Wow just wow, everyone, time to declare bankruptcy, irresponsibility wins again

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Honestly, there is no point anymore to working, or paying your bills.

Bankruptcy, or threat of bankruptcy will now lower your principal owed on your home

First read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102687.html

Now read
http://uk.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUKWAT01074920090108

Then read



Bottom line, responsible people get the shaft again, and future WORTHY homeowners will pay the price of the sheep and imbecilies that run this country.

I don't know how many times I can say this....pay the piper now or later, but the PIPER GETS paid!!!

HOW THE HELL DO WE STOP THIS MADNESS?????????????

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
That's a good question. What happens in 12 months, if/when the housing market has dropped even more? Will these people... (more)

fujishig (Mar. 06, 2009 @ 12:42p) |

Not really. Most of America was irresponsible and bought homes based on payment, not overall affordability. And many w... (more)

SUCKISSTAPLES (Mar. 06, 2009 @ 12:48p) |

Cramdown bill hits senate floor today. However the chance of it passing is "slim".

I'd urge people to call your senator... (more)

nycll (Apr. 30, 2009 @ 9:22a) |

Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

People in BK are going to lose their homes one way or another, either short sale or foreclosure.

The writeoff is going to happen one way or another, so I have no problem with BK judges reducing principal to the amount the property would sell for at foreclosure or short sale if it results in an AFFORDABLE payment so the person can stay in the home.

Add in some shared equity provisions, so if the property is resold for an amount above the new principal balance, the govt or lender gets the equity.

Remember filing BK will prevent these people from getting new credit for several years, so they will not be able to "cheat the system" again anytime soon.

I wonder if the responsible people of Rome 2000 years ago had similar arguments as their government become more socialist and people voted themselves the treasury bankrupting the entire empire.

Responsible Romans of the day were outraged at the bailouts the Christian Shredding industry got. They should have invested in their aqueduct infrastructure and created millions of new slave positions.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: People in BK are going to lose their homes one way or another, either short sale or foreclosure.

The writeoff is going to happen one way or another, so I have no problem with BK judges reducing principal to the amount the property would sell for at foreclosure or short sale if it results in an AFFORDABLE payment so the person can stay in the home.

Add in some shared equity provisions, so if the property is resold for an amount above the new principal balance, the govt or lender gets the equity.

Remember filing BK will prevent these people from getting new credit for several years, so they will not be able to "cheat the system" again anytime soon.


The bigger problem is the increase in down payments, closing costs, and interest rates that will be leveled on RESPONSIBLE buyers in the future, due to the added "risk" taken on by lenders.

This doesn't even taken into account the idea of "moral hazard" and the changing mindset of millions of people.

How do you expect the government to handle any of these programs? As we've all seen they are purely mouth breathers who have no ability to control, implement, or maintain any of these bills that they pass.

This will just breed more waste, corruption, and inefficiency on every level.

The bills are written only to apply to loans made prior to its passage. It should not affect interest rates in the future because the bill does not apply to them.

CreditCrunch said: The bills are written only to apply to loans made prior to its passage. It should not affect interest rates in the future because the bill does not apply to them.Do you really believe that? The next time there's a foreclosure wave, Congressmen are suddenly going to turn responsible, and tell those deadbeats they can't get the same deal that today's did?

CreditCrunch said: The bills are written only to apply to loans made prior to its passage. It should not affect interest rates in the future because the bill does not apply to them.

The extra risk is still created. If the government passes a bill like this now, then banks can expect to see a similar measure pass again when we run into a similar situation. So all future loans will be made factoring in the risk of forced principle reduction if housing prices fall sharply.

Id be happy just being able to refinance into the 5's.

I hear ya Metric. It seems like those who would benefit most from a refi are the ones completely locked out of doing so.

funkxl said: lower your principleare your referring to equity principal or moral principles?

How stupid! A dumb judge deciding that principal should be reduced. Why even have a contract or collateral? This will be wonderful news for the deadbeats of the world. Those of us who live withing our means, live up to our agreements and pay for our assets will end up footing the bill.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:

Remember filing BK will prevent these people from getting new credit for several years, so they will not be able to "cheat the system" again anytime soon.


LOL...Yeah..right.

cajundavid said: How stupid! A dumb judge deciding that principal should be reduced. Why even have a contract or collateral? This will be wonderful news for the deadbeats of the world. Those of us who live withing our means, live up to our agreements and pay for our assets will end up footing the bill.Whatever bill you think you're going to be footing, it wont be changed by this. If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.

Ridiculous. The most the judge should do is change the terms of payment to 60 year mortgage and lock in the rate.

Reducing the principle is stupidity which would only encourage this behavior.

