Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
ParticipantI have just one comment:
THERE IS SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!
Apparently most voters want a free lunch, and they also believe this, and that’s all that counts.
ParticipantI have just one comment:
THERE IS SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!
Apparently most voters want a free lunch, and they also believe this, and that’s all that counts.
ParticipantI have just one comment:
THERE IS SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!
Apparently most voters want a free lunch, and they also believe this, and that’s all that counts.
ParticipantI have just one comment:
THERE IS SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!
Apparently most voters want a free lunch, and they also believe this, and that’s all that counts.
ParticipantI have just one comment:
THERE IS SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!
Apparently most voters want a free lunch, and they also believe this, and that’s all that counts.
Participant[quote=23109VC]
I just spent a few more minutes reading all the posts here. I must say I am suprised at how hostile you all are towards me.
[/quote]23109VC, the reason many readers here are unhappy with people who bought near the peak with little money down (less than 50%, let’s say) and are now walking or getting bailed out is that
a) the other readers are getting the bill for the loss in the home’s value, (I am assuming the readers are mostly responsible taxpayers), and
b) if home prices had continued to go up, the homeowners would have got to keep the gain in price.
Tails, you win; heads, I lose. Do you see the unfairness issue?
Participant[quote=23109VC]
I just spent a few more minutes reading all the posts here. I must say I am suprised at how hostile you all are towards me.
[/quote]23109VC, the reason many readers here are unhappy with people who bought near the peak with little money down (less than 50%, let’s say) and are now walking or getting bailed out is that
a) the other readers are getting the bill for the loss in the home’s value, (I am assuming the readers are mostly responsible taxpayers), and
b) if home prices had continued to go up, the homeowners would have got to keep the gain in price.
Tails, you win; heads, I lose. Do you see the unfairness issue?
Participant[quote=23109VC]
I just spent a few more minutes reading all the posts here. I must say I am suprised at how hostile you all are towards me.
[/quote]23109VC, the reason many readers here are unhappy with people who bought near the peak with little money down (less than 50%, let’s say) and are now walking or getting bailed out is that
a) the other readers are getting the bill for the loss in the home’s value, (I am assuming the readers are mostly responsible taxpayers), and
b) if home prices had continued to go up, the homeowners would have got to keep the gain in price.
Tails, you win; heads, I lose. Do you see the unfairness issue?
Participant[quote=23109VC]
I just spent a few more minutes reading all the posts here. I must say I am suprised at how hostile you all are towards me.
[/quote]23109VC, the reason many readers here are unhappy with people who bought near the peak with little money down (less than 50%, let’s say) and are now walking or getting bailed out is that
a) the other readers are getting the bill for the loss in the home’s value, (I am assuming the readers are mostly responsible taxpayers), and
b) if home prices had continued to go up, the homeowners would have got to keep the gain in price.
Tails, you win; heads, I lose. Do you see the unfairness issue?
Participant[quote=23109VC]
I just spent a few more minutes reading all the posts here. I must say I am suprised at how hostile you all are towards me.
[/quote]23109VC, the reason many readers here are unhappy with people who bought near the peak with little money down (less than 50%, let’s say) and are now walking or getting bailed out is that
a) the other readers are getting the bill for the loss in the home’s value, (I am assuming the readers are mostly responsible taxpayers), and
b) if home prices had continued to go up, the homeowners would have got to keep the gain in price.
Tails, you win; heads, I lose. Do you see the unfairness issue?
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=patientrenter]I missed this show. (I don’t have a TV.) Did they cover the role of Congress and FNMA and FHA and Freddie…? The Congressmen who pushed banks and regulators to shovel more money at housing are riding higher than ever before, and are probably too powerful to be fully exposed.[/quote]
They talked about Fannie and Freddie – but also pointed out that the real escalation of all this came when mortgages were bundled on wall street as MBSs and CDOs. Subprime, alt-a, etc. (Vs the GSE mortgages). I got the impression that having wallstreet willing to buy every mortgage made to securitize it and sell it was more a factor than fanny and freddie.
But maybe I misunderstood.
[/quote]Thanks, UCGal. Sounds like Congress got a free pass in this documentary. I kinda suspected that, since Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer now hold the reins of power more than ever, and someone would lose out if they were crossed by a bunch of TV producers.
-
AuthorPosts
