|

Walking away from mortgage – entitlement mentality

Today, many homeowners think it’s fine to walk away from a mortgage that is “under water” – that is, the home is currently worth less than they originally paid for it.

These homeowners signed a contract with the lender promising to pay a certain amount each month until the loan and interest were paid. Obviously, their word is no longer their bond in today’s entitlement society.

One owner even had the audacity to tell the lender, whom he hasn’t paid in over a year, that the lender could notify him when he should move out, unless they are willing to give him a new mortgage at the lower price.

Why would the lender give this scofflaw another loan? If the home price continued to decrease, this bad risk has already proven he is willing to walk away from his responsibilities and would do it again!

Many people think that the asset should be lowered to it’s present value and a new loan issued on that basis. After all, shouldn’t capitalism be “fair?”

Put the shoe on the other foot, what if the lending institution sent a letter to these people when home values were appreciating, stating that “your home has appreciated in value by $100,000 and your new payments are hereby increased?” These entitled people would be the first to scream.

An analogy is purchasing a new car. The moment you drive the car off the lot, its value drops. Should the dealer rewrite the contract on the automobile or will these buyers simply walk away from the car sometime in the future, when they feel the asset is no longer worth the payment?

These buyers should be tied up in litigation for years and have their credit rating destroyed because, after all, these are not usually destitute people - they have the money to make their payments, they simply refuse to do so – they are entitled.

Share:

49 Comments

  1. Concerned 2

    Right on Ted. But of course the government entities that can not print money, also have the entitlement mentality. Apparently a property value decrease, still entitles the taxing bodies to the same or increased income.

  2. What kills me is the squatters I know are still in their house 3 years later, have paid no property tax or house payment during that time and are STILL ABLE to send their kids to the public high school (and even excel in sports there!) ! Talk about a “loophole”. So how do we get them BOOTED! The county just puts leins on the property, which of course means nothing because they are bankrupt too. COUNTY BOARD, are you listening?? I will buy the house and you will get your taxes each year! How can I do that?

  3. This eats me up, I had to use most of my 401k (with penalty) to get out of my house in the North East. I guess I am too old school, but at least it would have been worse if I had stayed as prices have even dropped further. I moved because I had a job opportunity back in the South/Midwest and it was time to leave no matter the cost.

  4. Carol Foster

    Now there’s some logic in what you are saying today, Ted. Except for one thing. If over 50% of all Americans are getting government checks because they are “entitlement” minded, how is it they afforded mortgages they are walking away from in your column????

    Now I actually have a relative who is doing what your talking about and it’s a total embarrassment to me, but than he’s also a Republican Conservative who has said this is a good financial choice for himself. He bought his new retirement home and has walked away from the one he no longer wanted and has one of his kids living in it until the bank can catch-up with him and padlock the door on it. Guess Conservatives have that “entitlement” mentality. Must be catching like the flu and some of you forgot to get your shots.

    Maybe this guy learned his “entitlement” mentality from the corporations who got all those loopholes. If it’s not good for you profit wise you do what is good for you no matter the consequesnces to anyone else even if you have a contract.

    Those over 50% of Americans who get those dreaded gov checks you talk endilessly about aren’t the ones holding those mortgages. Guess you’ve taught a lesson where you least expected to find it, Ted. Right in your own backyard.

  5. Carol,
    More likely he shares the same liberal genes you do and he has been brainwashed.

  6. Yeah, Ted. Right on. It’s just like those pesky corporations that run themselves into the ground and then file bankrupties, leaving their creditors, shareholders, taxpayers, etc, holding the bag. Or those huge financial firms that run themselves into the ground and then come hat in hand to taxpayers for a bailout and then turn around and pay their execs huge “retention bonuses.” You know, privatize the profits and socialize the losses; one of the mantras of the GOP. It’s OK for companies to walk away from their mistakes, right? But, not people?

    The same system that put millions of dollars into the hands of unscrupulous bankers and mortgage lenders is now being used by people in trouble with their mortgage and you’re railing about “entitlement” mentality? Makes no sense. It’s OK for your banker friends to game the system in their favor to stuff their wallets. But, it’s not OK for someone stuck in a worthless underwater mortgage to do the same? Can you square that up for me?

