Why America will not work.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: it's not about the bank and it's not about the loan and it's not about the credit score. it's about people making a commitment and then not having the character to honor their commitment. her signature is her "reason to follow through". she is a dishonorable person, teaching dishonorable traits to her children.

Shareholders would applaud if she had them. Gordon Gecko would promote her. She is operating purely from the logical standpoint of profit/loss and if the banks don't find a hammer to hit her with she will come out much better than if she honored the contract. That makes her a good capitalist. I wonder if the lenders who are getting screwed will see the irony.

I think a bunch of you guys are mistaking "capitalism" with "I want - me now" short term ass hattery. That's not really it.

tuna55 wrote: I think a bunch of you guys are mistaking "capitalism" with "I want - me now" short term ass hattery. That's not really it.

I'm not advocating what she did - just that it makes good financial sense if she is not to punished financially or legally for not holding her end of the bargain. She is like a mini-robber-baron.

That type of "good financial sense" is very short term. It is my personal opinion that bad government rules along with the degradation of America have conspired to make people equate that to capitalism. Sure, that could be of monetary benefit to her. At the $20xx challenge, you may have a gain by stealing someones tools, too, but very quickly you'd be the center of some very unwanted attention. Robbing a bank gives you a monetary gain too, but often results in jail time. Most people like this are interested in VERY SHORT TERM gain at any cost, including their own personal integrity.

This won't pay off, unless you think it paid off for a bank robber who died after a long life of not getting caught. I happen to think ones morality is more important than short term gain.

90% of the time, this isn't the way it happens anyway, somehow down the road there will be a consequence that she didn't consider. In our society, we'll just feed her food stamps and welfare if she runs into any trouble, though.

It must be a great time to buy a house and rent to these people. I bet most will buy a house again a few years down the line once it's no longer stylish to be frugal (i.e. rent).

tuna55 wrote: That type of "good financial sense" is very short term. It is my personal opinion that bad government rules along with the degradation of America have conspired to make people equate that to capitalism. Sure, that could be of monetary benefit to her. At the $20xx challenge, you may have a gain by stealing someones tools, too, but very quickly you'd be the center of some very unwanted attention. Robbing a bank gives you a monetary gain too, but often results in jail time. Most people like this are interested in VERY SHORT TERM gain at any cost, including their own personal integrity. This won't pay off, unless you think it paid off for a bank robber who died after a long life of not getting caught. I happen to think ones morality is more important than short term gain. 90% of the time, this isn't the way it happens anyway, somehow down the road there will be a consequence that she didn't consider. In our society, we'll just feed her food stamps and welfare if she runs into any trouble, though.

It's hysterical when people aren't in touch with REALITY.

Keep on whining about morality/integrity and the way things OUGHT to be.

I would continue my response, but I doubt you are doing anything to change the great injusticies of this nation, other then posting on a forum.

z31maniac wrote: It's hysterical when people aren't in touch with REALITY. Keep on whining about morality/integrity and the way things OUGHT to be. I would continue my response, but I doubt you are doing anything to change the great injusticies of this nation, other then posting on a forum.

how about paying my mortgage each month like I promised to do, even though technically Im a few grand in the hole. Thing is eventually I wont be in the hole, and Ill be in a better position for it. Doers that help to make things better? It would if everyone did it.

My kids will live up to their promises too, cuz its what I will teach them. I bet her kids play on soccer teams where no points are recorded cuz some hippie assfaces feelings will get hurt if they lose. People like that need to quit whining. Getting upset about short term profiteering isnt whining, its upholding the American way.

You make a promise, you keep it, or get socked in the face - hard - by society.

Screwing everybody so you can save a few pennies doesnt make you a capitalist, it makes you a F_cker. I hope shes having an asthma attack somewhere in front of her kids and she isnt helped cuz the EMTs are ordering bacon McGridles.

