- This topic has 105 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
CDMA ENG.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM #497280December 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM #496428
creechrr
Participant[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people thing they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
One word…Entitlement.
Yes, that is where this country has gone. The masses are entitled. I see this with friends and family on just about a daily basis.
Things that were once luxuries are now necessary to survive in some parts of the country. We’re living in an era where BMWs are just about as common as a Honda or Toyota. Not too long ago when I was single, I was introduced to Coach. Just about every young lady I met had a Coach purse or at the very least scheming on getting at least one. Many had multiple high dollar designer purses.
I always posed the question, “why do you need a $300+ purse when you rarely have more than $10 to put in it”?
That question was always met with a look of confusion. As long as they, could afford the minimum payment on the credit cards and could get more cards, all was good. After all, they were cute. Being cute trumps all.
The same attitude can be applied to any object. Housing is a perfect example.
December 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM #496580Participant[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people thing they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
One word…Entitlement.
Yes, that is where this country has gone. The masses are entitled. I see this with friends and family on just about a daily basis.
Things that were once luxuries are now necessary to survive in some parts of the country. We’re living in an era where BMWs are just about as common as a Honda or Toyota. Not too long ago when I was single, I was introduced to Coach. Just about every young lady I met had a Coach purse or at the very least scheming on getting at least one. Many had multiple high dollar designer purses.
I always posed the question, “why do you need a $300+ purse when you rarely have more than $10 to put in it”?
That question was always met with a look of confusion. As long as they, could afford the minimum payment on the credit cards and could get more cards, all was good. After all, they were cute. Being cute trumps all.
The same attitude can be applied to any object. Housing is a perfect example.
December 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM #496959Participant[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people thing they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
One word…Entitlement.
Yes, that is where this country has gone. The masses are entitled. I see this with friends and family on just about a daily basis.
Things that were once luxuries are now necessary to survive in some parts of the country. We’re living in an era where BMWs are just about as common as a Honda or Toyota. Not too long ago when I was single, I was introduced to Coach. Just about every young lady I met had a Coach purse or at the very least scheming on getting at least one. Many had multiple high dollar designer purses.
I always posed the question, “why do you need a $300+ purse when you rarely have more than $10 to put in it”?
That question was always met with a look of confusion. As long as they, could afford the minimum payment on the credit cards and could get more cards, all was good. After all, they were cute. Being cute trumps all.
The same attitude can be applied to any object. Housing is a perfect example.
December 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM #497048Participant[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people thing they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
One word…Entitlement.
Yes, that is where this country has gone. The masses are entitled. I see this with friends and family on just about a daily basis.
Things that were once luxuries are now necessary to survive in some parts of the country. We’re living in an era where BMWs are just about as common as a Honda or Toyota. Not too long ago when I was single, I was introduced to Coach. Just about every young lady I met had a Coach purse or at the very least scheming on getting at least one. Many had multiple high dollar designer purses.
I always posed the question, “why do you need a $300+ purse when you rarely have more than $10 to put in it”?
That question was always met with a look of confusion. As long as they, could afford the minimum payment on the credit cards and could get more cards, all was good. After all, they were cute. Being cute trumps all.
The same attitude can be applied to any object. Housing is a perfect example.
December 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM #497290Participant[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people thing they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
One word…Entitlement.
Yes, that is where this country has gone. The masses are entitled. I see this with friends and family on just about a daily basis.
Things that were once luxuries are now necessary to survive in some parts of the country. We’re living in an era where BMWs are just about as common as a Honda or Toyota. Not too long ago when I was single, I was introduced to Coach. Just about every young lady I met had a Coach purse or at the very least scheming on getting at least one. Many had multiple high dollar designer purses.
I always posed the question, “why do you need a $300+ purse when you rarely have more than $10 to put in it”?
That question was always met with a look of confusion. As long as they, could afford the minimum payment on the credit cards and could get more cards, all was good. After all, they were cute. Being cute trumps all.
The same attitude can be applied to any object. Housing is a perfect example.