    • Ted Biondo

      Yes monkey, the entitlement mentality knows no income limits. There are those whose words and handshake or contract is meaningless in all walks of life – Democrats and Republicans!

  7. The correct thing to do is crack down on everyone, corporate or personal, whenever possible. The old excuse that “some CEO somewhere” did it doesn’t make it right to let millions of people, that should never had the loans in the first place, off the hook. How would you like it if you loaned 10 friends some money and they all defaulted on you? Would YOU be the bad guy or them?? I don’t care what their excuse would be, they defaulted me, and if they did it BECAUSE “everyone else is doing it”, that would be in-excusable. and criminal in my book.

    • Ted Biondo

      Right on Juice – so many people think two or three wrongs make it right for all – criminal is the correct term for what they are doing. At least some of the corporation execs are being prosecuted. It’s time we prosecuted some of the residential scofflaws!! A contract is a contract. Also, there is a difference between a corporation following the bankruptcy laws and a homeowner walking away from a mortgage he can afford to pay but chooses not to honor his contract. Now there’s some words the entitlement mentality doesn’t understand – honor or principle.

  8. I agree with you, Ted. A person bought a good at a set price. Papers signed. Deal done. the Value of the home has NO BEARING on a person’s ability to pay for their home. As you illustrate, nobody would want to pay more if the value increased! Why should there be a reduction when values decrease. The price and payment terms were fixed at the sale and price, as we all know is different than value. Both price and value are snapshots at a given point in time.

    I do think extenuating circumstances, like job loss, should merit some flexibility in making alternative or reduced payment arrangements, but never a reduction in the principal amount of the loan. Some flexibility would keep people paying with the knowledge that when times get better, they will jump back into their original terms.

  9. Okay, let’s see if I have this right. I’ve been working since I was 14 years old and have paid into Social Security and Medicare for 43 years. So those are by your definition “Entitlements”. My definition is quite different from that, I would call them earned benefits. Having worked for 43 years and paying into a system that should afford me the right to collect those earned benefits. As for the mortgage senario, we have banks that have made fraudulent loans to people who they knew could not afford them, then the banks turn around and sold those mortgages off and bet against people being able to pay them off. The government then turned arround and bailed out the banks in order to stop an economic meltdown and you are calling the homeowners “entitled”.

    • Ted Biondo

      Kat123, many banks were forced by the Democratic Congress, led by Barney Franks and others, through Fannie and Freedie to make those loans because people were “entitled” to own a home in the U.S., and the government agencies who were responsible to deny loans to people who could not afford them, let them go! More government garbage at work!

      The government calls the programs you mentioned entitlement programs. I agree with you partially, in that workers were FORCED by the government to participate in these programs, therefore, they are earned benefits because workers were forced to participate.

      On the other hand, I’m calling this whole generation, regardless of age, “entitled” not just the scofflaw homeowners – this generation think they are entitled to even their children’s and grandchildren’s money to get what they want now. I’ll bet their kids and grandkids will thank the past generations for living beyond their means!

      So, if the government forced banks to loan the money and speculators bundled and sold these mortgages to other banks, then that gives the rest of us the right to walk out on our signed contracts even when we have the money to pay?

  10. Honor and principle in Illinois! It must be a Conservative plot!

    ” Perhaps the most audacious plea came from West Side Democratic elected officials who urged voters to support an Illinois House member charged with bribery. It looks bad, they acknowledged, but it will prevent the seat from falling into the hands of Republicans.

    The rally in support of appointed state Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago) featured U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), three aldermen and a county commissioner and even adopted a catchy moniker: “No defeat or retreat — keep the Dem seat.” …

    Smith was arrested last week by federal prosecutors after being secretly recorded while allegedly accepting a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter of support for a daycare center seeking a $50,000 state grant.”
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/11385831-418/dems-vote-for-accused-bribe-taker.html

  11. Ted, there is nothing new about Leftist hypocrisy. Then-Speaker Pelosi was going to award Rep. William Jefferson (D-felon) a chairmanship position AFTER he was caught with $9000 in bribe monies hidden in his freezer. Only the public uproar, due to INTERNET reporting, stopped it from happening. The MSM was (once again) asleep at the switch, where Liberal wrong-doing is concerned.

