You cannot have it both ways

[patientlywaiting]

They do utilize tax and other business loopholes etc..

Ok, Chris, so rich executives use tax loopholes, violate the spirit of the law and "steal" from society.   That's better than abiding to the letter of a contract between two private parties? 

Executives deducts things such as corporate condos, beach houses, jet travel, hair cuts, jewelry, hotel suites, car for their wives, salaries for their children, etc… much of it not very business related.  They take family on seminars and conferences that amount to private holidays.  I've worked as an executive for many years and I've seen it all.  

How about setting up overseas companies to lower the net income of a US-based related company? 

There are things that are much worse than strickly fullfilling the terms of a contract with a mortgage company (which walking on a house is). 

I don't see the moral high-ground you are talking about here.   

 

[Navydoc]

I guess I’m old-fashioned if I believe you have a moral obligation to pay back the money you borrowed to purchase a home. Maybe that feeling is destined for extinction, but I don’t want to live in a society where people think they can get out of obligations that are simply too “inconvenient”.

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived. It’s kind of nice to assign blame one way or the other, but this whole situation is much too complicated for that.

[Navydoc]

I guess I’m old-fashioned if I believe you have a moral obligation to pay back the money you borrowed to purchase a home. Maybe that feeling is destined for extinction, but I don’t want to live in a society where people think they can get out of obligations that are simply too “inconvenient”.

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived. It’s kind of nice to assign blame one way or the other, but this whole situation is much too complicated for that.

[Navydoc]

I guess I’m old-fashioned if I believe you have a moral obligation to pay back the money you borrowed to purchase a home. Maybe that feeling is destined for extinction, but I don’t want to live in a society where people think they can get out of obligations that are simply too “inconvenient”.

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived. It’s kind of nice to assign blame one way or the other, but this whole situation is much too complicated for that.

[Navydoc]

I guess I’m old-fashioned if I believe you have a moral obligation to pay back the money you borrowed to purchase a home. Maybe that feeling is destined for extinction, but I don’t want to live in a society where people think they can get out of obligations that are simply too “inconvenient”.

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived. It’s kind of nice to assign blame one way or the other, but this whole situation is much too complicated for that.

[Navydoc]

I guess I’m old-fashioned if I believe you have a moral obligation to pay back the money you borrowed to purchase a home. Maybe that feeling is destined for extinction, but I don’t want to live in a society where people think they can get out of obligations that are simply too “inconvenient”.

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived. It’s kind of nice to assign blame one way or the other, but this whole situation is much too complicated for that.

[SD Realtor]

Good lively postings…. of course I am right and you guys are all poo poo heads!

Seriously though, I am not by any means challenging the legality of the contracts nor that they do lie at the hands of the lender.

If I may be more constructive then… if we look forward rather then backwards, how then can we implement some sort of reform such that it will then reduce rampant speculation, as well as further obligate those who undertake the risk of buying a home so that we can

a) reduce fraud, speculation, and other ugly artifacts of what we have seen occur in this runup
b) much more important in my book, further delineate home ownership from asset investment

My belief is not that eradicating non recourse will solve the problem and my apologies for not conveying it properly. However I feel that it would be a helpful step. No doubt adding curbs, regulation to the lending and institutional side of the equation will be most helpful.

SD Realtor

I do still hold my ground that more responsibility should be bourne by the buyer but I am just being a stubborn cuss and adding this in to get the last word

[SD Realtor]

Good lively postings…. of course I am right and you guys are all poo poo heads!

Seriously though, I am not by any means challenging the legality of the contracts nor that they do lie at the hands of the lender.

If I may be more constructive then… if we look forward rather then backwards, how then can we implement some sort of reform such that it will then reduce rampant speculation, as well as further obligate those who undertake the risk of buying a home so that we can

a) reduce fraud, speculation, and other ugly artifacts of what we have seen occur in this runup
b) much more important in my book, further delineate home ownership from asset investment

My belief is not that eradicating non recourse will solve the problem and my apologies for not conveying it properly. However I feel that it would be a helpful step. No doubt adding curbs, regulation to the lending and institutional side of the equation will be most helpful.