The guy at the desk next to me said "I hope the bank successfully sues the lady for the remainder of the balance, then after she pays them off the housing market rebounds to where it was before and that house is worth $1.6M."

The way I see it, she promised to pay the loan OR default it. That's why the bank has the house as collateral. The bank gave her a bad loan: she had nothing to lose (0 downpayment). As far as I'm concerned, it's the banks fault for giving the loan in the first place. THEY gambled that the housing market wouldn't go down. To the best of my knowledge, she's working the "arrangement" in a fully legal way. As already mentioned, this would likely be considered ok if it was a purely business decision.

You know, in Canada we have law's to prevent this....

What about having margin calls written into mortgages just like you have for other speculative investments? If the value of the home drops leaving the bank more exposed, the mortgageholder has to put more skin in the game, either with higher payments or by taking out a second mortgage with another mortgage company or bank in order to pay back a part of the first mortgage, thus spreading the risk out to another lender.

It would encourage even more walk aways, but hey, if homes are just another commodity to speculate on, why not?

4cylndrfury wrote: Ig, now dont ge tme wrong, Im normally plusone-ing you to death, but seriously, enabling people to shirk their responsibility simply because they changed their mind is as anti-american as the day is long. Theres a reason they make you sit down for a bazillion hours to sign 3687563758 documents before they hand you the keys...the powers tha be are giving you a second and a third and a fourth and afifth etc etc chance to think it over and MAKE SURE you want, and can afford to buy the house in question. I still stand by my throat punching comment

And I by the neighbors suing her (OK, yeah, maybe a little reactionary, but it might happen)- and if they don't the bank will. Neighborly throat-punching will be the least of her concerns before this is over. She's in breach of a near half-million dollar contract and the foreclosure money won't cover the bank's interest in the house (which some mortgage banker somewhere will have to answer for - "Bob, we see that you wrote the note on this house and it's now losing us a quarter million- what's up??". The bank will seek judgement against her for the remaining balance after the house sells at auction, and I hope they get it.

See here, judge, where she agreed to pay $487000 for this house? Now see here, where it says blah blah blah and she initialed? See signature, here here, and here...

Oh, she doesn't want to pay and would rather just have everything "go away" be strategically defaulting on the house? Where was the real estate market in NoVA and DC 3 years ago, tail end of '06? Cooking right along. Overcooking, to be honest, and if this lady had been paying a whit of attention, she's have realized that and held onto her money- oh wait. She never HAD any money. Now, as it is, her admittedly emotional decision to buy is going to cost somebody some money. Her? Until the bank sues her, not likely. Her neighbors? Probably.

I'm just (as usual) irritated that the people who are doing it right, not going in debt up to their eyeballs and generally living reasonably are being dragged down by people like this. The smug look on her face in the article just makes it worse.

As for a home being an investment, that's always been the secondary reason for buying. Somewhere along the line, people seem to have forgotten that the primary function of a home is to keep you and yours warm, safe, and dry- not to prop up your net worth. But I guess that's another rant.

4cylndrfury wrote: heather baker and the guy running the internet scam...i mean firm need a solid throat punching from Ali in his glory years

Why not just bring back debtors prisons. Instead of just one solid throat punching, she can get punched all over by fellow inmates and prison guards every day for like 20 years or so.

Datsun1500 wrote: She had nothing to lose, it was a zero down payment loan. It used to take 20% down to get a loan but that was keeping the "poor" from getting the same benefits as "the not poor" and that was unfair. Works well huh? I will however play devils advocate with this woman: Yes she can afford the payments but if everyone else on the block can walk with no penalties, why should she stay? If the "poor" can get bailed out, why not her? What benefit is it to her if she stays? It is like the loan modifications that seem to be popping up. Get past due and they lower the rate, lower the payment, let you skip a few, etc. If you are current on the loan, no modifications for you. It would be awfully tempting to skip a few payments and see what they throw at you...

There are homes out there for "The Poor" to purchase, pay off and resell and often times sell for enough for a proper down payment on a proper home.

They are called Mobile Homes. I own one (actually I own 78% of one and will own it outright by end of next year) and when I am done I will sell it for a little less than what I really paid for it (with modifications, updates, taxes and interest) but to the NEXT buyer it will still be a great buy.

The woman is, as noted earlier, dishonorable. That's an outdated word in today's culture, much like 'shame'.

Me, I'm going to be the average Schmucky the Clown dumbass; I will have a paid for house by retirement time. That way all I will owe is taxes and whatever utilities and maintenance are needed. It won't be a big extravagant McMansion somewhere because honestly I do not need that.

I could care less who is or is not impressed by the size of my crib or the ZIP code of its location.

Those who plan to buy and hold real estate at this time in the hopes of it going back up better look at reality. You'll have to rent it out unless you are so wealthy that you can stand to have money just sitting there and believe me, landlording ain't all it's cracked up to be. Just ask my dad, in particular about having 4 or 5 (or more) rental houses scattered around.

I think banks are dishonorable as well. They loaned the money into existence when they paid the former owner of the house in question. The bank is not out anything at all they just invented the money from nothing. Now they have a house. If they didn't want the house they shouldn't have bought it in this lady's name.

Having a mortgage is little different from renting....just get a better tax breaks.

Jensenman wrote: The woman is, as noted earlier, dishonorable. That's an outdated word in today's culture, much like 'shame'. I will have a paid for house by retirement time.

I too am old school and I still believe these people really owe whomever loaned them the money. All the mortgage games that have been played since I bought my first house in 1987 boggle my mind.

She signed the bottom line and promised to pay it back.

Dishonorable is a kind word.

Some of you are mistaking "profiteering" for "capitalism".

She is a profiteer, not a capitalist. If she were a good capitalist, she would have first done a better job analyzing the situation, understanding her exposure, getting MUCH better counsel, and recognizing a better reason to buy into the investment then, " ...like, 'Wow, you know, I need to have a home...before I'm 40".

OK, so did she learn anything?

Not really. Her decisions still fail to recognize what her exposure is, what the value (or lack of value) of her investments are, what the long term legal ramifications are, what she will not be able to invest in next year, etc.

A good capitalist doesn't need a "morality" to follow through with their commitments. They just need to know that there are long term financial implications to short term decisions. ALL capitalists recognize this. They recognize when a good time is to invest, and when to get out of an investment (both short term decisions that affect long term finance).

Making yourself a bad risk to lenders does not make you a good capitalist. It takes you out of the game.

^ Agree. Home ownership is a longterm investment. There were some housing booms that allowed people to make quick cash off of homes, but the general rule of thumb is that property is a long term, sound investment. If this chick wasn't so stupid, she;d realize that if she stayed put for 10 years, she could likely sell the house for more than what she purchased it for and retire. But she's too much like the rest of society: ME, NOW.

Since the beginning of the housing collapse, I have been of the opinion that some people SHOULD lose money in their houses, some people SHOULD lose their houses, and some people SHOULD go to jail. There's a lot of bankers who should windup in jail.

This woman should be with them.

But if she's not, no biggy. She won't be investing in any venture I am involved in (and I think there are a whole lot of other people who would say so as well). She can put her extra monthly cashflow into something like CD's (which make about half the inflation rate).

SVreX wrote: Making yourself a bad risk to lenders does not make you a good capitalist. It takes you out of the game.

Tell that to all of the Goldman Sachs guys who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer, still got big bonuses and are still in the game.

For that matter, tell that to all of the S&L guys in the 80s who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer and went on to game the system for years after that.

