Trash the kitchen?

[equalizer]

[quote=ibjames]wow, so there is no sense of dignity left anymore, tis a sad time indeed.

The sad thing is people are still looking at houses like an investment. It’s a house, you live in it for crying out loud, and hopefully you pay it off and have an easier living when you are old.

If you were dumb enough to buy a 800 sq. ft place with your wife and child and you just had another kid then I guess it would have happened anyway, as you are just a dumbass that didn’t plan a damn thing. All this other nonsense just makes no sense at all.
Seriously, does anyone have any dignity anymore? Does everyone in CA bathe in snake oil? It sure seems that way[/quote]
This dilemma stems from crowd following. Normally it is very wise to ignore what others are doing, such as nieghbors getting that 760Li while you drive 15 year old econobox. However, the crowd’s home purchasing habits can NOT be ignored. If everyone is getting 5% down loans and you want to stick with 20% down and 30% ratios, you would have ended up in the 1 bd place. Now the market is hot and forcing people (who would like to wait) to panic and bid up again due to massive credits and other BS. Now that 1bd place is deep underwater, what do you do? Listen to us Piggs and stay put or walk away, leave the state to provide better for the kids? (extreme worst case example for effect)

What we need is flat market +/- 3%yr that will put a stop to all these foolish games/tragedies.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
If someone can afford to pay back, they likely will. You can advise if they ask, but I’m sure you aren’t going to proscribe, right? And I’ll say it for you that it is not your “job”.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
If someone can afford to pay back, they likely will. You can advise if they ask, but I’m sure you aren’t going to proscribe, right? And I’ll say it for you that it is not your “job”.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
If someone can afford to pay back, they likely will. You can advise if they ask, but I’m sure you aren’t going to proscribe, right? And I’ll say it for you that it is not your “job”.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
If someone can afford to pay back, they likely will. You can advise if they ask, but I’m sure you aren’t going to proscribe, right? And I’ll say it for you that it is not your “job”.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
If someone can afford to pay back, they likely will. You can advise if they ask, but I’m sure you aren’t going to proscribe, right? And I’ll say it for you that it is not your “job”.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]

I’m confused – probably due to my own ignorance. Isn’t short selling asking the bank to eat the loss? The example you give of sellers showing up with checks is obviously NOT a short sale. (I’ve had friends do that, when the market was down, back east, in the 90’s.) But isn’t a short seller expecting the bank to eat any loss above and beyond the down payment?

Are you saying these short sellers decided NOT to do the short sale after all?

Like I said… I’m confused.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]

I’m confused – probably due to my own ignorance. Isn’t short selling asking the bank to eat the loss? The example you give of sellers showing up with checks is obviously NOT a short sale. (I’ve had friends do that, when the market was down, back east, in the 90’s.) But isn’t a short seller expecting the bank to eat any loss above and beyond the down payment?

Are you saying these short sellers decided NOT to do the short sale after all?

Like I said… I’m confused.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]

I’m confused – probably due to my own ignorance. Isn’t short selling asking the bank to eat the loss? The example you give of sellers showing up with checks is obviously NOT a short sale. (I’ve had friends do that, when the market was down, back east, in the 90’s.) But isn’t a short seller expecting the bank to eat any loss above and beyond the down payment?

Are you saying these short sellers decided NOT to do the short sale after all?

Like I said… I’m confused.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]

I’m confused – probably due to my own ignorance. Isn’t short selling asking the bank to eat the loss? The example you give of sellers showing up with checks is obviously NOT a short sale. (I’ve had friends do that, when the market was down, back east, in the 90’s.) But isn’t a short seller expecting the bank to eat any loss above and beyond the down payment?

Are you saying these short sellers decided NOT to do the short sale after all?

