What really bothers me - and I think you'll agree - is that banks have failed to do thier due diligence. They've played a huge role in creating this debt bubble and consumers were willing participants. When I think about it solely in those terms it makes me think that whatever happens they'll get was they deserve.
When I think beyond the 'get what you deserve' mindset I see things a little different way. I'm trying to avoid the thought process of I've got mine so screw you. In this case that way of thinking could create a situation that none of us want to endure. In the back of my mind I guess I'm also thinking that we've bailed out companies and other things so if needed why not our own people?
you get what you deserve mindset?
really?
you got yours so screw you?
let's think about that
did you take out an IO loan with no money down on your property?
or did you do what i did, take out a 20/80 loan, understanding that you were taking on a DEBT that requires repayment and in doing so you decide to *mitigate* that debt by putting a substantial enough downpayment to keep you safe through any downdraft in property values?
my question is, why should anyone who did not take the prudent steps to protect themselves from a softening RE market be treated any differently...
why, because what? RE only goes up?
please
and what about all the people who decided it was prudent to stay away from inflated RE values and chose to sock money away for a realistic down-payment on their investment and are waiting for RE values to return to normalcy?
F them? they get to bail out the profligate borrowers with their tax $$$?
how screwed up is that?
reward the deadbeats and penalize the savers?
you have got to be kidding?
of course we know that congress isn't concerned about 'poor people losing their homes' (as if) they are concerned about their next campaign contribution coming from the WS hedgies that are losing their shirt as the 'underlying asset' price is being correctly repriced (mark to market)
that spells huge losses for them
a bailout serves no one's best interest EXCEPT for those who took exceptional risk hoping for exceptional gain and now that the BET doesn't play out, they want to *socialize* the losses
FTS
oh and btw...
When I think beyond the 'get what you deserve' mindset I see things a little different way. I'm trying to avoid the thought process of I've got mine so screw you. In this case that way of thinking could create a situation that none of us want to endure
there is a simple way of avoiding such a situation....
it's called prudent borrowing and prudent lending
i didn't sink myself into a 105% debt situation because of 'cheap lending'....did you?
why should the fiscally responsible bail out those who were not?
the answer is simple
they should not
Message 23814432
To: seminole83 who wrote (86367) 8/21/2007 12:19:55 PM
From: MulhollandDrive 1 Recommendation of 87150
His property's value dropped below what he still owed, $329,000. But rather than letting the townhouse fall into foreclosure, Stark worked out a deal in which he sold it for $285,000, and his lender, Chase Home Finance, forgave the difference.
and that is EXACTLY what SHOULD happen...
both parties entered into an agreement understanding the risk related to borrowing/lending, both parties should assume the burden of the loss
Report TOU Violation |
