Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
LuckyInOC
ParticipantCommunist Manifesto, II — Proletarians and Commuists:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
– some have argued here, high mortgages with low interest rates backed by the Gov’t are just rents…2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
– please define heavy, progressive and graduated already exists since WWII…3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
– We still have some rights and fighting for those…4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
– via inflation and devaluation…5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
– I believe this happened in 1913 with the Fed.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
– They are still working on this one…7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
– Ford, GM, and Chrysler might be the first…8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
– Large Corporate farms, few family farms…9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
– High housing in large cities force people to relocate to lower cost cities and states…10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
– doesn’t say good education, only free.Lucky In OC…
ParticipantCommunist Manifesto, II — Proletarians and Commuists:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
– some have argued here, high mortgages with low interest rates backed by the Gov’t are just rents…2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
– please define heavy, progressive and graduated already exists since WWII…3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
– We still have some rights and fighting for those…4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
– via inflation and devaluation…5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
– I believe this happened in 1913 with the Fed.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
– They are still working on this one…7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
– Ford, GM, and Chrysler might be the first…8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
– Large Corporate farms, few family farms…9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
– High housing in large cities force people to relocate to lower cost cities and states…10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
– doesn’t say good education, only free.Lucky In OC…
ParticipantCommunist Manifesto, II — Proletarians and Commuists:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
– some have argued here, high mortgages with low interest rates backed by the Gov’t are just rents…2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
– please define heavy, progressive and graduated already exists since WWII…3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
– We still have some rights and fighting for those…4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
– via inflation and devaluation…5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
– I believe this happened in 1913 with the Fed.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
– They are still working on this one…7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
– Ford, GM, and Chrysler might be the first…8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
– Large Corporate farms, few family farms…9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
– High housing in large cities force people to relocate to lower cost cities and states…10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
– doesn’t say good education, only free.Lucky In OC…
ParticipantCommunist Manifesto, II — Proletarians and Commuists:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
– some have argued here, high mortgages with low interest rates backed by the Gov’t are just rents…2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
– please define heavy, progressive and graduated already exists since WWII…3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
– We still have some rights and fighting for those…4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
– via inflation and devaluation…5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
– I believe this happened in 1913 with the Fed.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
– They are still working on this one…7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
– Ford, GM, and Chrysler might be the first…8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
– Large Corporate farms, few family farms…9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
– High housing in large cities force people to relocate to lower cost cities and states…10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
– doesn’t say good education, only free.Lucky In OC…
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]
Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.
Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?
[/quote]1. I doubt each vehicle will cost $20k, more like $30-36k.
2. I didn’t include the cost of procurement of these vehicles (i.e. government buyers). This will probably cut into 10-20% of those vehicles.
The dent I was refering to was the savings from 650,000 fleet vehicles of which 20% (121k) are already AFV. This is like 2% change of the current fleet. Pelosi’s jet uses more fuel than this would save…
Why don’t we make it equal to the GNP for the last 8 years… That should cover every possibility…
“I can’t be out of money, I still have checks…”
Let me get this right, if you max out you credit cards, you can go to your employer and they have to give you a raise based on your current expenses…
I would sure like to work there..
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]
Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.
Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?
[/quote]1. I doubt each vehicle will cost $20k, more like $30-36k.
2. I didn’t include the cost of procurement of these vehicles (i.e. government buyers). This will probably cut into 10-20% of those vehicles.
The dent I was refering to was the savings from 650,000 fleet vehicles of which 20% (121k) are already AFV. This is like 2% change of the current fleet. Pelosi’s jet uses more fuel than this would save…
Why don’t we make it equal to the GNP for the last 8 years… That should cover every possibility…
“I can’t be out of money, I still have checks…”
Let me get this right, if you max out you credit cards, you can go to your employer and they have to give you a raise based on your current expenses…
I would sure like to work there..
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]
Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.
Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?
[/quote]1. I doubt each vehicle will cost $20k, more like $30-36k.