Like I said… I’m confused.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]All I can say is that this is not the way “everyone” thinks. I have plenty of short sale clients that have decided to honor their obligations and keep theh property rather than damage their credit. There are also others that are willing to take care of the property until it closes at considerable personal expense as well as those that have written 5 figure checks to settle with their lenders. Not everyone in CA is morally reprehensible.[/quote]

I’m confused – probably due to my own ignorance. Isn’t short selling asking the bank to eat the loss? The example you give of sellers showing up with checks is obviously NOT a short sale. (I’ve had friends do that, when the market was down, back east, in the 90’s.) But isn’t a short seller expecting the bank to eat any loss above and beyond the down payment?

Are you saying these short sellers decided NOT to do the short sale after all?

Like I said… I’m confused.

[Rt.66]

[quote=patientrenter]What Rt 66 is missing is that any additional losses banks take now is straight out of the pockets of taxpayers and savers. Almost any bank still in business today is there because of money from the government (=taxpayers). So sticking it to the banks is sticking it to your more responsible (taxpaying and saving) fellow citizens.[/quote]

I made the same point earlier:
[quote]Submitted by Rt.66 on June 30, 2009 – 8:58am.
Staying free in the house for 1 year to 18 months seems like the program now. Would any of us have thought this could ever happen? It’s like America has become bizzaro world.

The only people getting screwed are the ones who pay their rent or their mortgage as they don’t get to enjoy the luxury of an extra $2000-$5000 per month to play with. But they will share equally in the higher taxes that will pay for this largess..[/quote]

When I say revenge to bankers, I was thinking along the lines of an entire industry that produces nothing of value (banks) and yet has somehow managed to wiggle itself into the best seat in the house by tying a majority of society into lifelong debt servitude.

I thought some might see that, and appreciate seeing it destroyed somewhat.

Add in the fact that we have been doomed to generations of higher taxes already from the tax payer money gifts the Gov. has bestowed on banks. Why weren’t they allowed to fail like we are allowed to fail? Why do they get our money to insure their profits?

Like Hatfield said, it would have been cheaper and probably a much shorter recession/depression if we had allowed the insolvent big banks to fail, covered deposits with FDIC, auction off the bad debt assets and let the many healthy banks pick up where the failures left off.

Instead we get privatized profits and socialized losses for the banks that pull our Gov’s strings.
Do you deny that these banks get to charge us crazy interest charges all our lives, live on multi-million dollar bonuses and then when they make mistakes and need to face a loss (like those contemplating walking away from an under-water mortgage) suddenly are worthy of our tax dollars to keep them whole and keep their party rolling?

Why defend these people?

If we are gonna live in bizzaro America then why not give money to home owners instead of giving it to banks. After all the problem is failing mortgages, failing homeowners (which lead to failing banks) why not cut out the middleman and give the money right to the source of the problem?

Why is it fair that they get our money AND our houses? Because the plan is to instead use OUR money to pat the backs of the “good old boy” network and keeping the elite, elite. Doesn’t that piss you off? Enough to want to see them get an ass kicking, even a little?

The choice of paying for this with our taxes OR NOT paying for it with our taxes is off the table, either way WE pay. Heads they win, tails we lose!

We should all demand housing at levels affordable with median income for a given area to be paid off in 10 years, affordably.

Who’s idea was it to let housing get so out of control that it takes and unaffordable 30 year loan to rent a house (oops I mean own) from the banks?

Others can chose to be lifelong debt slaves but my rule is ten years of affordable payments at median income levels and I own it or I don’t buy. Don’t bet against it coming in a few years.

[Rt.66]

[quote=patientrenter]What Rt 66 is missing is that any additional losses banks take now is straight out of the pockets of taxpayers and savers. Almost any bank still in business today is there because of money from the government (=taxpayers). So sticking it to the banks is sticking it to your more responsible (taxpaying and saving) fellow citizens.[/quote]

I made the same point earlier:
[quote]Submitted by Rt.66 on June 30, 2009 – 8:58am.
Staying free in the house for 1 year to 18 months seems like the program now. Would any of us have thought this could ever happen? It’s like America has become bizzaro world.

