[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

A home lender takes a risk every time they lend someone money. A loan without risk does not exist. When you buy real estate the house is collateral for the money the lender gives you to purchase the house. The lender holds the title and you pay the carrying costs (eg property tax yadayada). Therefore, if for ANY reason as a home owner you do not wish to live in the house you can simply leave and the lender gets the house for good. This is (was) considered to be a fair and equitable arrangement. Now about your comment, in a free market the bank would be in big trouble if they made to many risky loans ( or bought too many investments related to bad loans) then their market cap might plummet and they might even go bankrupt. But in America the government have socialized irresponsible investing by the wealthy eg Bear Stearns, S&L, Fannie and Freddie, so the tax payer will bail them out. The intent is to make sure the banks have the liquidity to lend money again. So the banks are bailed out in the long run. But if you are some poor sucker who made a bad investment the government won’t be sending you some extra money so you can pay your mortgage, your income isn’t going up, maybe you or your wife lost their job. Why should you be a slave to the bank when you made a bad investment. Especially, when the loan is a fair and equitable COLLATERIZED loan. Send the lender your keys and move on. Life is too short to play slave. Rent or look for another house its not the end of the world.

[pedrocon]

Instead of attacking the realtor on the website most of you need to learn to face facts. If someone bought a home between the second half of 2004 and 2007 then they are likely going to be foreclosed on. When you buy a house in California (and you don’t refinance or take out home equity) then the loan is a full collateral non-recourse loan. That is you lose your house to foreclosure and the lender gets your house and nothing else. They are entitled to nothing else( they can’t come after your bank account). Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after. ALSO, a word of warning anyone out there who paid WAY to much for their house and you are on a 3/1,5/1 ARM or anything like it and you are scrambling to refinance. DON’T DO IT! If you refinance the bank can come after additional assets. Let the house go and start over again. And any of you who inherited, bought a house (a long time ago) for really cheap and you are renting homes for tasty incomes and/or you are paying $20 a year in property tax because of PROP-13. And you aren’t interested in buying a house at current valuations then SH&! the F%^& UP.

[pedrocon]

Instead of attacking the realtor on the website most of you need to learn to face facts. If someone bought a home between the second half of 2004 and 2007 then they are likely going to be foreclosed on. When you buy a house in California (and you don’t refinance or take out home equity) then the loan is a full collateral non-recourse loan. That is you lose your house to foreclosure and the lender gets your house and nothing else. They are entitled to nothing else( they can’t come after your bank account). Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after. ALSO, a word of warning anyone out there who paid WAY to much for their house and you are on a 3/1,5/1 ARM or anything like it and you are scrambling to refinance. DON’T DO IT! If you refinance the bank can come after additional assets. Let the house go and start over again. And any of you who inherited, bought a house (a long time ago) for really cheap and you are renting homes for tasty incomes and/or you are paying $20 a year in property tax because of PROP-13. And you aren’t interested in buying a house at current valuations then SH&! the F%^& UP.

[pedrocon]

Instead of attacking the realtor on the website most of you need to learn to face facts. If someone bought a home between the second half of 2004 and 2007 then they are likely going to be foreclosed on. When you buy a house in California (and you don’t refinance or take out home equity) then the loan is a full collateral non-recourse loan. That is you lose your house to foreclosure and the lender gets your house and nothing else. They are entitled to nothing else( they can’t come after your bank account). Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after. ALSO, a word of warning anyone out there who paid WAY to much for their house and you are on a 3/1,5/1 ARM or anything like it and you are scrambling to refinance. DON’T DO IT! If you refinance the bank can come after additional assets. Let the house go and start over again. And any of you who inherited, bought a house (a long time ago) for really cheap and you are renting homes for tasty incomes and/or you are paying $20 a year in property tax because of PROP-13. And you aren’t interested in buying a house at current valuations then SH&! the F%^& UP.

