- This topic has 420 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM #486191November 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM #485365
SellingMyHome
Participant[quote=mercedes7]I rarely post here, but your repeated nasty (“blow me”) comments to any of the posters that disagree with your plan and call you out for your nonchalant attitude struck me wrong.
My point is not to berate you, but to get you to stand back and realize that attacking people who don’t agree with you and your choices is insulting and immature.[/quote]
I only responded with “blow off”, not “blow me” to those personally attacking me and my situation. In my main post I was asking for financial advice, and took offense to someone berating me. Blow off and blow me are very different, and display a vast difference of maturity. I have not attacked anyone, just asked people not to be mean. I truly listen to those posts that disagree me, but in an intelligent manor.
Believe me, I have not reached this decision lightly, and wouldn’t have thought of it over two year’s ago. Reading and seeing what the banks have done to this country has made me mad.
When I bought 6 year’s ago I was sadly not as informed as I am today. I truly thought I was buying a house as a longer term investment for my family. If I knew then what I’ve learned since, I would have thought differently. I don’t mean selling at the peak price, but even buying to begin with. 2003 was about 2/3rd the way up the parabolic rise, I thought I would buy before the peak.
What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.
November 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM #485534Participant[quote=mercedes7]I rarely post here, but your repeated nasty (“blow me”) comments to any of the posters that disagree with your plan and call you out for your nonchalant attitude struck me wrong.
My point is not to berate you, but to get you to stand back and realize that attacking people who don’t agree with you and your choices is insulting and immature.[/quote]
I only responded with “blow off”, not “blow me” to those personally attacking me and my situation. In my main post I was asking for financial advice, and took offense to someone berating me. Blow off and blow me are very different, and display a vast difference of maturity. I have not attacked anyone, just asked people not to be mean. I truly listen to those posts that disagree me, but in an intelligent manor.
Believe me, I have not reached this decision lightly, and wouldn’t have thought of it over two year’s ago. Reading and seeing what the banks have done to this country has made me mad.
When I bought 6 year’s ago I was sadly not as informed as I am today. I truly thought I was buying a house as a longer term investment for my family. If I knew then what I’ve learned since, I would have thought differently. I don’t mean selling at the peak price, but even buying to begin with. 2003 was about 2/3rd the way up the parabolic rise, I thought I would buy before the peak.
What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.
November 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM #485906Participant[quote=mercedes7]I rarely post here, but your repeated nasty (“blow me”) comments to any of the posters that disagree with your plan and call you out for your nonchalant attitude struck me wrong.
My point is not to berate you, but to get you to stand back and realize that attacking people who don’t agree with you and your choices is insulting and immature.[/quote]
I only responded with “blow off”, not “blow me” to those personally attacking me and my situation. In my main post I was asking for financial advice, and took offense to someone berating me. Blow off and blow me are very different, and display a vast difference of maturity. I have not attacked anyone, just asked people not to be mean. I truly listen to those posts that disagree me, but in an intelligent manor.
Believe me, I have not reached this decision lightly, and wouldn’t have thought of it over two year’s ago. Reading and seeing what the banks have done to this country has made me mad.
When I bought 6 year’s ago I was sadly not as informed as I am today. I truly thought I was buying a house as a longer term investment for my family. If I knew then what I’ve learned since, I would have thought differently. I don’t mean selling at the peak price, but even buying to begin with. 2003 was about 2/3rd the way up the parabolic rise, I thought I would buy before the peak.
What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.
November 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM #485992Participant[quote=mercedes7]I rarely post here, but your repeated nasty (“blow me”) comments to any of the posters that disagree with your plan and call you out for your nonchalant attitude struck me wrong.
My point is not to berate you, but to get you to stand back and realize that attacking people who don’t agree with you and your choices is insulting and immature.[/quote]
I only responded with “blow off”, not “blow me” to those personally attacking me and my situation. In my main post I was asking for financial advice, and took offense to someone berating me. Blow off and blow me are very different, and display a vast difference of maturity. I have not attacked anyone, just asked people not to be mean. I truly listen to those posts that disagree me, but in an intelligent manor.
