The Glade 4.0

But it wasn't yours until you grabbed its banner, and started defending it.



But they aren't. Taking full advantage of what is offered to them would be to work hard, save money, invest wisely, raise their children well, and leave them a legacy of prosperity to anchor them going forward for generations. What they are doing is stealing from other people, and destroying the wealth making mechanisms of the nation which works to no ones advantage, leastwise their own. Furthermore, it wasn't "offered to them" it was demanded by them, like a child demanding more candy.



If they defrauded anyone in the process? Absolutely. Borrowing money without the intention of paying it back is nothing more than fraud and theft.



No, what is absurd is the notion that people have the right to a profit on their investments. What is absurd was their decision to take on a $500k mortgage.



Again, you are arguing for debtors prison. There needs to be repercussions for this. You can't incentivize doing the wrong things, and then expect a society to function in a way that won't lead to rampant poverty.



Yes. The bank was being ethical. It sold someone something for an agreed to price. Furthermore, it was done at the insistence of the government, who was operating on behalf of these same people who bought the home in the first place. And, no, they didn't expect that at all. Banks don't want to sit on millions of empty houses that are continuing to decline in value. They never did. Your assumptions about their business model shows an absolute ignorance about how money is made.



Which is why you castrate their ability to do so.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

If someone hands you a suitcase full of money, and can somehow guarantee that you won't be prosecuted for accepting it, are you going to turn it down even if you know all the money within is stolen? If you would, you're in a tiny minority. The reward/risk ratio on strategic default is so high right now you would have to be an idiot not to jump at it.



The vast majority of divorces are initiated by only one of the parties, and so most of them would most certainly fall under fraud. You promised till death do you part and now you're trying to back out. Your framework just doesn't work.



No, they weren't. They knew quite well that these people were highly unlikely to be able to pay these mortgages. They knew defaults would be very high. They just wanted to collect a few years of interest payments and get free maintenance/upkeep of the property while realizing the appreciation of the property's value. You could blame the government for pushing the snowball down the hill and starting the bubble but these banks totally took it and ran with it. Also, the government mandates were for minorities and low income housing, these groups did not get $500,000 mortgages even in 2005.

The fact is, even though the conduct of the homeowners who are strategically defaulting might be technically illegal, most are getting away with it. You can not expect a rational person to be presented with these facts and not make the same decision. The only reason someone wouldn't is because it's "wrong," and that's just a terrible reason to do anything.

You can rail against the system for being unfair, but it's really pretty stupid to rail against individuals who are just working it to their advantage. You're leading them to a well and then telling them not to pump it.

Xequecal:

You should probably stop posting on this issue, because your understanding of the political economy is colored by bad reporting and biased propaganda.

_________________

Wasn't it you yourself that argued Bank of America was deliberately setting up mortgages to fail after 10-25% of the loan term?

As for the rest, I don't think it's right that people can walk away from mortgages so easily, I just find it really weird when people are presented with this reality, and then expect people to act different.

Why you keep up with this illogical argument is beyond me.
If the banks were assuming that the housing market would continue to go up, and they would be able to foreclose on a house that had appreciated, then the people who took out the mortgage in the first place would be able to re-finance the loan using the appreciated value. Your premise is self defeating.
The people who took out the loans did it as a means of entering the market when they had no business doing so based on the gamble that their "investment" would appreciate and they'd refinance before they were subject to the new rates.


Your knowledge of the markets and underlying demographics across the US is lacking if you seriously believe that. A $500k home is not some mansion, nor is it out of the ordinary in many regions in the US. I know three people personally who took out mortgages in excess of $500k, they are classified as minorities; two took out mortgages in excess of 10X their annual income.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I don't understand how "just refinance it" would work. The idea is that the person can't pay more than the interest charge, they can't afford interest + principal. Are you saying they can just re roll it into a new interest-only mortgage every time?

I also specifically remember Khross posting that Bank of America was deliberately underwriting mortgages designed to fail so they could get interest payments and free maintenance to counteract depreciation out of it.

When you make poor investments, the reality is that you will likely loose money. You shouldn't expect to be subsidized by anyone else when you are destroying wealth. Unless you want to make the argument that the poor and uneducated shouldn't be allowed to invest, but I'll let you do that. I'm not interested.

Edit: And as to divorce: there are many stipulations in that contract. Stop trying to present is as cut and dry. You are being disingenuous.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What will have changed in the mortgage picture for that individual? The house would be worth more. Using the house as collateral, why wouldn't the broker take the fee and get a new loan?



Sorry, I didn't see him make that statement.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If he did then he was wrong. Unless you want to agree that the government was in on it as part of the business model, comming to inject bailout funds at the end. Otherwise, the model collapses, because the banks who used that model all go under.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The internet is also a human right.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

And since the internet is for porn, porn must therefore be an innate human right.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

And since porn is sex, sex must be a human right. And since it's been established that the rich and middle class must pay for the rights of the poor, I guess we need to loan out our daughters to the poor???

No, it just means you have to loan out your daughters to star in porn

Actually, porn is frequently "abnormal" sex. Therefore, while sex may not be a human right, if you have sex, kink is now a requisite. Otherwise you're violating my rights.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine