Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
The person who took out the loan also accepted the risk and had it blow up in his face. To skip out on a loan because the value of your purchase is less than the loan balance is immoral. To expect others like the taxpayers or investors to eat the loss for this reason is immoral.
If this sort of thing was acceptable, then why doesn't everybody do it for new car purchases? The line I hear frequently is that a new car's value drops significantly when you drive it off the lot. So the new car owner is already in the red from day 1.
The person who takes out a loan is responsible for repaying the loan. I was raised to honor my commitments. I guess times have changed. Free houses for everyone. Thanks Obama.
|
Yep, you're absolutely right Obama is giving away houses for free! Free for everyone, well everyone except hard working "real Americans," right? He's just giving them to the freeloaders. So hard working "real Americans" who are paying for these free houses can't get one. From what I saw on the news yesterday I think the line for those give aways starts in Atlanta.
You make silly, false statements like that and you want people to take you seriously... seriously?
Yeah, I think I'll file that statement in the same file I put "Bush blew up the towers on 9-11." It's a growing file in the back of my mind labeled "complete horse shit."
As for the comments you made regarding people borrowing money they could never repay I partially agree with you. But you're leaving out the other side of the problem. Takes two to tango. Banks and mortgage companies were writing loans with no income verification, no down payment, 120% loan to value ratio etc... to people with ridiculous credit scores. Often times mortgage brokers convinced, with a hard sell, people that they could afford loans that were way beyond their means. Many times these loans were written in such a way it would take an expert to read through the 80 pages of loan documents to find the relevant terms.
My daughter had a co-worker who took out a loan to buy her first house. No down payment, low interest and low payments. Really it sounded to good to be true... and it was. After three years her interest rate went up so much her payment nearly doubled. She asked if I would look at the contract and see if that was even legal. Yep buried somewhere near page 50 was a small one line statement that the "initial interest rate will expire on after the 37th month and the standard loan rate would be applied." Later on about page 55 the standard loan rate was defined as "Prime +4 or 5% (can't remember exactly.) So she went from having a payment she could afford to one that was more then she made each month. So even if she didn't buy anything, no food, no gas, no utilities etc... she couldn't make the payments. She was lucky this happen when the housing prices were still going up and she managed to find another loan through a local credit union that was manageable. But had that happened after the collapse of housing prices I have little doubt the CU, or anyone else, would not have written her an new loan.
People who used their homes as cash machine should have known better. But there's a lot of people out there willing to fall for some really stupid stuff. If it sounds to good to be true it likely is, most people should have learned that before puberty