[pedrocon]

Instead of attacking the realtor on the website most of you need to learn to face facts. If someone bought a home between the second half of 2004 and 2007 then they are likely going to be foreclosed on. When you buy a house in California (and you don’t refinance or take out home equity) then the loan is a full collateral non-recourse loan. That is you lose your house to foreclosure and the lender gets your house and nothing else. They are entitled to nothing else( they can’t come after your bank account). Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after. ALSO, a word of warning anyone out there who paid WAY to much for their house and you are on a 3/1,5/1 ARM or anything like it and you are scrambling to refinance. DON’T DO IT! If you refinance the bank can come after additional assets. Let the house go and start over again. And any of you who inherited, bought a house (a long time ago) for really cheap and you are renting homes for tasty incomes and/or you are paying $20 a year in property tax because of PROP-13. And you aren’t interested in buying a house at current valuations then SH&! the F%^& UP.

[pedrocon]

Instead of attacking the realtor on the website most of you need to learn to face facts. If someone bought a home between the second half of 2004 and 2007 then they are likely going to be foreclosed on. When you buy a house in California (and you don’t refinance or take out home equity) then the loan is a full collateral non-recourse loan. That is you lose your house to foreclosure and the lender gets your house and nothing else. They are entitled to nothing else( they can’t come after your bank account). Now if you buy a house for $700000 and you can’t afford to make payments then it would be better for you to let the house go. Buy the same house for $425000 and then the bank will get their money (because you can now afford it) and you will get your house and everybody lives happily ever after. ALSO, a word of warning anyone out there who paid WAY to much for their house and you are on a 3/1,5/1 ARM or anything like it and you are scrambling to refinance. DON’T DO IT! If you refinance the bank can come after additional assets. Let the house go and start over again. And any of you who inherited, bought a house (a long time ago) for really cheap and you are renting homes for tasty incomes and/or you are paying $20 a year in property tax because of PROP-13. And you aren’t interested in buying a house at current valuations then SH&! the F%^& UP.

[pedrocon]

Russia’s reasons for attacking Georgia.
1) They are legitimately concerned about the welfare of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2) Georgia had recently launched a campaign into these regions and Russia decided to get involved in a big way.
3) They are concerned about US meddling in their border territories. (eg NATO)
4) They want to send a message to the rest of the world that they are willing to very active in their territories.

Frankly, I dont think we (the US) should get involved in this region as it would be better to improve relations with Russia then piss them off.

[pedrocon]

Russia’s reasons for attacking Georgia.
1) They are legitimately concerned about the welfare of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2) Georgia had recently launched a campaign into these regions and Russia decided to get involved in a big way.
3) They are concerned about US meddling in their border territories. (eg NATO)
4) They want to send a message to the rest of the world that they are willing to very active in their territories.

Frankly, I dont think we (the US) should get involved in this region as it would be better to improve relations with Russia then piss them off.

[pedrocon]

Russia’s reasons for attacking Georgia.
1) They are legitimately concerned about the welfare of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2) Georgia had recently launched a campaign into these regions and Russia decided to get involved in a big way.
3) They are concerned about US meddling in their border territories. (eg NATO)
4) They want to send a message to the rest of the world that they are willing to very active in their territories.

Frankly, I dont think we (the US) should get involved in this region as it would be better to improve relations with Russia then piss them off.

[pedrocon]

Russia’s reasons for attacking Georgia.
1) They are legitimately concerned about the welfare of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2) Georgia had recently launched a campaign into these regions and Russia decided to get involved in a big way.
3) They are concerned about US meddling in their border territories. (eg NATO)
4) They want to send a message to the rest of the world that they are willing to very active in their territories.

Frankly, I dont think we (the US) should get involved in this region as it would be better to improve relations with Russia then piss them off.

[pedrocon]

Russia’s reasons for attacking Georgia.
1) They are legitimately concerned about the welfare of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
2) Georgia had recently launched a campaign into these regions and Russia decided to get involved in a big way.
3) They are concerned about US meddling in their border territories. (eg NATO)
4) They want to send a message to the rest of the world that they are willing to very active in their territories.

Frankly, I dont think we (the US) should get involved in this region as it would be better to improve relations with Russia then piss them off.

[Author]

Posts