  12. Carol Foster

    As long as some sing that same old song about the government forcing banks to loan money to unqualified home buyers, some here will never get it. JRM once printed the portion that judgement that allowed for loans and it never forced any bank to loan money to those who couldn’t afford the real cost of the payments.

    How about you get honest about it, Ted?.

  13. Ted – This is where we disagree. Banks were not forced to do anything, they were encouraged. That encouragement lead to banks offering loans on amounts they knew the homeowners could not afford. The banks then sold those loans as mortgage backed securities, those securities were then sold into investment portfolios that Wall Street sold as “sound investments” all while the Wall Street investment firms were betting that those mortgages would fail. There is alot of blame to go around here. My point is that while the banks were being bailed out of this fiasco, the homeowners were not allowed to modify their loans. If the banks did not want these homeowners to walk away from their mortgages they should change the terms and conditions. Most homeowners are not asking for a reduction in their principal just a modification to terms they can afford the payments on. Far less than what the banks felt that they were “entitled” to.

  14. Angie S

    Frankly, you could be Democrat, Republican or Alien…it doesn’t matter. Politics is Politics and there isn’t a truly honest Politician in the bunch. Oh, they may start out as honest as the day is long, but after they get into reality, they too, succumb to the spoils of a Political life.

    The Auto Industry was bailed out and the Banking Industry was bailed out….all to help the poor consumer to stay afloat while the economy took a major nose dive into the abyss. From what I see the poor consumer never saw any of it. Banking Industry?????? Try to get a loan and you will see just how helpful they are.

    Those who “walked away” from mortgages because they were “upside down” should be held accountable, if that was the sole reason for walking away. I have been struggling to stay in my home and get help to save my life. My household lost 2 incomes at virtually the same time. I did everything to try to resolve the issue…Affordable Housing Plan, Obama Plan, any plan would have been better. Long story short ~ nothing worked, I didn’t qualify in one way or another. Said, all I wanted was to reduce the payments so that I could afford to stay. I finally had no choice but file BK. Which, we didn’t qualify for a “7″ so it was a “13″ and we are paying everyone back 100% thanks to the new laws in filing BK.

    The Mortgage Brokers and greedy consumers should be held accountable for doing “refi’s” based on “stated income” rather than actual income. For inflating appraisels to meet the loan amount. We re-fi’ed once and they seemed confused that all I wanted was reduced payments – no extra cash. Unfortunately, for us there wasn’t time enough to realize our goal….

    Not everyone is trying to get out from an “upside down” home investment.

    • Ted Biondo

      Angie – I didn’t say everyone was trying to get out of underwater mortgages. However, I wish you good fortune in your efforts trying to straighten out your financial situation.

  15. Couple of thoughts

    1. On the walking away from an upside down loan. I like your example of the reverse situation. If home values were still going up and the bank went to the homeowner and asked for a higher payment due to the property appreciation or worse said to the home owner that they were selling the property out from under them and taking the windfall. People would be beside themselves with indignation looking for a law to remedy the situation.

    2. It’s true that the government made lenders loosen requirements allowing people that didn’t have any business, being able to purchase a home. You need to remember that the lenders figured that it was a no loss deal to to the appreciation of home prices during the bubble. If the loan went bad the house was sure to have appreciated negating the losses on the loan. The loose lending standards aggravated the situation but wasn’t the only cause.

    • Ted Biondo

      Welcome to the blog Brent. You make a very good point about the banks and everyone thinking it was a win-win situation regardless of what happened. No one figured in depreciating home values and foreclosures by the millions!

  16. Yeah, the banks were “encouraged”, just like the groom at a shotgun wedding.

    CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

    Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

    In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

    Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

    Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

    Read more at: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/what-does-a-community-organizer-do-pressure-banks-to-make-bad-loans/

    As long as the economy kept growing, the buyers could handle the payments, but when the downturn came, the financial house of cards collapsed.

  17. JRM_CommonSense

    Loans to Minorities Did Not Cause Housing Crisis, Study Finds
    America’s Wire, News Report, Kenneth J. Cooper, Posted: Feb 09, 2011

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Conservative Republicans and commentators have frequently blamed the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages banks to make loans in the low- and moderate-income areas where they operate. But a study to be released this week and a bipartisan commission conclude that the federal law had little impact on the crisis.

