Underwater Homeowners Thread

[patientrenter]

[quote=paramount]Like RL said today, there are 2 groups of people in all of this:

1. Those who largely committed fraud buying a house they could not afford, and

2. The victims of this fraud – primarily those who are severely upside down among others.

[/quote]

So, if you are a homebuyer who did not commit fraud when buying your home, you are a victim?

Aren’t you forgetting all the people who wanted a nice place to live, but didn’t have enough money of their own to pay for it, and wanted to get some free spending money from future home price appreciation?

Are you saying that those people – who wanted a free lunch paid for with other people’s money – are victims because they didn’t get the free lunch? And they deserve some free lunch now to limit their disappointment and help meet their original expectations?

[scaredyclassic]

say a village was burning and everyone had to work extra hard one day to “save” one person’s house so that the fire didn’t spread. Clearly, the cost to you would be worth it, particularly if you had thatched roofs. I think some see the program as “stopping a wildfire”, and that failure to act would lead to everyone’s values going down, so it’s really a jointly shared enterprise, like everybody keeping up their lawn. on the other hand, it might not at all be like a house burning down, it might just bethat someobdy wgot drunk, went nuts one night and wrecked their own home, and now everyone has to pitch in to get his house back in order. yoou probably wouldnt be as excited about helping the drunka nd berserk dude out. and if you were a guy living on the fringes of a village waiting for a better permanent space, you mgiht be happy to see the drunk dude kicked to the curb so you coudl have his house at a distressed value. is the plan more like putting out a fire — “saving” the financial system and all the strange MBS that undergird many transactions, or is it more just about individuals, whose impaired actions harm only themselves? thisdebate reflects those underlying assumptions to some extent, but until that issue is made explicit, and one’s underlying assumptions are explained and supported, the debaters cannot really talk to eahc other, they just yell at each other. i myself would say I have no idea. I have a feeling it’s a strange combination of both, but more liek the drunk guy than the fire situation.

[scaredyclassic]

say a village was burning and everyone had to work extra hard one day to “save” one person’s house so that the fire didn’t spread. Clearly, the cost to you would be worth it, particularly if you had thatched roofs. I think some see the program as “stopping a wildfire”, and that failure to act would lead to everyone’s values going down, so it’s really a jointly shared enterprise, like everybody keeping up their lawn. on the other hand, it might not at all be like a house burning down, it might just bethat someobdy wgot drunk, went nuts one night and wrecked their own home, and now everyone has to pitch in to get his house back in order. yoou probably wouldnt be as excited about helping the drunka nd berserk dude out. and if you were a guy living on the fringes of a village waiting for a better permanent space, you mgiht be happy to see the drunk dude kicked to the curb so you coudl have his house at a distressed value. is the plan more like putting out a fire — “saving” the financial system and all the strange MBS that undergird many transactions, or is it more just about individuals, whose impaired actions harm only themselves? thisdebate reflects those underlying assumptions to some extent, but until that issue is made explicit, and one’s underlying assumptions are explained and supported, the debaters cannot really talk to eahc other, they just yell at each other. i myself would say I have no idea. I have a feeling it’s a strange combination of both, but more liek the drunk guy than the fire situation.

[scaredyclassic]

say a village was burning and everyone had to work extra hard one day to “save” one person’s house so that the fire didn’t spread. Clearly, the cost to you would be worth it, particularly if you had thatched roofs. I think some see the program as “stopping a wildfire”, and that failure to act would lead to everyone’s values going down, so it’s really a jointly shared enterprise, like everybody keeping up their lawn. on the other hand, it might not at all be like a house burning down, it might just bethat someobdy wgot drunk, went nuts one night and wrecked their own home, and now everyone has to pitch in to get his house back in order. yoou probably wouldnt be as excited about helping the drunka nd berserk dude out. and if you were a guy living on the fringes of a village waiting for a better permanent space, you mgiht be happy to see the drunk dude kicked to the curb so you coudl have his house at a distressed value. is the plan more like putting out a fire — “saving” the financial system and all the strange MBS that undergird many transactions, or is it more just about individuals, whose impaired actions harm only themselves? thisdebate reflects those underlying assumptions to some extent, but until that issue is made explicit, and one’s underlying assumptions are explained and supported, the debaters cannot really talk to eahc other, they just yell at each other. i myself would say I have no idea. I have a feeling it’s a strange combination of both, but more liek the drunk guy than the fire situation.

