Deadbeat nation
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 4 Jun 2010 13:49 "Sure,Not" wrote: > > 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. If that is typical of the ethics there, I'm glad that I've never lived there. I have no use for the NYT, but I'm not going to steal from them. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Jim Thompson on 4 Jun 2010 14:28 On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Sure,Not" wrote: >> >> 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. > > > If that is typical of the ethics there, I'm glad that I've never >lived there. I have no use for the NYT, but I'm not going to steal from >them. When the terrorists lay waste to NYC they'll lay waste to NYT as well :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Jun 2010 14:39 On Jun 4, 12:03 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > <dagmargoodb...(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 Sure, and historically, we did. The difference today is that the lender sues businesses, but is letting consumers default scot-free. James
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Jun 2010 14:49 On Jun 4, 12:05 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: > Joel Koltner wrote: > > "Robert Baer" <robertb...(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). California, even more so. But for the ultimate example, we have to look to the federal government: Social Security. Will they welch? You bet--they've got no choice. > They > come out the other side of the process with a nod and a wink from Wall > Street. And a clean credit rating. That's not a "nod and a wink" in the sense of moral approval or endorsing the behavior, just a rational, cold appraisal--the entity without the obligation load is, obviously, a much better risk. James Arthur
From: Joel Koltner on 4 Jun 2010 15:01
<dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:702917af-522d-4a7f-b0ae-fb4fce419c5b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 4, 12:03 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hopefully you hold businesses to the same standard... >Sure, and historically, we did. The difference today is that the >lender sues businesses, but is letting consumers default scot-free. Interesting point, certainly. I would think lenders aren't suing consumers because they figure it's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock, but perhaps "big bad rich banks" being perceived as "beating up" on "little helpless consumers" plays into it as well. I don't see the culture of our country moving radically back towards greater responsibility (in the "less welching" sense) any time soon. It'll be interesting to see what the November elections hold. I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to be voting for more Tea Party candidates than republicans? :-) ---Joel |