The only people getting screwed are the ones who pay their rent or their mortgage as they don’t get to enjoy the luxury of an extra $2000-$5000 per month to play with. But they will share equally in the higher taxes that will pay for this largess..[/quote]

When I say revenge to bankers, I was thinking along the lines of an entire industry that produces nothing of value (banks) and yet has somehow managed to wiggle itself into the best seat in the house by tying a majority of society into lifelong debt servitude.

I thought some might see that, and appreciate seeing it destroyed somewhat.

Add in the fact that we have been doomed to generations of higher taxes already from the tax payer money gifts the Gov. has bestowed on banks. Why weren’t they allowed to fail like we are allowed to fail? Why do they get our money to insure their profits?

Like Hatfield said, it would have been cheaper and probably a much shorter recession/depression if we had allowed the insolvent big banks to fail, covered deposits with FDIC, auction off the bad debt assets and let the many healthy banks pick up where the failures left off.

Instead we get privatized profits and socialized losses for the banks that pull our Gov’s strings.
Do you deny that these banks get to charge us crazy interest charges all our lives, live on multi-million dollar bonuses and then when they make mistakes and need to face a loss (like those contemplating walking away from an under-water mortgage) suddenly are worthy of our tax dollars to keep them whole and keep their party rolling?

Why defend these people?

If we are gonna live in bizzaro America then why not give money to home owners instead of giving it to banks. After all the problem is failing mortgages, failing homeowners (which lead to failing banks) why not cut out the middleman and give the money right to the source of the problem?

Why is it fair that they get our money AND our houses? Because the plan is to instead use OUR money to pat the backs of the “good old boy” network and keeping the elite, elite. Doesn’t that piss you off? Enough to want to see them get an ass kicking, even a little?

The choice of paying for this with our taxes OR NOT paying for it with our taxes is off the table, either way WE pay. Heads they win, tails we lose!

We should all demand housing at levels affordable with median income for a given area to be paid off in 10 years, affordably.

Who’s idea was it to let housing get so out of control that it takes and unaffordable 30 year loan to rent a house (oops I mean own) from the banks?

Others can chose to be lifelong debt slaves but my rule is ten years of affordable payments at median income levels and I own it or I don’t buy. Don’t bet against it coming in a few years.

[Rt.66]

[quote=patientrenter]What Rt 66 is missing is that any additional losses banks take now is straight out of the pockets of taxpayers and savers. Almost any bank still in business today is there because of money from the government (=taxpayers). So sticking it to the banks is sticking it to your more responsible (taxpaying and saving) fellow citizens.[/quote]

I made the same point earlier:
[quote]Submitted by Rt.66 on June 30, 2009 – 8:58am.
Staying free in the house for 1 year to 18 months seems like the program now. Would any of us have thought this could ever happen? It’s like America has become bizzaro world.

The only people getting screwed are the ones who pay their rent or their mortgage as they don’t get to enjoy the luxury of an extra $2000-$5000 per month to play with. But they will share equally in the higher taxes that will pay for this largess..[/quote]

When I say revenge to bankers, I was thinking along the lines of an entire industry that produces nothing of value (banks) and yet has somehow managed to wiggle itself into the best seat in the house by tying a majority of society into lifelong debt servitude.

I thought some might see that, and appreciate seeing it destroyed somewhat.

Add in the fact that we have been doomed to generations of higher taxes already from the tax payer money gifts the Gov. has bestowed on banks. Why weren’t they allowed to fail like we are allowed to fail? Why do they get our money to insure their profits?

Like Hatfield said, it would have been cheaper and probably a much shorter recession/depression if we had allowed the insolvent big banks to fail, covered deposits with FDIC, auction off the bad debt assets and let the many healthy banks pick up where the failures left off.

Instead we get privatized profits and socialized losses for the banks that pull our Gov’s strings.
Do you deny that these banks get to charge us crazy interest charges all our lives, live on multi-million dollar bonuses and then when they make mistakes and need to face a loss (like those contemplating walking away from an under-water mortgage) suddenly are worthy of our tax dollars to keep them whole and keep their party rolling?