[scaredyclassic]

say a village was burning and everyone had to work extra hard one day to “save” one person’s house so that the fire didn’t spread. Clearly, the cost to you would be worth it, particularly if you had thatched roofs. I think some see the program as “stopping a wildfire”, and that failure to act would lead to everyone’s values going down, so it’s really a jointly shared enterprise, like everybody keeping up their lawn. on the other hand, it might not at all be like a house burning down, it might just bethat someobdy wgot drunk, went nuts one night and wrecked their own home, and now everyone has to pitch in to get his house back in order. yoou probably wouldnt be as excited about helping the drunka nd berserk dude out. and if you were a guy living on the fringes of a village waiting for a better permanent space, you mgiht be happy to see the drunk dude kicked to the curb so you coudl have his house at a distressed value. is the plan more like putting out a fire — “saving” the financial system and all the strange MBS that undergird many transactions, or is it more just about individuals, whose impaired actions harm only themselves? thisdebate reflects those underlying assumptions to some extent, but until that issue is made explicit, and one’s underlying assumptions are explained and supported, the debaters cannot really talk to eahc other, they just yell at each other. i myself would say I have no idea. I have a feeling it’s a strange combination of both, but more liek the drunk guy than the fire situation.

[scaredyclassic]

say a village was burning and everyone had to work extra hard one day to “save” one person’s house so that the fire didn’t spread. Clearly, the cost to you would be worth it, particularly if you had thatched roofs. I think some see the program as “stopping a wildfire”, and that failure to act would lead to everyone’s values going down, so it’s really a jointly shared enterprise, like everybody keeping up their lawn. on the other hand, it might not at all be like a house burning down, it might just bethat someobdy wgot drunk, went nuts one night and wrecked their own home, and now everyone has to pitch in to get his house back in order. yoou probably wouldnt be as excited about helping the drunka nd berserk dude out. and if you were a guy living on the fringes of a village waiting for a better permanent space, you mgiht be happy to see the drunk dude kicked to the curb so you coudl have his house at a distressed value. is the plan more like putting out a fire — “saving” the financial system and all the strange MBS that undergird many transactions, or is it more just about individuals, whose impaired actions harm only themselves? thisdebate reflects those underlying assumptions to some extent, but until that issue is made explicit, and one’s underlying assumptions are explained and supported, the debaters cannot really talk to eahc other, they just yell at each other. i myself would say I have no idea. I have a feeling it’s a strange combination of both, but more liek the drunk guy than the fire situation.

[ra633]

Again, as I see it, there are Underwater Homeowners who CAN afford their homes, but now owe more than their homes are worth. Many UH’s should walk this year, and probably will.

This especially applies to UH’s that have non-conforming loans, UH’s in expensive downtown SD condos, etc.

The structured assets based on these loans will really suffer. Central banks will not be able to print enough money to ‘put a floor’ on housing prices.

And that’s how it should be. Especially in San Diego.

Maybe we’ll actually have affordable housing around here again!

[ra633]

Again, as I see it, there are Underwater Homeowners who CAN afford their homes, but now owe more than their homes are worth. Many UH’s should walk this year, and probably will.

This especially applies to UH’s that have non-conforming loans, UH’s in expensive downtown SD condos, etc.

The structured assets based on these loans will really suffer. Central banks will not be able to print enough money to ‘put a floor’ on housing prices.

And that’s how it should be. Especially in San Diego.

Maybe we’ll actually have affordable housing around here again!

[ra633]

Again, as I see it, there are Underwater Homeowners who CAN afford their homes, but now owe more than their homes are worth. Many UH’s should walk this year, and probably will.

This especially applies to UH’s that have non-conforming loans, UH’s in expensive downtown SD condos, etc.

The structured assets based on these loans will really suffer. Central banks will not be able to print enough money to ‘put a floor’ on housing prices.

And that’s how it should be. Especially in San Diego.

Maybe we’ll actually have affordable housing around here again!

[ra633]

Again, as I see it, there are Underwater Homeowners who CAN afford their homes, but now owe more than their homes are worth. Many UH’s should walk this year, and probably will.

This especially applies to UH’s that have non-conforming loans, UH’s in expensive downtown SD condos, etc.

The structured assets based on these loans will really suffer. Central banks will not be able to print enough money to ‘put a floor’ on housing prices.

And that’s how it should be. Especially in San Diego.

Maybe we’ll actually have affordable housing around here again!

[ra633]

Again, as I see it, there are Underwater Homeowners who CAN afford their homes, but now owe more than their homes are worth. Many UH’s should walk this year, and probably will.

This especially applies to UH’s that have non-conforming loans, UH’s in expensive downtown SD condos, etc.

The structured assets based on these loans will really suffer. Central banks will not be able to print enough money to ‘put a floor’ on housing prices.

And that’s how it should be. Especially in San Diego.

Maybe we’ll actually have affordable housing around here again!

[Author]

Posts