    The 1977 law, designed to prevent redlining in less prosperous neighborhoods, requires banking examiners to consider how many loans a bank has made in these urban neighborhoods and rural communities when financial institutions seek approval to open new branches, acquire other banks or merge.

    Critics charged that the CRA forced banks to approve mortgages for poor, unqualified buyers who could not maintain payments and went into default or foreclosure, causing the housing market to collapse. That charge was also leveled often at the affordable-housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, federally sponsored enterprises that buy mortgages made by private lenders.

    But the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission established by Congress concluded in January that the 1977 law designed to prevent redlining was “not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.” Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, had made a similar statement two years ago, but the criticism continued.

    The bipartisan commission also found that the affordable housing goals “contributed marginally” to purchase of risky mortgages by Fannie and Freddie.

    Because the CRA was prompted by evidence that some banks had practiced redlining and refused to make loans in urban black neighborhoods, Maurice Jourdain-Earl heard in those criticisms an accusation that minorities had caused the crisis—though he says race was rarely mentioned except by some bloggers.

    “It’s more innuendo,” Jourdain-Earl says, calling the CRA “generically a code word” for lending to minorities who cannot afford home loans. He says the same applied to affordable housing goals. His firm, ComplianceTech, is releasing a study this week concluding that mortgage lending to African Americans and Hispanics has declined by 62 percent since the housing downturn began.

    Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has also said he detected racial code language in criticisms by some conservative Republicans. “In the wake of the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and) the CRA, they get to take shots at poor people. And let’s be honest, the fact that some poor people are black doesn’t hurt, either, from their standpoint,” the Boston Herald quoted Frank as saying in 2008 at a local forum on foreclosures.

    Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent conservative, told the Herald that he and other critics did not blame “low-income African Americans” he said had been victimized by the law, but rather Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who then chaired the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and has retired from Congress. The Herald labeled the CRA one of the country’s “minority-lending laws.”

    In his new study on racial-ethnic lending patterns, Jourdain-Earl finds that Federal Reserve data show that 84 percent of mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2004 and 2009 had been made to whites, with 8 percent going to Hispanics and 5 percent to African-Americans.

    For loans to comply with CRA, 68 percent went to whites, 15 percent to Hispanics and 12 percent to African-Americans—hardly enough volume from minorities to cause the housing crisis.

    Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., new chairman of the House subcommittee on capital markets and government sponsored enterprises, was among lawmakers who blamed the financial crisis on the CRA.

    “The recklessness of government is the primary culprit here,” Garrett said on the House floor on Jan. 18, 2007. “For years Congress has been pushing banks to make risky subprime loans. You heard me right. It wasn’t the lenders on their own. Congress passed laws that said we’re going to fine you and we’re going to file lawsuits against you lenders if you don’t make risky loans.

    “And using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton administration. Republicans aren’t completely lily-white here.…”

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM_CommonSense – no one is saying that loans to minorities alone caused this housing fiasco. But the Boston Globe editorial dated September 28, 2008 does present a good case that pressure on banks and Barney, Dodd and other government entities allowing these high risk loans did contribute to the housing crisis.

      It has nothing to do with racism, minorities and usually never does – just the facts that loans were made to people and in areas that shouldn’t have been approved. Please go to the links in the editorial which reference the WSJ, the New York Times and other sources – the government, both parties caused the problem, as usual by trying to control the free market with more government regulations!

      http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

  18. JRM_CommonSense

    Ted, There is an even better “scam” that has started up. It involves people who want to get out of their underwater house, but want to do so as part of a plan to acquire and move into a much bigger house at a greatly reduced price. It works this way.

    Using money they have in the bank or borrowed from relatives and frends, they go out and find a bigger, better house then they currently have and buy it for the greatly reduced price that the housing bubble burst has placed on it. They buy the house under the pretext that it is going to be their second house and they may rent it out. They then move into the new house and walk away from the old house. So, they got rid of the underwater house with the bigger mortgage payment and replaced it with a bigger house with a smaller cost and mortgage payment.