Believe me, I have not reached this decision lightly, and wouldn’t have thought of it over two year’s ago. Reading and seeing what the banks have done to this country has made me mad.
When I bought 6 year’s ago I was sadly not as informed as I am today. I truly thought I was buying a house as a longer term investment for my family. If I knew then what I’ve learned since, I would have thought differently. I don’t mean selling at the peak price, but even buying to begin with. 2003 was about 2/3rd the way up the parabolic rise, I thought I would buy before the peak.
What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.
November 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM #486220Participant[quote=mercedes7]I rarely post here, but your repeated nasty (“blow me”) comments to any of the posters that disagree with your plan and call you out for your nonchalant attitude struck me wrong.
My point is not to berate you, but to get you to stand back and realize that attacking people who don’t agree with you and your choices is insulting and immature.[/quote]
I only responded with “blow off”, not “blow me” to those personally attacking me and my situation. In my main post I was asking for financial advice, and took offense to someone berating me. Blow off and blow me are very different, and display a vast difference of maturity. I have not attacked anyone, just asked people not to be mean. I truly listen to those posts that disagree me, but in an intelligent manor.
Believe me, I have not reached this decision lightly, and wouldn’t have thought of it over two year’s ago. Reading and seeing what the banks have done to this country has made me mad.
When I bought 6 year’s ago I was sadly not as informed as I am today. I truly thought I was buying a house as a longer term investment for my family. If I knew then what I’ve learned since, I would have thought differently. I don’t mean selling at the peak price, but even buying to begin with. 2003 was about 2/3rd the way up the parabolic rise, I thought I would buy before the peak.
What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM #485380mercedes7
Participant[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=mercedes7]What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.[/quote]
Ok, so I may have mistaken “blow me” with “blow off”. Point taken, however I hope you can understand and accept why some people may not agree with the decision you are making.
I also appreciate that you are not entering this decision lightly. And I too am not happy about what has happened with the banks. However, the attitude you display in the above quote is exactly what people here are responding to. It is pretty much prevasive in our society today and why not, our “leaders” are setting the example. It frightens me that this is now the prevailing attitude.
We need to go back to minimum 20% down on a home purchase and no more than 2 1/5 x annual salary -period. That way people would be FORCED to live below their means for a period of time and save for a down payment. Home ownership would then become what it should be, a privledge…and I bet more people would truly appreciate it then.
In your situation, if you had initially put 20% down, and had a 8 month emergency fund, you would not be in a position to do a short sale today as you would have equity. I am not judging, just making an observation.
In fact, if the 20% down had been in place all along, we would not be here discussing this, home prices would not have gone parabolic, and you probably could have bought exactly the home you now want in the first place. gl
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM #485548Participant[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=mercedes7]What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.[/quote]
Ok, so I may have mistaken “blow me” with “blow off”. Point taken, however I hope you can understand and accept why some people may not agree with the decision you are making.
I also appreciate that you are not entering this decision lightly. And I too am not happy about what has happened with the banks. However, the attitude you display in the above quote is exactly what people here are responding to. It is pretty much prevasive in our society today and why not, our “leaders” are setting the example. It frightens me that this is now the prevailing attitude.
We need to go back to minimum 20% down on a home purchase and no more than 2 1/5 x annual salary -period. That way people would be FORCED to live below their means for a period of time and save for a down payment. Home ownership would then become what it should be, a privledge…and I bet more people would truly appreciate it then.
In your situation, if you had initially put 20% down, and had a 8 month emergency fund, you would not be in a position to do a short sale today as you would have equity. I am not judging, just making an observation.
In fact, if the 20% down had been in place all along, we would not be here discussing this, home prices would not have gone parabolic, and you probably could have bought exactly the home you now want in the first place. gl
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM #485921Participant[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=mercedes7]What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.[/quote]
Ok, so I may have mistaken “blow me” with “blow off”. Point taken, however I hope you can understand and accept why some people may not agree with the decision you are making.
I also appreciate that you are not entering this decision lightly. And I too am not happy about what has happened with the banks. However, the attitude you display in the above quote is exactly what people here are responding to. It is pretty much prevasive in our society today and why not, our “leaders” are setting the example. It frightens me that this is now the prevailing attitude.