What will happen now is this possibility will be priced into future mortgage rates. This provision breaks the heart of contract law. Maybe the banks should be able to raise the mortgage balance when the prices rise?

Glitch99 said: cajundavid said: How stupid! A dumb judge deciding that principal should be reduced. Why even have a contract or collateral? This will be wonderful news for the deadbeats of the world. Those of us who live withing our means, live up to our agreements and pay for our assets will end up footing the bill.Whatever bill you think you're going to be footing, it wont be changed by this. If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.

How am I blissfully unaffected. By reducing supply I'm supporting higher prices.

More foreclosures! More deadbeats on the streets! Cheaper prices for me! F**k em all!

This attack on contract law and the basic premise of lending is a slippery slope we will all pay for, and not just in the higher rates which must be charged to cover losses due to incentivized deadbeats. How many more bankruptcies will be caused by the mere announcement or rumor that a BK can reduce mortgage principal?

What will be the long term effects of removing the stigma of bankruptcy? Have we really elected so many fools that bankruptcy is now a practice encouraged by the government?

This is going towards a level of government interventionism that is scary to those who believe in freedom of contract.

Glitch99 said: cajundavid said: How stupid! A dumb judge deciding that principal should be reduced. Why even have a contract or collateral? This will be wonderful news for the deadbeats of the world. Those of us who live withing our means, live up to our agreements and pay for our assets will end up footing the bill.Whatever bill you think you're going to be footing, it wont be changed by this. If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.
And how many deadbeats are going to be induced into declaring bankruptcy to achieve principal reductions that they would not have seen otherwise?

Households with negative equity and consumer debt are being induced to press the reset button because they feel they "got a bad deal" or "the banks are in a tough spot" right now. The stigma is gone. If someone can wipe out $50k of negative equity and some consumer debt by having bad credit for a few years, why wouldn't they - everybody is doing it right now. There is no stigma. People will become paper deadbeats to lower their principal balance in bankruptcy, so when their credit and equity returns in a few years, they have received tens of thousands of dollars in debt forgiveness and interest nonaccumulation.

Using bankruptcy courts to mitigate losses on unsolvable situations is one thing, but this proposed change is going to induce more bankruptcies to be filed to begin with.

Buying property is a risk. This change only reinforces the message that it is okay to ignore risk, and pass the ill consequences on to those around you. This change reinforces the message that it is okay to be a paper deadbeat if your neighbors are real deadbeats, because when everyone is hurting nobody is judging.

Glitch99 said: If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.Glitch seems to be the only one who gets it.

The lender is going to get the approx the same lowered value whether they foreclose or modify.

By letting people keep the homes, you avoid the costly foreclosure process, tens of thousands in legal fees, RE commissions, homes sitting vacant for a year +. Its all avoided and peoples lives are not disrupted. This is LESS costly to the lenders. And to the American people.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: Glitch99 said: If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.Glitch seems to be the only one who gets it.

The lender is going to get the approx the same lowered value whether they foreclose or modify.

By letting people keep the homes, you avoid the costly foreclosure process, tens of thousands in legal fees, RE commissions, homes sitting vacant for a year +. Its all avoided and peoples lives are not disrupted. This is LESS costly to the lenders. And to the American people.


You forgot the moral hazard consideration.

A family who loves their home is not going to go through a foreclosure and lose it, and uproot their lives, for a balance reduction if they are otherwise capable of making the payment. People will cry to a bankruptcy judge and find ways to be deadbeats on paper if they get to keep their home and walk away with a reduced balance.

staci86 said:
And how many deadbeats are going to be induced into declaring bankruptcy to achieve principal reductions that they would not have seen otherwise?

Households with negative equity and consumer debt are being induced to press the reset button because they feel they "got a bad deal" or "the banks are in a tough spot" right now. The stigma is gone. If someone can wipe out $50k of negative equity and some consumer debt by having bad credit for a few years, why wouldn't they - everybody is doing it right now. There is no stigma. People will become paper deadbeats to lower their principal balance in bankruptcy, so when their credit and equity returns in a few years, they have received tens of thousands of dollars in debt forgiveness and interest nonaccumulation.
Which is why they should require shared equity with the govt or lenders when the property is resold.

heck, even put a SILENT 2nd for the writedown amount that the borrower does not need to pay, but will prevent equity cashout loans and will help recoup some funds upon sale.
People who really can afford their homes will not want that "silent 2nd", only the truly needy will agree, reducing the moral hazard problem

Glitch99 said: cajundavid said: How stupid! A dumb judge deciding that principal should be reduced. Why even have a contract or collateral? This will be wonderful news for the deadbeats of the world. Those of us who live withing our means, live up to our agreements and pay for our assets will end up footing the bill.Whatever bill you think you're going to be footing, it wont be changed by this. If someone in BK has a mortgage of $200k on a home worth $150k, the lender is only going to get $150k by forclosing. So the judge reduces the principle to $150k; the lender is no better or worse off, the borrower keeps their home, the market has one less house available, and you are blissfully unaffected.