    This approach is being worked a lot in those areas that had very higher housing costs that went into the toilet fast – lots of places in California, Phoenix area, and lots of areas in Florida. Obviously these people are not walking away because the cannot afford the old house. It is because they have convinced themselves that they cannot afford NOT to do it………

  19. Carol Foster

    Thanks, JRM, for the information once again. I hope this time it’s understood.

    And your last post is what our relative did with his home in Arizona. He feels no remorse and is happily retired near some of his kids in the other end of that State. This has provided most likely at least a years worth of living free for one son whose living the house they dumped back on the bank. Lots of repos in that State so it takes quite awhile to forclose and get the house reclaimed by the bank.

  20. JRM_CommonSense

    Ted, I was responding to the Snuss’ post, and that is exactly what he was saying! He has said it before even after people clearly pointed out what CRA was created to do. The loan percentages and portfolio percentages clearly show differently.

  21. Had you bothered to read the article, it stated CLEARLY that “Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. “, not just minorities.

    The failures of these policies was covered up by “bought and paid for” politicians, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John Kerry, and then-Sen. Obama, who ranked THIRD in total contributions from Freddie and Fannie, as measured over a ten-year span. However, it only took Obama THREE YEARS to reach that contribution level. The smell from these coverups could gag a maggot.

    On another issue, Obama just signed a bill (in secret) that limits our First Amendment rights, that had strong bipartisan support, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.

    Read what it does here: http://www.creators.com/opinion/judge-napolitano.html

  22. Carol Foster

    Just a question here, SNuss, how do you sign a bill in “secret” that judge Napolitano of Fox News Network is writing all about for the consumption of Fox followers?
    Really it’s getting very difficult to keep up with your closet filled with boggymen who will get us all and are the result, according to you, of what’s happening in the White House.
    Think about this one for a minute. You’ve said it’s a “bill” which means it’s not an executive order, so as you’ve pointed out already it has bipartisian support, so it wasn’t done in “secret.”Sort of blows you’re entire concept of suggesting something is very wrong going on when a President signs a bill already passed by the legislative branch of government. That is afterall how the government works according to the Constitution, SNuss, so I think I’ll pass on the gossip column of the Judge that’s you latest suggested reading material.

  23. Snuss, wasn’t it $90,000 in the freezer?

  24. Steve Noll

    Encourages a better system in the future with less risk to lenders and investors and better deal terms for borrowers. There’s a penalty to lenders for making loans to unqualified or marginally qualified borrowers and this is part of it.

  25. Yes, Juice, it was $90,000. I left out a zero. There was an additional $10,000 of the bribe money that wasn’t found in the freezer.

    Carol, the bill was signed with no media coverage, so as not to attract attention. As to “how the government works according to the Constitution”, compromising our 1st Amendment rights is NOT how the government is supposed to work.

  26. JRM_CommonSense

    Well I guess it is free speech to let a moron claim that a bill gives the secret service ability to disallow someone’s speech because they are against a position and allow someone’s speech because they are for a position when the bill doesn’t mention “speech” of any kind in it’s text. It shows just how far people will go when they suggest that a “bipartisan” piece of legislation written “To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
    or grounds) of title 18, United States Code” is really an attempt to limit the first amendment right to free speech. It is impossible not to laugh at such a stupid and lame effort to show that this president is out to get us all.

    It is almost as dumb at trying to blame the CRA for the housing meltdown when the actual numbers show just the opposite, and everyone agrees that the cause was the failure of the government and the failure of the lending industry to control the granting of loads not properly qualified (and not just to minorities) , the improper securitization of these loans, the hiding of the real danger of these loans and their securitization, and the creation of insurance products that insured against the failure of these securities when they were already failing apart. The problem was that GREED was not good, not that the CRA, a law to restrict redlining, was abused and misused to grant a massive number of unqualified loans to minorities.

  27. In case you failed to read the provisions of the bill, it makes it a FELONY to be within a “zone”, arbitrarily designated by the Secret Service, even if you are unaware of where the limits of this “zone” is. And, it covers any person who has Secret Service protection, as authorized by the President. It deprives you of the ability to “redress your grievances” if you are forced to be so far away that the public figure that you are protesting, that they can’t even see or hear you.