We've been taught that real estate is investment and will gain value. In current economic times that is not working out to be true. Everything seems to have lost value. Well the balloon burst. It was bound to happen. But this attitude with walking away from a mortgage that has lost resale value is to me ridiculous. Besides that it will help render more drop in value. But people expect that when they buy a new car that it starts losing value the minute it is driven off the lot. Which I know is the reason that many on this board don't buy new cars. Even used cars lose value. Sure some become collectable but those are really few and takes a longer time. The point is we expect that everything except property loses value and is consumed when we purchase it but expect property to rise in value. This decrease will turn around eventually, maybe not in the foreseeable future or maybe our lifetime but for now it will stabilize at a rate the market can sustain and that unfortunately means current owners that bought at peak will lose. Eventually it means a break-even for everyone else.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program

SVreX wrote: But if she's not, no biggy. She won't be investing in any venture I am involved in (and I think there are a whole lot of other people who would say so as well).

I wonder if she's stopped to consider that her name, picture, and the fact that she has no qualms whatsoever about defaulting on a home loan on purpose are on the internet for anybody who cares to go looking to see, to say nothing of the ramifications to her FICO score. I hope she bought a reliable car before embarking on this scheme, she won't be able to take a loan out to buy a new one any time soon.

"Oh wait, aren't you that lady who walked away from her house? I don't think we want to take a risk on you. Sorry."

Snowdoggie wrote:

SVreX wrote: Making yourself a bad risk to lenders does not make you a good capitalist. It takes you out of the game.

Tell that to all of the Goldman Sachs guys who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer, still got big bonuses and are still in the game. For that matter, tell that to all of the S&L guys in the 80s who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer and went on to game the system for years after that.

Taxpayer bailouts do not make for good capitalists. They make for idiots who got lucky in the bailout, bigger idiots in office who wrote the bailouts, and REALLY enormous idiots in the electorate who voted for the fools spending all their money bailing out idiots.

Jake wrote:

SVreX wrote: But if she's not, no biggy. She won't be investing in any venture I am involved in (and I think there are a whole lot of other people who would say so as well).

I wonder if she's stopped to consider that her name, picture, and the fact that she has no qualms whatsoever about defaulting on a home loan on purpose are on the internet for anybody who cares to go looking to see, to say nothing of the ramifications to her FICO score. I hope she bought a reliable car before embarking on this scheme, she won't be able to take a loan out to buy a new one any time soon. "Oh wait, aren't you that lady who walked away from her house? I don't think we want to take a risk on you. Sorry."

There is a franchise here in Dallas called Driver's Select that sells very nice luxury cars and SUVs to people with bad credit. I see a lot of Hummers and BMWs on their lots. There are also tote-your-note lots that will sell a car to anybody with a pulse. Granted all of these places have the repo-man on speed dial and charge interest rates that will make you choke, but she won't have to walk.

In fact, after she moves out she can furnish her new apartment with all new furniture and a new flat screen TV courtesy of Aaron Rents or a similar outfit and buy a new computer to match the new desk from Blue Hippo.

It beats debtor's prison.

All true, but it still doesn't make her a good capitalist, nor an honorable person.

SVreX wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

SVreX wrote: Making yourself a bad risk to lenders does not make you a good capitalist. It takes you out of the game.

Tell that to all of the Goldman Sachs guys who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer, still got big bonuses and are still in the game. For that matter, tell that to all of the S&L guys in the 80s who made bad decisions, lost money, got bailed out by the taxpayer and went on to game the system for years after that.

Taxpayer bailouts do not make for good capitalists. They make for idiots who got lucky in the bailout, bigger idiots in office who wrote the bailouts, and REALLY enormous idiots in the electorate who voted for the fools spending all their money bailing out idiots.

The guys in office aren't idiots. The guys they are bailing out aren't idiots either. They donate lots of money to political campaigns in order to get bailed out. Until we get to campaign finance reform, these guys will continue to game the system. And speaking of campaign finance reform, did you hear that the Supreme Court might be overturning McCain Feingold?

The people walking away from their houses are just thinking that if it's OK for the big shots to game the system, it should be good for everybody.