2. I didn’t include the cost of procurement of these vehicles (i.e. government buyers). This will probably cut into 10-20% of those vehicles.
The dent I was refering to was the savings from 650,000 fleet vehicles of which 20% (121k) are already AFV. This is like 2% change of the current fleet. Pelosi’s jet uses more fuel than this would save…
Why don’t we make it equal to the GNP for the last 8 years… That should cover every possibility…
“I can’t be out of money, I still have checks…”
Let me get this right, if you max out you credit cards, you can go to your employer and they have to give you a raise based on your current expenses…
I would sure like to work there..
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]
Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.
Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?
[/quote]1. I doubt each vehicle will cost $20k, more like $30-36k.
2. I didn’t include the cost of procurement of these vehicles (i.e. government buyers). This will probably cut into 10-20% of those vehicles.
The dent I was refering to was the savings from 650,000 fleet vehicles of which 20% (121k) are already AFV. This is like 2% change of the current fleet. Pelosi’s jet uses more fuel than this would save…
Why don’t we make it equal to the GNP for the last 8 years… That should cover every possibility…
“I can’t be out of money, I still have checks…”
Let me get this right, if you max out you credit cards, you can go to your employer and they have to give you a raise based on your current expenses…
I would sure like to work there..
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=LuckyInOC]won’t even leave a dent…[/quote]
Which is why economists like Krugman say that the bill is too small and that we need to be increasing spending rather than cutting it.
Using your math, if the original $600m was spent rather than cutting it to $300m, that works out to roughly 30,000 hybrid purchases, around 10% of all 2007 hybrid sales. Is a 10% increase in sales during a recession/depression still hardly a dent?
[/quote]1. I doubt each vehicle will cost $20k, more like $30-36k.
2. I didn’t include the cost of procurement of these vehicles (i.e. government buyers). This will probably cut into 10-20% of those vehicles.
The dent I was refering to was the savings from 650,000 fleet vehicles of which 20% (121k) are already AFV. This is like 2% change of the current fleet. Pelosi’s jet uses more fuel than this would save…
Why don’t we make it equal to the GNP for the last 8 years… That should cover every possibility…
“I can’t be out of money, I still have checks…”
Let me get this right, if you max out you credit cards, you can go to your employer and they have to give you a raise based on your current expenses…
I would sure like to work there..
Lucky In OC
February 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM in reply to: “A downward spiral thats tough 2 stop; it feeds on itself. 4closures encourage new 4closures & falling prices discourage buying” #342930ParticipantThe problem is the current bailout makes it difficult to determine what is deflationary and what is inflationary. Loans based on fractional reserves are inflationary. Normally, the default of a loan (fractional reserve inflation) would be deflationary because the backing of the loan is/was privately owned (stock, etc.). A default reduces the money supply. However because of the government bailout, some percentage of the default will be covered by the Gov’t. This will be covered by the Gov’t creating bonds and sending them to the Fed to create money out of thin air (real inflation), with interest of course. The Govt is trying to make up for the deflation of the housing and stock market by creating money out of thin air. Before it was paper assets that were inflated (mortgages, stocks), now it will become currency. So The other percentage of the default is/was covered by the BK of mortgage firms, banks, the stock market drop and the Fed direct bailouts. Lyra, you are half right.
I also understand SD Realtor’s angst about this whole mess and its fairness. It wasn’t fair on the way up based completely on falsehoods. I don’t think one could expect it to be fair going the otherway either. You may not see your just reward for taking the high road in this life. It is what it is… However, I see it slightly differently. I don’t see much diffence between these two situations:
1. A growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Understanding that the market could not withstand this very long decided to wait it out until the market returns to reality. So they rented until 2009 and purchase a foreclosed home with 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
2. A similar growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only to realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Not being sure that everyone in the media and RE industry was promoting increases was correct, decided to purchase in 2005 using an unconventional loan with as much down that they had. After struggling for 4 years to make ends meet and almost ready to give up and go into foreclosure, the government allows loans to be recast in 2009 with principle reductions. The family still with very good credit will now have a 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
I don’t see #2 as rewarding those who shouldn’t have bought in the first place. If the market would have performed as it should have been normally, both #1 and #2 families would have been able to purchase a home at normal prices without any interferance. The only difference is #2 rented from a mortgage company and #1 rented from a landlord. #2 still probably lost more in the whole process. I personally know several families in the #2 situation. I almost became one of these situations. I was very Lucky In OC…
The individuals that should be getting foreclosed will be the ones who could not afford a standard mortgage in the first place, not family #2. I cannot blame the #2 family for their purchase. Only those with very specific knowledge of how these things work (Piggs) came out better than most. Even most in the RE industry got caught up in the hype and are paying for it.