SD Realtor

I do still hold my ground that more responsibility should be bourne by the buyer but I am just being a stubborn cuss and adding this in to get the last word

[SD Realtor]

Good lively postings…. of course I am right and you guys are all poo poo heads!

Seriously though, I am not by any means challenging the legality of the contracts nor that they do lie at the hands of the lender.

If I may be more constructive then… if we look forward rather then backwards, how then can we implement some sort of reform such that it will then reduce rampant speculation, as well as further obligate those who undertake the risk of buying a home so that we can

a) reduce fraud, speculation, and other ugly artifacts of what we have seen occur in this runup
b) much more important in my book, further delineate home ownership from asset investment

My belief is not that eradicating non recourse will solve the problem and my apologies for not conveying it properly. However I feel that it would be a helpful step. No doubt adding curbs, regulation to the lending and institutional side of the equation will be most helpful.

SD Realtor

I do still hold my ground that more responsibility should be bourne by the buyer but I am just being a stubborn cuss and adding this in to get the last word

[SD Realtor]

Good lively postings…. of course I am right and you guys are all poo poo heads!

Seriously though, I am not by any means challenging the legality of the contracts nor that they do lie at the hands of the lender.

If I may be more constructive then… if we look forward rather then backwards, how then can we implement some sort of reform such that it will then reduce rampant speculation, as well as further obligate those who undertake the risk of buying a home so that we can

a) reduce fraud, speculation, and other ugly artifacts of what we have seen occur in this runup
b) much more important in my book, further delineate home ownership from asset investment

My belief is not that eradicating non recourse will solve the problem and my apologies for not conveying it properly. However I feel that it would be a helpful step. No doubt adding curbs, regulation to the lending and institutional side of the equation will be most helpful.

SD Realtor

I do still hold my ground that more responsibility should be bourne by the buyer but I am just being a stubborn cuss and adding this in to get the last word

[SD Realtor]

Good lively postings…. of course I am right and you guys are all poo poo heads!

Seriously though, I am not by any means challenging the legality of the contracts nor that they do lie at the hands of the lender.

If I may be more constructive then… if we look forward rather then backwards, how then can we implement some sort of reform such that it will then reduce rampant speculation, as well as further obligate those who undertake the risk of buying a home so that we can

a) reduce fraud, speculation, and other ugly artifacts of what we have seen occur in this runup
b) much more important in my book, further delineate home ownership from asset investment

My belief is not that eradicating non recourse will solve the problem and my apologies for not conveying it properly. However I feel that it would be a helpful step. No doubt adding curbs, regulation to the lending and institutional side of the equation will be most helpful.

SD Realtor

I do still hold my ground that more responsibility should be bourne by the buyer but I am just being a stubborn cuss and adding this in to get the last word

[TheBreeze]

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.

LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?

Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.

By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.

I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.

[TheBreeze]

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.

LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?

Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.

By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.

I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.

[TheBreeze]

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.

LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?

Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.

By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.

I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.

[TheBreeze]

Also, getting back to the theme of the thread, certainly the banks were enablers, but imagine a lender who didn’t use similar lending guidelines in the bubble market. There is no way they would have survived.

LOL! Do you think Countrywide, Wamu, Citi, Fannie, and Freddi are going to be able to survive now without some type of government bailout?

Yours is the most ridiculous housing bubble justification I have heard yet. Basically your trying to find a justification for having a bank implode in spectacular fashion after the bubble bursts as opposed to a slow bleed (and maybe a failure) during the bubble.

By the way, I recently read an article about a locally-owned bank (in Ohio I think) that didn’t do any subprime or alt-a mortgages during the bubble. I think they had to tighten their belts a bit during the bubble, but they pulled through and today are doing good business lending to well qualified people that otherwise couldn’t get loans. If I can find the article again I’ll post it.

I am amazed at how many people on this board (supposedly a board full of intelligent people who are well-versed in the ways of the housing bubble) are willing to give the lending establishment a free pass here. Unbelievable.

[Author]

Posts