Why defend these people?

If we are gonna live in bizzaro America then why not give money to home owners instead of giving it to banks. After all the problem is failing mortgages, failing homeowners (which lead to failing banks) why not cut out the middleman and give the money right to the source of the problem?

Why is it fair that they get our money AND our houses? Because the plan is to instead use OUR money to pat the backs of the “good old boy” network and keeping the elite, elite. Doesn’t that piss you off? Enough to want to see them get an ass kicking, even a little?

The choice of paying for this with our taxes OR NOT paying for it with our taxes is off the table, either way WE pay. Heads they win, tails we lose!

We should all demand housing at levels affordable with median income for a given area to be paid off in 10 years, affordably.

Who’s idea was it to let housing get so out of control that it takes and unaffordable 30 year loan to rent a house (oops I mean own) from the banks?

Others can chose to be lifelong debt slaves but my rule is ten years of affordable payments at median income levels and I own it or I don’t buy. Don’t bet against it coming in a few years.

[Rt.66]

[quote=patientrenter]What Rt 66 is missing is that any additional losses banks take now is straight out of the pockets of taxpayers and savers. Almost any bank still in business today is there because of money from the government (=taxpayers). So sticking it to the banks is sticking it to your more responsible (taxpaying and saving) fellow citizens.[/quote]

I made the same point earlier:
[quote]Submitted by Rt.66 on June 30, 2009 – 8:58am.
Staying free in the house for 1 year to 18 months seems like the program now. Would any of us have thought this could ever happen? It’s like America has become bizzaro world.

The only people getting screwed are the ones who pay their rent or their mortgage as they don’t get to enjoy the luxury of an extra $2000-$5000 per month to play with. But they will share equally in the higher taxes that will pay for this largess..[/quote]

When I say revenge to bankers, I was thinking along the lines of an entire industry that produces nothing of value (banks) and yet has somehow managed to wiggle itself into the best seat in the house by tying a majority of society into lifelong debt servitude.

I thought some might see that, and appreciate seeing it destroyed somewhat.

Add in the fact that we have been doomed to generations of higher taxes already from the tax payer money gifts the Gov. has bestowed on banks. Why weren’t they allowed to fail like we are allowed to fail? Why do they get our money to insure their profits?

Like Hatfield said, it would have been cheaper and probably a much shorter recession/depression if we had allowed the insolvent big banks to fail, covered deposits with FDIC, auction off the bad debt assets and let the many healthy banks pick up where the failures left off.

Instead we get privatized profits and socialized losses for the banks that pull our Gov’s strings.
Do you deny that these banks get to charge us crazy interest charges all our lives, live on multi-million dollar bonuses and then when they make mistakes and need to face a loss (like those contemplating walking away from an under-water mortgage) suddenly are worthy of our tax dollars to keep them whole and keep their party rolling?

Why defend these people?

If we are gonna live in bizzaro America then why not give money to home owners instead of giving it to banks. After all the problem is failing mortgages, failing homeowners (which lead to failing banks) why not cut out the middleman and give the money right to the source of the problem?

Why is it fair that they get our money AND our houses? Because the plan is to instead use OUR money to pat the backs of the “good old boy” network and keeping the elite, elite. Doesn’t that piss you off? Enough to want to see them get an ass kicking, even a little?

The choice of paying for this with our taxes OR NOT paying for it with our taxes is off the table, either way WE pay. Heads they win, tails we lose!

We should all demand housing at levels affordable with median income for a given area to be paid off in 10 years, affordably.

Who’s idea was it to let housing get so out of control that it takes and unaffordable 30 year loan to rent a house (oops I mean own) from the banks?

Others can chose to be lifelong debt slaves but my rule is ten years of affordable payments at median income levels and I own it or I don’t buy. Don’t bet against it coming in a few years.

[Author]

Posts