What if I wanted to buy that house for 150k?

I'm surprised some of this isn't already part of the BK code.. People are really dragging their feet on the housing crisis.

Wow just wow, it's the worst two posts by SUCKISSTAPLES I can recall

I guess this happens to great FatWalleter who takes only 7 minutes to reply to a serious topic.

We'd need to read the bill "Homeowners' Protection Act of 2008" and the law, but risks of this are beyond my imagination.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CERTAIN MORTGAGES.
Section 1322(b) of title 11, United States Code, is amended ...
    notwithstanding paragraph (2) and otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, with respect to a claim for a debt for a loan secured by a security interest in the debtor's principal residence that is the subject of a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced, modify the rights of the holder of such claim

    (A) by reducing such claim to equal the value of the interest of the debtor in such residence securing such claim; `(B) by waiving any otherwise applicable early repayment or prepayment penalties;


    `(C) if any applicable rate of interest is adjustable under the terms of such security interest by prohibiting, reducing, or delaying adjustments to such rate of interest applicable on and after the date of filing of the plan; and


    `(D) by modifying the terms and conditions of such loan-- `(i) to extend the repayment period for a period that is the longer of 40 years (reduced by the period for which such loan has been outstanding) or the remaining term of such loan, beginning on the date of the order for relief under this chapter; and `(ii) to provide for the payment of interest accruing after the date of the order for relief under this chapter at an annual percentage rate calculated at a fixed annual percentage rate, in an amount equal to the then most recently published annual yield on conventional mortgages published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as of the applicable time set forth in the rules of the Board, plus a reasonable premium for risk; and'.




So, in layman's terms bankruptcy judge can:
  1. Drop the loan's principle to some "fair" value, which will be determined by the judge, not the market and
  2. modify term to up to 40 years and
  3. convert any ARM into fixed loan and to set the rate


Besides, what would prevent Congress now from writing "Treasury Protection Act of 2009" to modify all the bonds issued prior to 2009 in the same manner? That would solve the national debt problem...

IMHO this cuts directly through the heart of the free market system.

Mr. and Mrs. Middle America own a home now worth $150k, on which they owe $200k, thanks in part to cash out refinancing. They have lived there for 10 years with their children.


Scenario #1:

Husband has a full time job. Husband puts in 10 hours of week of overtime. Wife watches the kids, and puts in 10-20 hours of week on a part time job, and finds ways to earn odd money here and there. Wife's mother occasionally helps out when the bills are due and money is short. Husband finds ways to do odd jobs on the weekend. Couple is careful with spending, hunts for bargains, buys secondhand, and doesn't run up the credit cards. This family is making it by, but not getting rich, and is paying back the money they promised to pay.


Scenario #2:

Couple knows that the government is allowing handouts. Husband hates his job so he has his OT cut. Wife is "forced" to leave her PT job to take full time care of the kids. Nobody shows any resourcefulness in earning money through odd jobs. Wife will not ask her mother for help, as her mother is on a fixed income.

Oh shit, the bills aren't getting paid, and Uncle Sam is giving out free money (at the expense of the lender, of course). The mortgage is the first thing to go.

The credit cards have available limit, so wife buys what she wants when she wants it. Coupons and bargain hunting never enter their vocabulary. Cost doesn't matter, because they won't be paying it back anyway.

When the credit cards run out, the couple files bankruptcy. They get to show a set of bills that overwhelmed them, and forced them to run up the credit cards, despite the husband working a full time job to provide for his family, while his wife took care of their children. They get to go into bankruptcy court showing "legitimate" hardship despite a socially acceptable level of work. After all, these are "tough times" and a working class family was simply overwhelmed, or at least they will claim that their bankruptcy was unavoidable. They get to keep their house, their cars, and their lifestyle, and receive tens of thousands of dollars in equity and other debt forgiveness, despite the fact they never had to file, but instead planned on it.

Do we really want to encourage scenario #2?

in for 1. two if you include my wife

SUCKISSTAPLES said: staci86 said:
And how many deadbeats are going to be induced into declaring bankruptcy to achieve principal reductions that they would not have seen otherwise?

