- This topic has 1,340 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM #536615April 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #535676
briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Sixth, Bill it is okay you stopped paying. However why didn’t you simply move out? If you said well the asset is depreciating so I am done with it, why didn’t you simply mail in the keys and move out? [/quote]
I just don’t get why you want homeowners to move out and leave houses empty when the banks don’t even bother foreclosing. Makes no sense at all.
Economically, it’s a waste to leave an asset unused. Empty houses are more likely to be vandalized.
I truly don’t see the morality point here.
April 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #535805briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Sixth, Bill it is okay you stopped paying. However why didn’t you simply move out? If you said well the asset is depreciating so I am done with it, why didn’t you simply mail in the keys and move out? [/quote]
I just don’t get why you want homeowners to move out and leave houses empty when the banks don’t even bother foreclosing. Makes no sense at all.
Economically, it’s a waste to leave an asset unused. Empty houses are more likely to be vandalized.
I truly don’t see the morality point here.
April 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #536260briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Sixth, Bill it is okay you stopped paying. However why didn’t you simply move out? If you said well the asset is depreciating so I am done with it, why didn’t you simply mail in the keys and move out? [/quote]
I just don’t get why you want homeowners to move out and leave houses empty when the banks don’t even bother foreclosing. Makes no sense at all.
Economically, it’s a waste to leave an asset unused. Empty houses are more likely to be vandalized.
I truly don’t see the morality point here.
April 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #536358briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Sixth, Bill it is okay you stopped paying. However why didn’t you simply move out? If you said well the asset is depreciating so I am done with it, why didn’t you simply mail in the keys and move out? [/quote]
I just don’t get why you want homeowners to move out and leave houses empty when the banks don’t even bother foreclosing. Makes no sense at all.
Economically, it’s a waste to leave an asset unused. Empty houses are more likely to be vandalized.
I truly don’t see the morality point here.
April 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM #536620briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Sixth, Bill it is okay you stopped paying. However why didn’t you simply move out? If you said well the asset is depreciating so I am done with it, why didn’t you simply mail in the keys and move out? [/quote]
I just don’t get why you want homeowners to move out and leave houses empty when the banks don’t even bother foreclosing. Makes no sense at all.
Economically, it’s a waste to leave an asset unused. Empty houses are more likely to be vandalized.
I truly don’t see the morality point here.
April 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM #535681briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Carrying the strategy further the extension of credit should be eliminated because perpetual appreciation of any asset is impossible right?[/quote]I heard that in Canada, mortgages are recourse against other assets the borrower owns.
That deters buyers from speculating using OPM.
I believe that NYTimes had an editorial about that.
If banks can gamble using OPM and get bailed out, than I don’t see why homeowners are immoral for doing the same thing.
April 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM #535809briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Carrying the strategy further the extension of credit should be eliminated because perpetual appreciation of any asset is impossible right?[/quote]I heard that in Canada, mortgages are recourse against other assets the borrower owns.
That deters buyers from speculating using OPM.
I believe that NYTimes had an editorial about that.
If banks can gamble using OPM and get bailed out, than I don’t see why homeowners are immoral for doing the same thing.
April 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM #536265briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Carrying the strategy further the extension of credit should be eliminated because perpetual appreciation of any asset is impossible right?[/quote]I heard that in Canada, mortgages are recourse against other assets the borrower owns.
That deters buyers from speculating using OPM.
I believe that NYTimes had an editorial about that.
If banks can gamble using OPM and get bailed out, than I don’t see why homeowners are immoral for doing the same thing.
April 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM #536363briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Carrying the strategy further the extension of credit should be eliminated because perpetual appreciation of any asset is impossible right?[/quote]I heard that in Canada, mortgages are recourse against other assets the borrower owns.
That deters buyers from speculating using OPM.
I believe that NYTimes had an editorial about that.
If banks can gamble using OPM and get bailed out, than I don’t see why homeowners are immoral for doing the same thing.
April 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM #536625briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
Carrying the strategy further the extension of credit should be eliminated because perpetual appreciation of any asset is impossible right?[/quote]I heard that in Canada, mortgages are recourse against other assets the borrower owns.
That deters buyers from speculating using OPM.
I believe that NYTimes had an editorial about that.
If banks can gamble using OPM and get bailed out, than I don’t see why homeowners are immoral for doing the same thing.
April 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM #535686briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
There is no “new administration”. Republicans and democrats are all controlled by Wall Street. The current administration has a spokesman who is very good at what he does. If you noticed Wall Street seems to be very happy with him. [/quote]If this spokeman is controlled by Wall Street, then he can’t possibly be a socialist who’s redistributing the wealth to the poor.
April 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM #535815briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
There is no “new administration”. Republicans and democrats are all controlled by Wall Street. The current administration has a spokesman who is very good at what he does. If you noticed Wall Street seems to be very happy with him. [/quote]If this spokeman is controlled by Wall Street, then he can’t possibly be a socialist who’s redistributing the wealth to the poor.
April 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM #536270briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
There is no “new administration”. Republicans and democrats are all controlled by Wall Street. The current administration has a spokesman who is very good at what he does. If you noticed Wall Street seems to be very happy with him. [/quote]If this spokeman is controlled by Wall Street, then he can’t possibly be a socialist who’s redistributing the wealth to the poor.
April 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM #536368briansd1
Guest[quote=SD Realtor]
There is no “new administration”. Republicans and democrats are all controlled by Wall Street. The current administration has a spokesman who is very good at what he does. If you noticed Wall Street seems to be very happy with him. [/quote]If this spokeman is controlled by Wall Street, then he can’t possibly be a socialist who’s redistributing the wealth to the poor.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.