We need to go back to minimum 20% down on a home purchase and no more than 2 1/5 x annual salary -period. That way people would be FORCED to live below their means for a period of time and save for a down payment. Home ownership would then become what it should be, a privledge…and I bet more people would truly appreciate it then.
In your situation, if you had initially put 20% down, and had a 8 month emergency fund, you would not be in a position to do a short sale today as you would have equity. I am not judging, just making an observation.
In fact, if the 20% down had been in place all along, we would not be here discussing this, home prices would not have gone parabolic, and you probably could have bought exactly the home you now want in the first place. gl
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM #486007Participant[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=mercedes7]What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.[/quote]
Ok, so I may have mistaken “blow me” with “blow off”. Point taken, however I hope you can understand and accept why some people may not agree with the decision you are making.
I also appreciate that you are not entering this decision lightly. And I too am not happy about what has happened with the banks. However, the attitude you display in the above quote is exactly what people here are responding to. It is pretty much prevasive in our society today and why not, our “leaders” are setting the example. It frightens me that this is now the prevailing attitude.
We need to go back to minimum 20% down on a home purchase and no more than 2 1/5 x annual salary -period. That way people would be FORCED to live below their means for a period of time and save for a down payment. Home ownership would then become what it should be, a privledge…and I bet more people would truly appreciate it then.
In your situation, if you had initially put 20% down, and had a 8 month emergency fund, you would not be in a position to do a short sale today as you would have equity. I am not judging, just making an observation.
In fact, if the 20% down had been in place all along, we would not be here discussing this, home prices would not have gone parabolic, and you probably could have bought exactly the home you now want in the first place. gl
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM #486235Participant[quote=SellingMyHome][quote=mercedes7]What I should have done, was gotten an adjustable loan that I would not have been able to afford, then let the government bail me out. I’m at a point that I can’t be bailed out of a bad decision, so I’m choosing another route.[/quote]
Ok, so I may have mistaken “blow me” with “blow off”. Point taken, however I hope you can understand and accept why some people may not agree with the decision you are making.
I also appreciate that you are not entering this decision lightly. And I too am not happy about what has happened with the banks. However, the attitude you display in the above quote is exactly what people here are responding to. It is pretty much prevasive in our society today and why not, our “leaders” are setting the example. It frightens me that this is now the prevailing attitude.
We need to go back to minimum 20% down on a home purchase and no more than 2 1/5 x annual salary -period. That way people would be FORCED to live below their means for a period of time and save for a down payment. Home ownership would then become what it should be, a privledge…and I bet more people would truly appreciate it then.
In your situation, if you had initially put 20% down, and had a 8 month emergency fund, you would not be in a position to do a short sale today as you would have equity. I am not judging, just making an observation.
In fact, if the 20% down had been in place all along, we would not be here discussing this, home prices would not have gone parabolic, and you probably could have bought exactly the home you now want in the first place. gl
November 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM #485390george
ParticipantThe government did not GIVE anything to the banks. The funds were loaned to them at relatively high interest rates of 5-10% ( see: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/gmac-tarp-capital-markets-equity-cx_md_0102markets09.html) or exchange for stock.
Most of these institutions have huge assets, but were experiencing self inflicted liquidity problems. Bank of America alone has 2.3 trillion in assets (not including customer deposits), but received only a tiny fraction of that (45 billion??)in emergency funds. As far as loaning money goes, I think the banks are a pretty safe risk. On the other hand if the government had loaned the money to the assetless, deadbeat home owners it truly would have been a giveaway.
I’ve noticed over the years that deadbeats always rationalize not paying back money that they borrowed in good faith. They delude themselves into thinking that they are justified in stiffing the lender. I’m not saying you’re a deadbeat, but I could see how someone might get that impression reading the rationalizations in some of your posts. You are entirely responsible for your predicament. The situation you are in is a very difficult one, but I think some of the posters here are unsympathetic because they think you may be a whiny deadbeat who blames others for his problems. Walking away from the home when you can still make payments is not the “right” thing to do, but it may be the best decision for you and your family. If you do it I recommend you don’t blame the “greedy” banks, realtors, etc. I think you will get a lot more moral support and respect from friends and family if you if you shoulder the blame. Good luck.