I also agree with CA renter likewise… the recast needs to be recorded as a new sale which would also reset the taxes to the lower price. Owner’s who could affort the home at the current value are likely to be have been able afford it before the home hyperinflation. If the owners cannot afford the home at the current market value, it should be foreclosed, plain and simple.
Lucky In OC
February 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM in reply to: “A downward spiral thats tough 2 stop; it feeds on itself. 4closures encourage new 4closures & falling prices discourage buying” #343257ParticipantThe problem is the current bailout makes it difficult to determine what is deflationary and what is inflationary. Loans based on fractional reserves are inflationary. Normally, the default of a loan (fractional reserve inflation) would be deflationary because the backing of the loan is/was privately owned (stock, etc.). A default reduces the money supply. However because of the government bailout, some percentage of the default will be covered by the Gov’t. This will be covered by the Gov’t creating bonds and sending them to the Fed to create money out of thin air (real inflation), with interest of course. The Govt is trying to make up for the deflation of the housing and stock market by creating money out of thin air. Before it was paper assets that were inflated (mortgages, stocks), now it will become currency. So The other percentage of the default is/was covered by the BK of mortgage firms, banks, the stock market drop and the Fed direct bailouts. Lyra, you are half right.
I also understand SD Realtor’s angst about this whole mess and its fairness. It wasn’t fair on the way up based completely on falsehoods. I don’t think one could expect it to be fair going the otherway either. You may not see your just reward for taking the high road in this life. It is what it is… However, I see it slightly differently. I don’t see much diffence between these two situations:
1. A growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Understanding that the market could not withstand this very long decided to wait it out until the market returns to reality. So they rented until 2009 and purchase a foreclosed home with 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
2. A similar growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only to realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Not being sure that everyone in the media and RE industry was promoting increases was correct, decided to purchase in 2005 using an unconventional loan with as much down that they had. After struggling for 4 years to make ends meet and almost ready to give up and go into foreclosure, the government allows loans to be recast in 2009 with principle reductions. The family still with very good credit will now have a 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
I don’t see #2 as rewarding those who shouldn’t have bought in the first place. If the market would have performed as it should have been normally, both #1 and #2 families would have been able to purchase a home at normal prices without any interferance. The only difference is #2 rented from a mortgage company and #1 rented from a landlord. #2 still probably lost more in the whole process. I personally know several families in the #2 situation. I almost became one of these situations. I was very Lucky In OC…
The individuals that should be getting foreclosed will be the ones who could not afford a standard mortgage in the first place, not family #2. I cannot blame the #2 family for their purchase. Only those with very specific knowledge of how these things work (Piggs) came out better than most. Even most in the RE industry got caught up in the hype and are paying for it.
I also agree with CA renter likewise… the recast needs to be recorded as a new sale which would also reset the taxes to the lower price. Owner’s who could affort the home at the current value are likely to be have been able afford it before the home hyperinflation. If the owners cannot afford the home at the current market value, it should be foreclosed, plain and simple.
