws. All those laws would be there, unsupported by human nature. Do you think people would obey them after they began to notice that no one else supported the laws?

I don’t think it’s even close to chicken and egg. That’s like saying that people educate their kids because there are schools. People make sure there are schools so they can educate their kids.

[Author]

Posts