Trash the kitchen?

[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.

[sdrealtor]

A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.

[sdrealtor]

A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.

[sdrealtor]

A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.

[sdrealtor]

A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.

[sdrealtor]

A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.[/quote]

Thanks, sdr. As I said – I have some ignorance on this since I’ve never been involved in a short sale. I didn’t realize that sellers had to kick in more than any lost equity (downpayment and subsequent payments.)

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.[/quote]

Thanks, sdr. As I said – I have some ignorance on this since I’ve never been involved in a short sale. I didn’t realize that sellers had to kick in more than any lost equity (downpayment and subsequent payments.)

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.[/quote]

Thanks, sdr. As I said – I have some ignorance on this since I’ve never been involved in a short sale. I didn’t realize that sellers had to kick in more than any lost equity (downpayment and subsequent payments.)

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.[/quote]

Thanks, sdr. As I said – I have some ignorance on this since I’ve never been involved in a short sale. I didn’t realize that sellers had to kick in more than any lost equity (downpayment and subsequent payments.)

[UCGal]

[quote=sdrealtor]A couple explanations. Some decided not to do them after all. Often in a short sale, the lender is looking for the selelr to make a contribution to mitigate the loss if they are able to come up with something. Some sellers refuse and some do so upfront/wilingly.[/quote]

Thanks, sdr. As I said – I have some ignorance on this since I’ve never been involved in a short sale. I didn’t realize that sellers had to kick in more than any lost equity (downpayment and subsequent payments.)

[sdrealtor]

My pleasure and it really varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes they pay nothing and sometimes they write checks particularly when a 2nd loan has been refinanced.

[sdrealtor]

My pleasure and it really varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes they pay nothing and sometimes they write checks particularly when a 2nd loan has been refinanced.

[sdrealtor]

My pleasure and it really varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes they pay nothing and sometimes they write checks particularly when a 2nd loan has been refinanced.

[sdrealtor]

My pleasure and it really varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes they pay nothing and sometimes they write checks particularly when a 2nd loan has been refinanced.

[Author]

Posts