Lucky In OC
February 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM in reply to: “A downward spiral thats tough 2 stop; it feeds on itself. 4closures encourage new 4closures & falling prices discourage buying” #343366ParticipantThe problem is the current bailout makes it difficult to determine what is deflationary and what is inflationary. Loans based on fractional reserves are inflationary. Normally, the default of a loan (fractional reserve inflation) would be deflationary because the backing of the loan is/was privately owned (stock, etc.). A default reduces the money supply. However because of the government bailout, some percentage of the default will be covered by the Gov’t. This will be covered by the Gov’t creating bonds and sending them to the Fed to create money out of thin air (real inflation), with interest of course. The Govt is trying to make up for the deflation of the housing and stock market by creating money out of thin air. Before it was paper assets that were inflated (mortgages, stocks), now it will become currency. So The other percentage of the default is/was covered by the BK of mortgage firms, banks, the stock market drop and the Fed direct bailouts. Lyra, you are half right.
I also understand SD Realtor’s angst about this whole mess and its fairness. It wasn’t fair on the way up based completely on falsehoods. I don’t think one could expect it to be fair going the otherway either. You may not see your just reward for taking the high road in this life. It is what it is… However, I see it slightly differently. I don’t see much diffence between these two situations:
1. A growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Understanding that the market could not withstand this very long decided to wait it out until the market returns to reality. So they rented until 2009 and purchase a foreclosed home with 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
2. A similar growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only to realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Not being sure that everyone in the media and RE industry was promoting increases was correct, decided to purchase in 2005 using an unconventional loan with as much down that they had. After struggling for 4 years to make ends meet and almost ready to give up and go into foreclosure, the government allows loans to be recast in 2009 with principle reductions. The family still with very good credit will now have a 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
I don’t see #2 as rewarding those who shouldn’t have bought in the first place. If the market would have performed as it should have been normally, both #1 and #2 families would have been able to purchase a home at normal prices without any interferance. The only difference is #2 rented from a mortgage company and #1 rented from a landlord. #2 still probably lost more in the whole process. I personally know several families in the #2 situation. I almost became one of these situations. I was very Lucky In OC…
The individuals that should be getting foreclosed will be the ones who could not afford a standard mortgage in the first place, not family #2. I cannot blame the #2 family for their purchase. Only those with very specific knowledge of how these things work (Piggs) came out better than most. Even most in the RE industry got caught up in the hype and are paying for it.
I also agree with CA renter likewise… the recast needs to be recorded as a new sale which would also reset the taxes to the lower price. Owner’s who could affort the home at the current value are likely to be have been able afford it before the home hyperinflation. If the owners cannot afford the home at the current market value, it should be foreclosed, plain and simple.
Lucky In OC
February 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM in reply to: “A downward spiral thats tough 2 stop; it feeds on itself. 4closures encourage new 4closures & falling prices discourage buying” #343395ParticipantThe problem is the current bailout makes it difficult to determine what is deflationary and what is inflationary. Loans based on fractional reserves are inflationary. Normally, the default of a loan (fractional reserve inflation) would be deflationary because the backing of the loan is/was privately owned (stock, etc.). A default reduces the money supply. However because of the government bailout, some percentage of the default will be covered by the Gov’t. This will be covered by the Gov’t creating bonds and sending them to the Fed to create money out of thin air (real inflation), with interest of course. The Govt is trying to make up for the deflation of the housing and stock market by creating money out of thin air. Before it was paper assets that were inflated (mortgages, stocks), now it will become currency. So The other percentage of the default is/was covered by the BK of mortgage firms, banks, the stock market drop and the Fed direct bailouts. Lyra, you are half right.
