Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

So, you believe that would apply to corporations also? I hope so, since they
regularly walk away from debt.

On 25/06/2010 4:48 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

I used an adjustible rate, as it was cheaper. But always had my eyes on
the future locking in over turbulant times and low rates. But I didn't
over buy, could afford the cash flow if it went up and most importantly
paid it down ASAP.

Mortgage rates in the US might be tax deductable on the interest but
that isn't free. In Canada, a no brainer as no tax credits are given
for home residence debt not directly involved in real income.
--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

So, you believe that would apply to corporations also? I hope so,
since they regularly walk away from debt.


And the democrats are very sympathetic, as always.

On 25/06/2010 7:29 PM, Larry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

So, you believe that would apply to corporations also? I hope so,
since they regularly walk away from debt.


And the democrats are very sympathetic, as always.

Yep, did GM get away with it big time. All that SOX and it was 100%
useless.

--
G8-20, it isn't about hearing the people, it is about managing and
milking the herd.

Frogwatch wrote:
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

Looks like you're thinking about the "walk-aways" among other things.
I don't disagree with most of what you've said.
Couple quibbles.
There are plenty of born deadbeats. And I've met my share.
Prisons are full of them, and many others belong in prison, but are
smart enough to stay within the law.
Some aren't bad folks aside from being deadbeats, and I'd guess that
most of us has some in the family.
Most of those boat and car repos are the result of deadbeats.
They could pay the notes but choose to spend their money elsewhere.
Anybody spending the money on restaurants, vacations, clothing, toys,
etc., instead of paying their notes is a deadbeat.
Anybody who doesn't downsize their home or apartment when it could allow
them to pay their notes is a deadbeat.
If it's beyond your control to pay your note because your world turned
upside down through no fault of your own, and it hurts you inside to
default on your note, you're not a deadbeat to me. But to the lender
you're still a deadbeat.
Personally I never considered putting my soul in hock for a car or boat,
but I can see where that's a valid course for some who have run the
numbers and find that financing is beneficial to the bottom line.
Just never been the case for me.
A home is different. Or was at least until prices became inflated and
subject to value erosion. We all saw that happen and some fully
expected the crash.
The saddest part of that is a lot of young folks just starting off got
screwed in chasing "The American Dream."
Didn't even have time to do a few refis to buy toys like some of the
older fools did.
Cars and boats have always declined in value as soon as they are purchased.
Variable rate mortgages are not inherently bad if used as a calculated
tool. Eight years ago you could refi with a 2 1/2% 3 year ARM or a
6% 30-year fixed. Most of those ARMs have yet to hit 6% after
adjusting. A brother of mine did that and his ARM's high was 5.75%
for one year and is currently 4%. I don't know if you could even get a
fixed rate 30-year for that now. Paid my house off 6 years ago so I'm
not up on that.
He paid most of the mortgage down before it even adjusted and saved a
bundle on interest.
But he had a backup plan if rates went against him: Cash.

Jim - Tightwad Number 1.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

So, you believe that would apply to corporations also? I hope so, since
they regularly walk away from debt.


And the democrats are very sympathetic, as always.

?? You're an idiot. I guess this kind of comment is the high water mark for
you.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2010 4:48 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

I used an adjustible rate, as it was cheaper. But always had my eyes on
the future locking in over turbulant times and low rates. But I didn't
over buy, could afford the cash flow if it went up and most importantly
paid it down ASAP.

Mortgage rates in the US might be tax deductable on the interest but that
isn't free. In Canada, a no brainer as no tax credits are given for home
residence debt not directly involved in real income.
--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

I don't think your single-wide trailer is a good example... MORON

On Jun 25, 11:07*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
....
Answer: *Probably nobody. * However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. *It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. *Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? *Answer, NO. *Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. *OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? *Boats are an example. *For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. *In general, this is
good. *However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? *We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). *Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? *If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd *zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? *They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. *Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? *If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. *Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

So, you believe that would apply to corporations also? I hope so, since
they regularly walk away from debt.

And the democrats are very sympathetic, as always.

?? You're an idiot. I guess this kind of comment is the high water mark for
you.

Polly want a cracker?

On 25/06/2010 9:09 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/2010 4:48 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
Answer: Probably nobody. However, due to either poor planning or
circumstances beyond their control, it happens. It is in everybodies
best interest that we foster a morality that expects people to pay
their debts even though it is a hardship and even though we may lose
money on them. Is it unusual for people to default on a debt where
the collateral is worth less than the loan? Answer, NO. Consider how
many people default on car loans where the car is immediately worth
less than the loan as soon as it is driven off the lot but the repo
man coming after a persons car is very common. OK, but that is a not
much money, what about bigger loans? Boats are an example. For some
reason, people have no qualms about defaulting on boat loans and we
all know how much boats depreciate and repoing boats is a normal
business in Florida.
For some reason, we all think very hard about considering defaulting
on a home loan even when the home is underwater. In general, this is
good. However, does it make sense individually when many people have
no problems defaulting on other loans? We seem to have one morality
that applies to cars and boats and another that applies to homes.
In the past, this was never a problem because homes always appreciated
(in general). Now that the fundamentals of the economy have changed,
is it unreasonable for our attitudes toward default on home loans to
change? If people begin to default in larger numbers, lenders will no
longer do the absurd zero down loans and will demand at least 5% or
10% down like they used to.
We should not favor defaulting but when the lender who has been given
federal money at very low interest will not even refi at a lower rate,
what do they expect? They do not lose money by refinancing on the
principal and in cases of being severely underwater they could even
reset the loan at the rate they get from the feds until the principal
was down to the actual value and then raise it back.
Home owners have taken a huge hit economically whereas the large
lenders have done well because the feds gave them billions which the
lenders are not lending. Why should the poor economy fall only on the
homeowners? If the banks are taking taxpayer money at low rates and
then will not lend it. do they expect individuals to operate on a
higher moral plane?
I would never consider an adjustable rate mortgage but apparently it
is the norm in most of the world. Most of the world has economies far
less stable than ours so lenders demand to be able to adjust
mortgages.

I used an adjustible rate, as it was cheaper. But always had my eyes
on the future locking in over turbulant times and low rates. But I
didn't over buy, could afford the cash flow if it went up and most
importantly paid it down ASAP.

Mortgage rates in the US might be tax deductable on the interest but
that isn't free. In Canada, a no brainer as no tax credits are given
for home residence debt not directly involved in real income.
--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

I don't think your single-wide trailer is a good example... MORON

Actually, it is about 2885 sq ft. For two empty nesters. 3 1/2 baths,
4 bedrooms and a den, family, living and dinning room too.

Sorry to hear you are trailer trash. But that goes with the low IQ and
poor attitude.

--
G8-20, it isn't about hearing the people, it is about managing and
milking the herd.