- This topic has 1,340 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2010 at 4:35 PM #536674April 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM #535736
jimg111
ParticipantThe banks would foreclose if they could. If they foreclosed on all the deadbeats like Bill they would be insolvent, they can’t hold up their end of the contract to foreclose if Bill doesn’t pay, it would be a death sentence. Bill of course is taking advantage of this and we as taxpayers and our children will be footing the bill via a lower standard of living for decades.
April 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM #535864ParticipantThe banks would foreclose if they could. If they foreclosed on all the deadbeats like Bill they would be insolvent, they can’t hold up their end of the contract to foreclose if Bill doesn’t pay, it would be a death sentence. Bill of course is taking advantage of this and we as taxpayers and our children will be footing the bill via a lower standard of living for decades.
April 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM #536320ParticipantThe banks would foreclose if they could. If they foreclosed on all the deadbeats like Bill they would be insolvent, they can’t hold up their end of the contract to foreclose if Bill doesn’t pay, it would be a death sentence. Bill of course is taking advantage of this and we as taxpayers and our children will be footing the bill via a lower standard of living for decades.
April 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM #536418ParticipantThe banks would foreclose if they could. If they foreclosed on all the deadbeats like Bill they would be insolvent, they can’t hold up their end of the contract to foreclose if Bill doesn’t pay, it would be a death sentence. Bill of course is taking advantage of this and we as taxpayers and our children will be footing the bill via a lower standard of living for decades.
April 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM #536679ParticipantThe banks would foreclose if they could. If they foreclosed on all the deadbeats like Bill they would be insolvent, they can’t hold up their end of the contract to foreclose if Bill doesn’t pay, it would be a death sentence. Bill of course is taking advantage of this and we as taxpayers and our children will be footing the bill via a lower standard of living for decades.
April 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM #535811briansd1
GuestI don’t believe in morality as much as I believe in human nature.
Our capitalist system is not based so much on morality as it is based on individual greed (the invisible hand) to create wealth and productivity to benefit us all.
BillS78 is part that invisible hand.
More specifically, home ownership is separate from the mortgage.
You own your house and use it as collateral for a loan. Even if you don’t pay your mortgage, that house still belongs to you, until the bank takes it away in court, or via trustee sale.
Trustee sale is a mechanism that is advantageous to the bank and allows the bank to foreclose quickly. So that is a legal right you (the homeowner) have given up when you agreed to the terms and conditions of the mortgage.
The bank knows that very well. If they don’t take advantage of the remedies to foreclose quickly, well, then that’s their problem.
BillS78 is doing nothing but living up to the terms of the contract. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
In my opinion, it’s a lot more immoral and illegal for a businessman or a Realtor to take his wife (who is not his business associate) out for dinner then take that as a business deduction. He will never get caught so that’s only between him and his conscience.
April 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM #535939GuestI don’t believe in morality as much as I believe in human nature.
Our capitalist system is not based so much on morality as it is based on individual greed (the invisible hand) to create wealth and productivity to benefit us all.
BillS78 is part that invisible hand.
More specifically, home ownership is separate from the mortgage.
You own your house and use it as collateral for a loan. Even if you don’t pay your mortgage, that house still belongs to you, until the bank takes it away in court, or via trustee sale.
Trustee sale is a mechanism that is advantageous to the bank and allows the bank to foreclose quickly. So that is a legal right you (the homeowner) have given up when you agreed to the terms and conditions of the mortgage.
The bank knows that very well. If they don’t take advantage of the remedies to foreclose quickly, well, then that’s their problem.
BillS78 is doing nothing but living up to the terms of the contract. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
In my opinion, it’s a lot more immoral and illegal for a businessman or a Realtor to take his wife (who is not his business associate) out for dinner then take that as a business deduction. He will never get caught so that’s only between him and his conscience.
April 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM #536395GuestI don’t believe in morality as much as I believe in human nature.
Our capitalist system is not based so much on morality as it is based on individual greed (the invisible hand) to create wealth and productivity to benefit us all.