November 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM #485558ParticipantThe government did not GIVE anything to the banks. The funds were loaned to them at relatively high interest rates of 5-10% ( see: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/gmac-tarp-capital-markets-equity-cx_md_0102markets09.html) or exchange for stock.
Most of these institutions have huge assets, but were experiencing self inflicted liquidity problems. Bank of America alone has 2.3 trillion in assets (not including customer deposits), but received only a tiny fraction of that (45 billion??)in emergency funds. As far as loaning money goes, I think the banks are a pretty safe risk. On the other hand if the government had loaned the money to the assetless, deadbeat home owners it truly would have been a giveaway.
I’ve noticed over the years that deadbeats always rationalize not paying back money that they borrowed in good faith. They delude themselves into thinking that they are justified in stiffing the lender. I’m not saying you’re a deadbeat, but I could see how someone might get that impression reading the rationalizations in some of your posts. You are entirely responsible for your predicament. The situation you are in is a very difficult one, but I think some of the posters here are unsympathetic because they think you may be a whiny deadbeat who blames others for his problems. Walking away from the home when you can still make payments is not the “right” thing to do, but it may be the best decision for you and your family. If you do it I recommend you don’t blame the “greedy” banks, realtors, etc. I think you will get a lot more moral support and respect from friends and family if you if you shoulder the blame. Good luck.
November 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM #485931ParticipantThe government did not GIVE anything to the banks. The funds were loaned to them at relatively high interest rates of 5-10% ( see: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/gmac-tarp-capital-markets-equity-cx_md_0102markets09.html) or exchange for stock.
Most of these institutions have huge assets, but were experiencing self inflicted liquidity problems. Bank of America alone has 2.3 trillion in assets (not including customer deposits), but received only a tiny fraction of that (45 billion??)in emergency funds. As far as loaning money goes, I think the banks are a pretty safe risk. On the other hand if the government had loaned the money to the assetless, deadbeat home owners it truly would have been a giveaway.
I’ve noticed over the years that deadbeats always rationalize not paying back money that they borrowed in good faith. They delude themselves into thinking that they are justified in stiffing the lender. I’m not saying you’re a deadbeat, but I could see how someone might get that impression reading the rationalizations in some of your posts. You are entirely responsible for your predicament. The situation you are in is a very difficult one, but I think some of the posters here are unsympathetic because they think you may be a whiny deadbeat who blames others for his problems. Walking away from the home when you can still make payments is not the “right” thing to do, but it may be the best decision for you and your family. If you do it I recommend you don’t blame the “greedy” banks, realtors, etc. I think you will get a lot more moral support and respect from friends and family if you if you shoulder the blame. Good luck.
November 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM #486017ParticipantThe government did not GIVE anything to the banks. The funds were loaned to them at relatively high interest rates of 5-10% ( see: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/gmac-tarp-capital-markets-equity-cx_md_0102markets09.html) or exchange for stock.
Most of these institutions have huge assets, but were experiencing self inflicted liquidity problems. Bank of America alone has 2.3 trillion in assets (not including customer deposits), but received only a tiny fraction of that (45 billion??)in emergency funds. As far as loaning money goes, I think the banks are a pretty safe risk. On the other hand if the government had loaned the money to the assetless, deadbeat home owners it truly would have been a giveaway.
I’ve noticed over the years that deadbeats always rationalize not paying back money that they borrowed in good faith. They delude themselves into thinking that they are justified in stiffing the lender. I’m not saying you’re a deadbeat, but I could see how someone might get that impression reading the rationalizations in some of your posts. You are entirely responsible for your predicament. The situation you are in is a very difficult one, but I think some of the posters here are unsympathetic because they think you may be a whiny deadbeat who blames others for his problems. Walking away from the home when you can still make payments is not the “right” thing to do, but it may be the best decision for you and your family. If you do it I recommend you don’t blame the “greedy” banks, realtors, etc. I think you will get a lot more moral support and respect from friends and family if you if you shoulder the blame. Good luck.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.