- This topic has 1,340 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM #536157April 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM #535216
SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
April 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM #535344SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
April 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM #535803SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
April 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM #535900SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
April 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM #536162SD Realtor
ParticipantCAR and Arraya do nto misunderstand what I am saying. Arraya once again I agree with what you said and the with the current direction govt is heading forced debt would not surprise me in the least.
Of COURSE govt should be out of the lending business and govt insured loans are something I don’t agree with either. Honestly if the entire industry was fully privatized with no subsidy or insurance by the govt I believe we would have much lower housing prices. Once more, nobody is entitled to own a home however the govt has convinced the public otherwise. Again, ponzi scheme…
As we have all seen, backstopping any industry causes severe distortions. CAR of course your proposal of 20% (in my opinion maybe even 30% or more is a very good solution) however can you imagine the outcry? Is it the best solution yes? Is it even remotely possible no, not in my opinion.
Arraya you did not really address my point, you kind of walked around it pointing out how f’d up things are which we all know and agree with. Of course they are getting what they asked for which is massive walkaways, fraud, because it is pretty endimic for humans to behave in that manner. Once again though humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody should buy a home if they do not have a vested interest in it. This is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout manner. There will always be appreciation and depreciation cycles so there has to be more to tether a homeowner to a home. To me that is a very healthy downpayment.
April 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM #535626UCGal
ParticipantAfter a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.
A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.
* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.
Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.
April 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM #535755UCGal
ParticipantAfter a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.
A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.
* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.
Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.
April 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM #536210UCGal
ParticipantAfter a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.
A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.
* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.
Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.
April 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM #536308UCGal
ParticipantAfter a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.
A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.
* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.
Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.
April 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM #536571UCGal
ParticipantAfter a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.
A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.
* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.
Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.
April 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM #535671CarlsbadMtnBiker
ParticipantI’m a Bill. 9 months mortgage/rent free. Going to ride this train as long as possible. I know of many others who stopped in the last 6 months. And also many who are about to stop paying into the Ponzi. Don’t be afraid to join us.
April 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM #535800CarlsbadMtnBiker
ParticipantI’m a Bill. 9 months mortgage/rent free. Going to ride this train as long as possible. I know of many others who stopped in the last 6 months. And also many who are about to stop paying into the Ponzi. Don’t be afraid to join us.
April 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM #536255CarlsbadMtnBiker
ParticipantI’m a Bill. 9 months mortgage/rent free. Going to ride this train as long as possible. I know of many others who stopped in the last 6 months. And also many who are about to stop paying into the Ponzi. Don’t be afraid to join us.
April 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM #536353CarlsbadMtnBiker
ParticipantI’m a Bill. 9 months mortgage/rent free. Going to ride this train as long as possible. I know of many others who stopped in the last 6 months. And also many who are about to stop paying into the Ponzi. Don’t be afraid to join us.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.