BillS78 is part that invisible hand.
More specifically, home ownership is separate from the mortgage.
You own your house and use it as collateral for a loan. Even if you don’t pay your mortgage, that house still belongs to you, until the bank takes it away in court, or via trustee sale.
Trustee sale is a mechanism that is advantageous to the bank and allows the bank to foreclose quickly. So that is a legal right you (the homeowner) have given up when you agreed to the terms and conditions of the mortgage.
The bank knows that very well. If they don’t take advantage of the remedies to foreclose quickly, well, then that’s their problem.
BillS78 is doing nothing but living up to the terms of the contract. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
In my opinion, it’s a lot more immoral and illegal for a businessman or a Realtor to take his wife (who is not his business associate) out for dinner then take that as a business deduction. He will never get caught so that’s only between him and his conscience.
April 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM #536493GuestI don’t believe in morality as much as I believe in human nature.
Our capitalist system is not based so much on morality as it is based on individual greed (the invisible hand) to create wealth and productivity to benefit us all.
BillS78 is part that invisible hand.
More specifically, home ownership is separate from the mortgage.
You own your house and use it as collateral for a loan. Even if you don’t pay your mortgage, that house still belongs to you, until the bank takes it away in court, or via trustee sale.
Trustee sale is a mechanism that is advantageous to the bank and allows the bank to foreclose quickly. So that is a legal right you (the homeowner) have given up when you agreed to the terms and conditions of the mortgage.
The bank knows that very well. If they don’t take advantage of the remedies to foreclose quickly, well, then that’s their problem.
BillS78 is doing nothing but living up to the terms of the contract. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
In my opinion, it’s a lot more immoral and illegal for a businessman or a Realtor to take his wife (who is not his business associate) out for dinner then take that as a business deduction. He will never get caught so that’s only between him and his conscience.
April 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM #536754GuestI don’t believe in morality as much as I believe in human nature.
Our capitalist system is not based so much on morality as it is based on individual greed (the invisible hand) to create wealth and productivity to benefit us all.
BillS78 is part that invisible hand.
More specifically, home ownership is separate from the mortgage.
You own your house and use it as collateral for a loan. Even if you don’t pay your mortgage, that house still belongs to you, until the bank takes it away in court, or via trustee sale.
Trustee sale is a mechanism that is advantageous to the bank and allows the bank to foreclose quickly. So that is a legal right you (the homeowner) have given up when you agreed to the terms and conditions of the mortgage.
The bank knows that very well. If they don’t take advantage of the remedies to foreclose quickly, well, then that’s their problem.
BillS78 is doing nothing but living up to the terms of the contract. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
In my opinion, it’s a lot more immoral and illegal for a businessman or a Realtor to take his wife (who is not his business associate) out for dinner then take that as a business deduction. He will never get caught so that’s only between him and his conscience.
April 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM #535821Guest[quote=jpinpb]It would all change if loans were recourse.[/quote]
Yes, that and make government/GSE guaranteed/insured loans non-dischargeable (like student loans).
But if the government is to get involved, we could just as well cut out the banks and have the government lend the money directly like student loans.
April 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM #535949Guest[quote=jpinpb]It would all change if loans were recourse.[/quote]
Yes, that and make government/GSE guaranteed/insured loans non-dischargeable (like student loans).
But if the government is to get involved, we could just as well cut out the banks and have the government lend the money directly like student loans.
April 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM #536405Guest[quote=jpinpb]It would all change if loans were recourse.[/quote]
Yes, that and make government/GSE guaranteed/insured loans non-dischargeable (like student loans).
But if the government is to get involved, we could just as well cut out the banks and have the government lend the money directly like student loans.
April 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM #536503Guest[quote=jpinpb]It would all change if loans were recourse.[/quote]
Yes, that and make government/GSE guaranteed/insured loans non-dischargeable (like student loans).
But if the government is to get involved, we could just as well cut out the banks and have the government lend the money directly like student loans.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.