[urbanrealtor]

I don’t care to add to the comments above about people’s views on family or marriage.

Some comments make me speculate on people’s personal lives and I really don’t like doing that–even involuntarily. Ick.

Regarding the issues brought up by the thread author:
As I understand it, the property and all the down payment are community property. Husband gets back half the proceeds (or lack thereof) and is liable for half the unpaid or forgiven debt (should he sell short).

Regarding the loan, it is unlikely that any occupancy requirement is enforceable. Most owner occ loans have some similar clause and nobody enforces it if the owner’s circumstances change. The only time we see those followed is when there is legitimate mortgage fraud (google Todd Lackner some time) or when the loans are especially non-standard (eg: a private or hard money lender).

Also, it might be obvious but both people on title have to agree to the sale.

[urbanrealtor]

I don’t care to add to the comments above about people’s views on family or marriage.

Some comments make me speculate on people’s personal lives and I really don’t like doing that–even involuntarily. Ick.

Regarding the issues brought up by the thread author:
As I understand it, the property and all the down payment are community property. Husband gets back half the proceeds (or lack thereof) and is liable for half the unpaid or forgiven debt (should he sell short).

Regarding the loan, it is unlikely that any occupancy requirement is enforceable. Most owner occ loans have some similar clause and nobody enforces it if the owner’s circumstances change. The only time we see those followed is when there is legitimate mortgage fraud (google Todd Lackner some time) or when the loans are especially non-standard (eg: a private or hard money lender).

Also, it might be obvious but both people on title have to agree to the sale.

[urbanrealtor]

Where did this info come from?

[urbanrealtor]

Where did this info come from?

[urbanrealtor]

Where did this info come from?

[urbanrealtor]

Where did this info come from?

[urbanrealtor]

Where did this info come from?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]If the government buys stock in banks, is that not an endorsement of past behavior? I think the government should buy the foreclosed property much like any rich/smart? investor would who had cash. Of course this will still lead to inflation. Inflation is inevitable, just like in post depression Germany when it took a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation will also help those that are struggling with their payments but can still manage. Although food will go up (invest in rice and corn(cheap food) futures), the amount(%) paid toward mortgage will go down. That is what is needed and that is what will happen.[/quote]
I think that the current government considers remediation more relevant than endorsement. Maybe I am wrong on that. However, I think the analogy that CNN kept using today (yes Tuesday is my day off-I am a loser) was that fire prevention analysis should not keep you from using a fire extinguisher. Now I am not sure how useful that is as a metaphor, but it is a decent point.
Regarding inflation, I don’t think that we hired either the Weimar head of currency of the Zimbabwean ministry of treasury. Nobody is talking about doubling or tripling the money supply (though of course, that could change) but just about making good on our obligations and stabilizing the credit market through cash injections. I think that the foodstuff concern is a bit hyperbolic but your point about the diminishing importance of housing costs is well taken and valuable.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]If the government buys stock in banks, is that not an endorsement of past behavior? I think the government should buy the foreclosed property much like any rich/smart? investor would who had cash. Of course this will still lead to inflation. Inflation is inevitable, just like in post depression Germany when it took a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation will also help those that are struggling with their payments but can still manage. Although food will go up (invest in rice and corn(cheap food) futures), the amount(%) paid toward mortgage will go down. That is what is needed and that is what will happen.[/quote]
I think that the current government considers remediation more relevant than endorsement. Maybe I am wrong on that. However, I think the analogy that CNN kept using today (yes Tuesday is my day off-I am a loser) was that fire prevention analysis should not keep you from using a fire extinguisher. Now I am not sure how useful that is as a metaphor, but it is a decent point.
Regarding inflation, I don’t think that we hired either the Weimar head of currency of the Zimbabwean ministry of treasury. Nobody is talking about doubling or tripling the money supply (though of course, that could change) but just about making good on our obligations and stabilizing the credit market through cash injections. I think that the foodstuff concern is a bit hyperbolic but your point about the diminishing importance of housing costs is well taken and valuable.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]If the government buys stock in banks, is that not an endorsement of past behavior? I think the government should buy the foreclosed property much like any rich/smart? investor would who had cash. Of course this will still lead to inflation. Inflation is inevitable, just like in post depression Germany when it took a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation will also help those that are struggling with their payments but can still manage. Although food will go up (invest in rice and corn(cheap food) futures), the amount(%) paid toward mortgage will go down. That is what is needed and that is what will happen.[/quote]
I think that the current government considers remediation more relevant than endorsement. Maybe I am wrong on that. However, I think the analogy that CNN kept using today (yes Tuesday is my day off-I am a loser) was that fire prevention analysis should not keep you from using a fire extinguisher. Now I am not sure how useful that is as a metaphor, but it is a decent point.
Regarding inflation, I don’t think that we hired either the Weimar head of currency of the Zimbabwean ministry of treasury. Nobody is talking about doubling or tripling the money supply (though of course, that could change) but just about making good on our obligations and stabilizing the credit market through cash injections. I think that the foodstuff concern is a bit hyperbolic but your point about the diminishing importance of housing costs is well taken and valuable.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]If the government buys stock in banks, is that not an endorsement of past behavior? I think the government should buy the foreclosed property much like any rich/smart? investor would who had cash. Of course this will still lead to inflation. Inflation is inevitable, just like in post depression Germany when it took a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation will also help those that are struggling with their payments but can still manage. Although food will go up (invest in rice and corn(cheap food) futures), the amount(%) paid toward mortgage will go down. That is what is needed and that is what will happen.[/quote]
I think that the current government considers remediation more relevant than endorsement. Maybe I am wrong on that. However, I think the analogy that CNN kept using today (yes Tuesday is my day off-I am a loser) was that fire prevention analysis should not keep you from using a fire extinguisher. Now I am not sure how useful that is as a metaphor, but it is a decent point.
Regarding inflation, I don’t think that we hired either the Weimar head of currency of the Zimbabwean ministry of treasury. Nobody is talking about doubling or tripling the money supply (though of course, that could change) but just about making good on our obligations and stabilizing the credit market through cash injections. I think that the foodstuff concern is a bit hyperbolic but your point about the diminishing importance of housing costs is well taken and valuable.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]If the government buys stock in banks, is that not an endorsement of past behavior? I think the government should buy the foreclosed property much like any rich/smart? investor would who had cash. Of course this will still lead to inflation. Inflation is inevitable, just like in post depression Germany when it took a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation will also help those that are struggling with their payments but can still manage. Although food will go up (invest in rice and corn(cheap food) futures), the amount(%) paid toward mortgage will go down. That is what is needed and that is what will happen.[/quote]
I think that the current government considers remediation more relevant than endorsement. Maybe I am wrong on that. However, I think the analogy that CNN kept using today (yes Tuesday is my day off-I am a loser) was that fire prevention analysis should not keep you from using a fire extinguisher. Now I am not sure how useful that is as a metaphor, but it is a decent point.
Regarding inflation, I don’t think that we hired either the Weimar head of currency of the Zimbabwean ministry of treasury. Nobody is talking about doubling or tripling the money supply (though of course, that could change) but just about making good on our obligations and stabilizing the credit market through cash injections. I think that the foodstuff concern is a bit hyperbolic but your point about the diminishing importance of housing costs is well taken and valuable.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[Author]

Posts