Underwater Homeowners Thread

[Arraya]

There is a rabbit shortage and too many coyotes. That is the problem. The corp-gov nexus is the coyote and you are all rabbits. The system has gone parasitic. Daddy is molesting the kids and the kids get ridiculed for getting molested and we praise the molester. This is a sick society.

Canabilistic capitalism coupled with sociopathic self interest sprinkled with state sponsored gangsterism. It won’t last long people. The wheels are coming off the empire. You need to broaden your view.

To think that this is a normal “cycle” is at most naive and at worst hopelessly delusional.

[Borat]

if there are too many rabbits, soon there will be coyotes

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

— Edward R. Murrow

[Borat]

if there are too many rabbits, soon there will be coyotes

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

— Edward R. Murrow

[Borat]

if there are too many rabbits, soon there will be coyotes

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

— Edward R. Murrow

[Borat]

if there are too many rabbits, soon there will be coyotes

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

— Edward R. Murrow

[Borat]

if there are too many rabbits, soon there will be coyotes

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

— Edward R. Murrow

[TheBreeze]

[quote=threadkiller]

Are you one of those slumlords Breeze? It just makes me sick to hear a slumlord denigrate one of their potential renters. We all benefited from the loose money one way or another and now we will all be paying for it. [/quote]

I don’t own any real estate. Never have and there is a good chance I never will so long as the government continues to manipulate the RE market. Are you a housing welfare queen?

And we didn’t all benefit, but it looks like all U.S. taxpayers will be paying for it. I would be very happy if the government took away all artificial support for housing prices. I would like to see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHLBs, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the mortgage interest deduction and all other artificial support for housing prices abolished. Could you imagine how cheap housing would be at that point? We’d all be rich because our housing costs would drop about 2/3rds.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=threadkiller]

Are you one of those slumlords Breeze? It just makes me sick to hear a slumlord denigrate one of their potential renters. We all benefited from the loose money one way or another and now we will all be paying for it. [/quote]

I don’t own any real estate. Never have and there is a good chance I never will so long as the government continues to manipulate the RE market. Are you a housing welfare queen?

And we didn’t all benefit, but it looks like all U.S. taxpayers will be paying for it. I would be very happy if the government took away all artificial support for housing prices. I would like to see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHLBs, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the mortgage interest deduction and all other artificial support for housing prices abolished. Could you imagine how cheap housing would be at that point? We’d all be rich because our housing costs would drop about 2/3rds.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=threadkiller]

Are you one of those slumlords Breeze? It just makes me sick to hear a slumlord denigrate one of their potential renters. We all benefited from the loose money one way or another and now we will all be paying for it. [/quote]

I don’t own any real estate. Never have and there is a good chance I never will so long as the government continues to manipulate the RE market. Are you a housing welfare queen?

And we didn’t all benefit, but it looks like all U.S. taxpayers will be paying for it. I would be very happy if the government took away all artificial support for housing prices. I would like to see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHLBs, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the mortgage interest deduction and all other artificial support for housing prices abolished. Could you imagine how cheap housing would be at that point? We’d all be rich because our housing costs would drop about 2/3rds.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=threadkiller]

Are you one of those slumlords Breeze? It just makes me sick to hear a slumlord denigrate one of their potential renters. We all benefited from the loose money one way or another and now we will all be paying for it. [/quote]

I don’t own any real estate. Never have and there is a good chance I never will so long as the government continues to manipulate the RE market. Are you a housing welfare queen?

And we didn’t all benefit, but it looks like all U.S. taxpayers will be paying for it. I would be very happy if the government took away all artificial support for housing prices. I would like to see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHLBs, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the mortgage interest deduction and all other artificial support for housing prices abolished. Could you imagine how cheap housing would be at that point? We’d all be rich because our housing costs would drop about 2/3rds.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=threadkiller]

Are you one of those slumlords Breeze? It just makes me sick to hear a slumlord denigrate one of their potential renters. We all benefited from the loose money one way or another and now we will all be paying for it. [/quote]

I don’t own any real estate. Never have and there is a good chance I never will so long as the government continues to manipulate the RE market. Are you a housing welfare queen?

And we didn’t all benefit, but it looks like all U.S. taxpayers will be paying for it. I would be very happy if the government took away all artificial support for housing prices. I would like to see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHLBs, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the mortgage interest deduction and all other artificial support for housing prices abolished. Could you imagine how cheap housing would be at that point? We’d all be rich because our housing costs would drop about 2/3rds.

[WaitingToExhale]

As a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.

Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.

Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.

Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.

[WaitingToExhale]

As a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.

Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.

Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.

Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.

[WaitingToExhale]

As a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.

Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.

Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.

Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.

[WaitingToExhale]

As a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.

Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.

Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.

Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.

[Author]

Posts