Deadbeat nation
in [Design]
|
From: Sure,Not on 4 Jun 2010 09:50 On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > "Sure,Not" wrote: > > > > The original article in the NYT said if you were underwater in yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's > > > roughly a quarter of America. > > > > It had a number of people explaining the best strategies, that you > > > could count on about a year living rent-free before being evicted, and > > > could save up all that money. > > > > So, that's welching, then stealing. > > > Hmm. Why not subscribe to the NYT, refuse to pay the bill and let > > them feel some pain. If they try to collect, you simply say that you > > never got the paper. Prove that it was delivered. > > So it's ok to be a thief in the Carolinas? > > -- > Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to > have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. Not at all. Most people in the Carolina's could care less about the NYT.
From: Sure,Not on 4 Jun 2010 09:58 On Jun 2, 3:01 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Spehro Pefhany" <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message > > >news:vl4d06ttpkggskohj2jq4gpuhmi7hqfjig(a)4ax.com... > > > > It would be a business decision if the person went bankrupt and had to > > > liquidate basically all their assets, if necessary, in order to repay > > > as much as possible of the money owed to the lender. > > > If we held businesses to the same standard I'd tend to agree... but it's very > > standard business practice that, if one of your divisions is underperforming, > > you close it down, defaulting on any outstanding loans, and keep on going -- > > even if strictly speaking the ovreall company is in generally good health and > > could have afforded to keep the company around with, e.g., one division > > propping up the other. > > > > So-called non-recourse states have distort the market with legislation > > > limiting or obstructing lender's rights to go after the deadbeat for > > > ALL the money owed. > > > There's likely some reform needed there that I'd readily vote for, but as-is > > such laws have to be viewed just as the cost of doing business. > > > This sort of issue is very messy to deal with legally since pretty much any > > protection you give to people who had every intention of meeting their > > obligations can also be abused by people out to defraud others. (And of > > course it's very common that incomptence gives the appearance of malice and > > vice versa...) > > > ---Joel > > The original article in the NYT said if you were underwater in yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's > roughly a quarter of America. > > It had a number of people explaining the best strategies, that you > could count on about a year living rent-free before being evicted, and > could save up all that money. > > So, that's welching, then stealing. > > The "Yes we can's" in the comment section were chilling. The > taxpayers ultimately absorb it, since Freddie and Fannie have > guaranteed so much of it. > > -- > Cheers, > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's not welching if they honor the agreement and walk away when they stop making the mortgage payments. It is stealing, if they stay there knowing that they aren't paying the mortgage.
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Jun 2010 12:39 On Jun 4, 8:58 am, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 3:01 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > "Spehro Pefhany" <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message > > > >news:vl4d06ttpkggskohj2jq4gpuhmi7hqfjig(a)4ax.com... > > > > > It would be a business decision if the person went bankrupt and had to > > > > liquidate basically all their assets, if necessary, in order to repay > > > > as much as possible of the money owed to the lender. > > > > If we held businesses to the same standard I'd tend to agree... but it's very > > > standard business practice that, if one of your divisions is underperforming, > > > you close it down, defaulting on any outstanding loans, and keep on going -- > > > even if strictly speaking the ovreall company is in generally good health and > > > could have afforded to keep the company around with, e.g., one division > > > propping up the other. > > > > > So-called non-recourse states have distort the market with legislation > > > > limiting or obstructing lender's rights to go after the deadbeat for > > > > ALL the money owed. > > > > There's likely some reform needed there that I'd readily vote for, but as-is > > > such laws have to be viewed just as the cost of doing business. > > > > This sort of issue is very messy to deal with legally since pretty much any > > > protection you give to people who had every intention of meeting their > > > obligations can also be abused by people out to defraud others. (And of > > > course it's very common that incomptence gives the appearance of malice and > > > vice versa...) > > > > ---Joel > > > The original article in the NYT said if you were underwater in yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's > > roughly a quarter of America. > > > It had a number of people explaining the best strategies, that you > > could count on about a year living rent-free before being evicted, and > > could save up all that money. > > > So, that's welching, then stealing. > > > The "Yes we can's" in the comment section were chilling. The > > taxpayers ultimately absorb it, since Freddie and Fannie have > > guaranteed so much of it. > > > -- > > Cheers, > > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > It's not welching if they honor the agreement and walk away when they > stop making the mortgage payments. Sure it is. Suppose you want to buy a house, the bank helps you by lending you the money, and you promise to pay them back. Then you buy it, and the appraised value falls, so you decide not to pay. That's the bank's fault? If we retroactively change mortgages to mean "If the value rises I'll take the gain, if the value falls then you take the loss," then no one will lend money. Socially, that's a great harm. We're kind of there now. Twenty years ago my brother stretched very hard and bought a house. It turned out it was at a price peak and he promptly was underwater, for a decade. What did he do? The honorable thing: he paid his mortgage, every ... single ... month. No whining, no complaining. Sometimes people default for reasons beyond their control. That's still a default, but at least it's partially understandable. You belly up, take your lumps and society eventually forgives you. Bailing because you're underwater, to skip out on money you borrowed and owe? That's welching. > It is stealing, if they stay there > knowing that they aren't paying the mortgage. True. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joel Koltner on 4 Jun 2010 13:03 <dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0773cfa0-0b16-445e-9964-f095bb84a586(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >Sometimes people default for reasons beyond their control. That's >still a default, but at least it's partially understandable. You >belly up, take your lumps and society eventually forgives you. >Bailing because you're underwater, to skip out on money you borrowed >and owe? That's welching. Hopefully you hold businesses to the same standard... ---Joel
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 4 Jun 2010 13:05
Joel Koltner wrote: > "Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message > news:v9-dneu4fMmWQJjRnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... >> It's sickening, but we encourage you to read this New York Times article. >> The people outlined represent much of what's wrong with the United >> States. They have no sense of responsibility to honor the commitments >> they've made. > > The examples described, yeah, I'd agree -- they seem intent on defrauding > their lenders, by having their cake (defaulting on their mortgage) and > eating it too (staying in the house). > > However, I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding that they'll > take their (credit rating) lumps and deciding that defaulting on their > mortgage -- AND MOVING OUT -- is a better option than sticking with a > mortgage that's nearly eating them alive, even if strictly speaking they > can keep up with the payments: This is just a "business" decision, no > different than a business owner with, say, a chain of 10 restaurants > choosing to default and let the bank foreclose on one location that hasn't > been performing anything close to his expectations. Its not like corporations haven't filed for bankruptcy get out from under pension or retiree healthcare obligations. They unload their responsibility on the public (Medicaid or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). They come out the other side of the process with a nod and a wink from Wall Street. And a clean credit rating. -- Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel. |