December 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM #496441Anonymous
Guest[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people think they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
Because the media equates foreclosure with being homeless. These hardship stories are presented in a way that suggest that, when someone loses the house (with 3 car garage, swimming pool, and granite countertops), that they are doomed to wander the neighborhood with their possessions in a shopping cart and young children in tow.
Homelessness is a genuine tragedy and there are arguments to be made that the state should intervene to prevent it.
But in almost all of these situations, foreclosure does not lead to homelessness. It only means that folks will just have to move to an apartment. The “evil” banks are not forcing people onto the street — at worst they are forcing people into habitable living arrangements that are simply more more modest.
The taxpayers do not need to get involved in a situation where the worst possible outcome is that a family of four may have to live for a few years in a two bedroom apartment.
December 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM #496595Guest[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people think they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
Because the media equates foreclosure with being homeless. These hardship stories are presented in a way that suggest that, when someone loses the house (with 3 car garage, swimming pool, and granite countertops), that they are doomed to wander the neighborhood with their possessions in a shopping cart and young children in tow.
Homelessness is a genuine tragedy and there are arguments to be made that the state should intervene to prevent it.
But in almost all of these situations, foreclosure does not lead to homelessness. It only means that folks will just have to move to an apartment. The “evil” banks are not forcing people onto the street — at worst they are forcing people into habitable living arrangements that are simply more more modest.
The taxpayers do not need to get involved in a situation where the worst possible outcome is that a family of four may have to live for a few years in a two bedroom apartment.
December 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM #496974Guest[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people think they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
Because the media equates foreclosure with being homeless. These hardship stories are presented in a way that suggest that, when someone loses the house (with 3 car garage, swimming pool, and granite countertops), that they are doomed to wander the neighborhood with their possessions in a shopping cart and young children in tow.
Homelessness is a genuine tragedy and there are arguments to be made that the state should intervene to prevent it.
But in almost all of these situations, foreclosure does not lead to homelessness. It only means that folks will just have to move to an apartment. The “evil” banks are not forcing people onto the street — at worst they are forcing people into habitable living arrangements that are simply more more modest.
The taxpayers do not need to get involved in a situation where the worst possible outcome is that a family of four may have to live for a few years in a two bedroom apartment.
December 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM #497063Guest[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people think they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
Because the media equates foreclosure with being homeless. These hardship stories are presented in a way that suggest that, when someone loses the house (with 3 car garage, swimming pool, and granite countertops), that they are doomed to wander the neighborhood with their possessions in a shopping cart and young children in tow.
Homelessness is a genuine tragedy and there are arguments to be made that the state should intervene to prevent it.
But in almost all of these situations, foreclosure does not lead to homelessness. It only means that folks will just have to move to an apartment. The “evil” banks are not forcing people onto the street — at worst they are forcing people into habitable living arrangements that are simply more more modest.
The taxpayers do not need to get involved in a situation where the worst possible outcome is that a family of four may have to live for a few years in a two bedroom apartment.
December 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM #497305Guest[quote=UCGal]I don’t understand how people think they should be able to keep a house they are not making payments on…[/quote]
Because the media equates foreclosure with being homeless. These hardship stories are presented in a way that suggest that, when someone loses the house (with 3 car garage, swimming pool, and granite countertops), that they are doomed to wander the neighborhood with their possessions in a shopping cart and young children in tow.
Homelessness is a genuine tragedy and there are arguments to be made that the state should intervene to prevent it.
But in almost all of these situations, foreclosure does not lead to homelessness. It only means that folks will just have to move to an apartment. The “evil” banks are not forcing people onto the street — at worst they are forcing people into habitable living arrangements that are simply more more modest.
The taxpayers do not need to get involved in a situation where the worst possible outcome is that a family of four may have to live for a few years in a two bedroom apartment.
December 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM #496451Raybyrnes
ParticipantNot to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.
She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.
December 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM #496604ParticipantNot to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.
She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.
December 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM #496984ParticipantNot to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.
She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.
December 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM #497073ParticipantNot to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.
She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.