    As to other abuses by our government, which you seem unable to admit that they exist, check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    Thomas Jefferson

  28. JRM_CommonSense

    I read the whole bill and even went back to the previous version to see what has been changed. I find nothing in either that says anything about the “zones” that have been “arbitrarily designated by the Secret Service”. If you want to read into the changes the newest bogeyman you are trying to scare people with that is your “free speech” right. Most people will spend their free speech time on things that are truthful rather than things that are made up.

    You know what, I think that you should go get a copy of the United States Code which this change is a part of. You should go through the whole thing. There are hundreds of thousands of places in it where you can make up additional bogey men and try to scare people with them. Along the way you could probably get a job writing for some of those sites you constantly use as references. Just think, you could get to where you have to pay a lot more in income taxes and have a lot more to complain about in terms of paying for all of those who are not as priviledged or as great as you are.

    It will also prepare you with a lot more material for President Obama’s second term which our party, the Republican Party, is doing a great job of insuring. Why is that? Well because they are trying to make the voters chase the same bogey men that you are, and they are being as successful as you are.

    “When people try to make other people fear the government, they usually have to use inaccurate or wrongly interpreted government actions. When the government fears the people, they turn the army on them. Witness Nazi Germany, the Societ Union, all the -isistans, and the Arab Spring….” JRM_CommonSense

  29. So, you won’t admit something is wrong, until the military cracks down on the citizenry? It seems like that is too late to be doing something about it.

    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is a force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” -George Washington

  30. JRM_CommonSense

    Snuss, you are one of the funniest, craftiest, and most dishonest word twisters I have ever met. Now I am the bogey man because I “won’t admit something is wrong, until the military cracks down on the citizenry.” And you got that from the words in my last post. Okay, I’ll play along ….. BOO, I’m the bogey man!

    Absolutely amazing. It is easy to understand how you can be so convinced by the talking heads so easily. You think you are one of them, and you act just like them. Funny, but really sad. But I guess it makes you feel good. So that is all that counts. Keep at it!

  31. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
    Louis D. Brandeis

    “Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.”
    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    And my favorite…

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    Samuel Adams

  32. Carol Foster

    JRM
    You’ve got him quoting again!!
    The funny thing is the very first one is a portrait of himself.
    You’ve just got to love it.

  33. JRM_CommonSense

    “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”

    Oscar Wilde

  34. The current dialogue reminds me of this quote:

    Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    -Mark Twain

  35. JRM_CommonSense

    Sorry, but my purpose was to annoy you. AND, I know that you will never be able to sing anything that is worthwhile or important.

  36. JRM_CommonSense

    So your lessons are over. Snuff said!

  37. BTW, I sing just fine. Why are you annoyed?

    As a teacher, or as a student, you earned an F.

  38. JRM_CommonSense

    I am not annoyed; I am amazed. I thought pigs couldn’t learn to sing? And yet you say you can sing just fine. Maybe it is just really high pitched snorting or squealing that you are doing, not singing.

  39. Angie S

    Let’s keep in mind that the mortgage lenders’ had nothing to risk in giving getting people qualified for mortgages that clearly were not qualified due to over stating income, etc.

    These risky mortgages were covered by “insurance”. How many brokers’ pushed the PMI so that a shakey loan could go through?

    So reality check ~ how many insurance claims have the lenders filed claim to?

  40. JRM_CommonSense

    Let’s also keep in mind that all of this took place during the times where mortgage brokers and mortgage specialists at all of the the mortgage companies were paid commissions on the mortgages that they wrote. There was incentive for these brokers to “sell” as many mortgages as they could because it put money in their pockets. The entire mortgage food chain collected their piece of the action, including those who securitized, sold the securitities, insured the securities, and/or bet against theose securities.

  41. I think rent-to-own is ideal, however not so well discussed solution, especially for young couples – their situation is critical, as you describe in the article. My personal experience is positive. I highly appreciated the fact I could avoid having purchased my dream house by someone else. Also, my friend changed her mind and found out the house was not as good as it seemed, she could simply terminate the agreement. Nobody is obliged to buy anything. Apart from flexibility, there’s new feeling of independence as you start really live on your own, at your own place. I miss this concept in the discussions. It’s not only much convenient, but also helps in the negative financial situations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>