I also understand SD Realtor’s angst about this whole mess and its fairness. It wasn’t fair on the way up based completely on falsehoods. I don’t think one could expect it to be fair going the otherway either. You may not see your just reward for taking the high road in this life. It is what it is… However, I see it slightly differently. I don’t see much diffence between these two situations:
1. A growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Understanding that the market could not withstand this very long decided to wait it out until the market returns to reality. So they rented until 2009 and purchase a foreclosed home with 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
2. A similar growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only to realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Not being sure that everyone in the media and RE industry was promoting increases was correct, decided to purchase in 2005 using an unconventional loan with as much down that they had. After struggling for 4 years to make ends meet and almost ready to give up and go into foreclosure, the government allows loans to be recast in 2009 with principle reductions. The family still with very good credit will now have a 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
I don’t see #2 as rewarding those who shouldn’t have bought in the first place. If the market would have performed as it should have been normally, both #1 and #2 families would have been able to purchase a home at normal prices without any interferance. The only difference is #2 rented from a mortgage company and #1 rented from a landlord. #2 still probably lost more in the whole process. I personally know several families in the #2 situation. I almost became one of these situations. I was very Lucky In OC…
The individuals that should be getting foreclosed will be the ones who could not afford a standard mortgage in the first place, not family #2. I cannot blame the #2 family for their purchase. Only those with very specific knowledge of how these things work (Piggs) came out better than most. Even most in the RE industry got caught up in the hype and are paying for it.
I also agree with CA renter likewise… the recast needs to be recorded as a new sale which would also reset the taxes to the lower price. Owner’s who could affort the home at the current value are likely to be have been able afford it before the home hyperinflation. If the owners cannot afford the home at the current market value, it should be foreclosed, plain and simple.
Lucky In OC
February 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM in reply to: “A downward spiral thats tough 2 stop; it feeds on itself. 4closures encourage new 4closures & falling prices discourage buying” #343491ParticipantThe problem is the current bailout makes it difficult to determine what is deflationary and what is inflationary. Loans based on fractional reserves are inflationary. Normally, the default of a loan (fractional reserve inflation) would be deflationary because the backing of the loan is/was privately owned (stock, etc.). A default reduces the money supply. However because of the government bailout, some percentage of the default will be covered by the Gov’t. This will be covered by the Gov’t creating bonds and sending them to the Fed to create money out of thin air (real inflation), with interest of course. The Govt is trying to make up for the deflation of the housing and stock market by creating money out of thin air. Before it was paper assets that were inflated (mortgages, stocks), now it will become currency. So The other percentage of the default is/was covered by the BK of mortgage firms, banks, the stock market drop and the Fed direct bailouts. Lyra, you are half right.
I also understand SD Realtor’s angst about this whole mess and its fairness. It wasn’t fair on the way up based completely on falsehoods. I don’t think one could expect it to be fair going the otherway either. You may not see your just reward for taking the high road in this life. It is what it is… However, I see it slightly differently. I don’t see much diffence between these two situations:
1. A growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Understanding that the market could not withstand this very long decided to wait it out until the market returns to reality. So they rented until 2009 and purchase a foreclosed home with 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
2. A similar growing family with very good credit wanting to purchase a home in 2001/2002 only to realize that the housing market is rising faster than they could possibly save a down payment. Not being sure that everyone in the media and RE industry was promoting increases was correct, decided to purchase in 2005 using an unconventional loan with as much down that they had. After struggling for 4 years to make ends meet and almost ready to give up and go into foreclosure, the government allows loans to be recast in 2009 with principle reductions. The family still with very good credit will now have a 30 yr mortgage that they can afford.
I don’t see #2 as rewarding those who shouldn’t have bought in the first place. If the market would have performed as it should have been normally, both #1 and #2 families would have been able to purchase a home at normal prices without any interferance. The only difference is #2 rented from a mortgage company and #1 rented from a landlord. #2 still probably lost more in the whole process. I personally know several families in the #2 situation. I almost became one of these situations. I was very Lucky In OC…
The individuals that should be getting foreclosed will be the ones who could not afford a standard mortgage in the first place, not family #2. I cannot blame the #2 family for their purchase. Only those with very specific knowledge of how these things work (Piggs) came out better than most. Even most in the RE industry got caught up in the hype and are paying for it.
I also agree with CA renter likewise… the recast needs to be recorded as a new sale which would also reset the taxes to the lower price. Owner’s who could affort the home at the current value are likely to be have been able afford it before the home hyperinflation. If the owners cannot afford the home at the current market value, it should be foreclosed, plain and simple.
Lucky In OC
-
AuthorPosts