Households with negative equity and consumer debt are being induced to press the reset button because they feel they "got a bad deal" or "the banks are in a tough spot" right now. The stigma is gone. If someone can wipe out $50k of negative equity and some consumer debt by having bad credit for a few years, why wouldn't they - everybody is doing it right now. There is no stigma. People will become paper deadbeats to lower their principal balance in bankruptcy, so when their credit and equity returns in a few years, they have received tens of thousands of dollars in debt forgiveness and interest nonaccumulation.
Which is why they should require shared equity with the govt or lenders when the property is resold.

heck, even put a SILENT 2nd for the writedown amount that the borrower does not need to pay, but will prevent equity cashout loans and will help recoup some funds upon sale.
People who really can afford their homes will not want that "silent 2nd", only the truly needy will agree, reducing the moral hazard problem


SHOULD? Yes. Will. NO!!

Hell, GM just received 17 million of our money and was able to keep the same management. Why do you think that households will share the balance if they sell with a profit in 10 years? I do agree with you, but I don't see that being enforced. The Gov't has already made loan writeoffs tax free (at least this was considered, not sure if it's law or not).

Why should some jackass who bought a $500k home on a McDonalds salary have a reduction to $200k and not have to pay 'taxes' on that $300k of unearned income?

I'm just waiting until they agree to write off student loan debts, then I will file bankruptcy and start over as well. This seems to be the 'in' thing to do.

staci86 said: Mr. and Mrs. Middle America own a home now worth $150k, on which they owe $200k, thanks in part to cash out refinancing. They have lived there for 10 years with their children.


Scenario #1:

Husband has a full time job. Husband puts in 10 hours of week of overtime. Wife watches the kids, and puts in 10-20 hours of week on a part time job, and finds ways to earn odd money here and there. Wife's mother occasionally helps out when the bills are due and money is short. Husband finds ways to do odd jobs on the weekend. Couple is careful with spending, hunts for bargains, buys secondhand, and doesn't run up the credit cards. This family is making it by, but not getting rich, and is paying back the money they promised to pay.


Scenario #2:

Couple knows that the government is allowing handouts. Husband hates his job so he has his OT cut. Wife is "forced" to leave her PT job to take full time care of the kids. Nobody shows any resourcefulness in earning money through odd jobs. Wife will not ask her mother for help, as her mother is on a fixed income.

Oh shit, the bills aren't getting paid, and Uncle Sam is giving out free money (at the expense of the lender, of course). The mortgage is the first thing to go.

The credit cards have available limit, so wife buys what she wants when she wants it. Coupons and bargain hunting never enter their vocabulary. Cost doesn't matter, because they won't be paying it back anyway.

When the credit cards run out, the couple files bankruptcy. They get to show a set of bills that overwhelmed them, and forced them to run up the credit cards, despite the husband working a full time job to provide for his family, while his wife took care of their children. They get to go into bankruptcy court showing "legitimate" hardship despite a socially acceptable level of work. After all, these are "tough times" and a working class family was simply overwhelmed, or at least they will claim that their bankruptcy was unavoidable. They get to keep their house, their cars, and their lifestyle, and receive tens of thousands of dollars in equity and other debt forgiveness, despite the fact they never had to file, but instead planned on it.

Do we really want to encourage scenario #2?
Scenario #2 is called gaming the system. It happens now, and it will continue to happen as long as the system exists.

The prospect of getting a few thousand dollars more lopped off their mortgage balance isnt going to be what entices someone to choose this path. Your scenario is an issue with bankruptcy abuse in general.

Glitch99 said: Scenario #2 is called gaming the system. It happens now, and it will continue to happen as long as the system exists.

The prospect of getting a few thousand dollars more lopped off their mortgage balance isnt going to be what entices someone to choose this path. Your scenario is an issue with bankruptcy abuse in general.


How true.

But how about "prospect of getting a few hundred thousand dollars more lopped off their mortgage balance" ? Will it entice someone to choose this path? Still no ? Then I admire you faith in humanity.

Glitch99 said: Scenario #2 is called gaming the system. It happens now, and it will continue to happen as long as the system exists.

The prospect of getting a few thousand dollars more lopped off their mortgage balance isnt going to be what entices someone to choose this path. Your scenario is an issue with bankruptcy abuse in general.

Right now, the system does not allow a deadbeat to receive a huge reduction of their mortgage debt and keep the property. If they want the mortgage gone, they have to lose the property. This is not a problem for some people, but there are others who have made their house a home, and will find a way to pay for it. People choose to reaffirm mortgages because their homes have personal value, and a change costs them memories and induces chaos.

If we make the system easier to abuse, then more people are going to abuse it. This isn't about a few thousand dollars - this is about tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, NPV. That is more than enough to induce abuse, on top of abuse committed with credit cards and other consumer debt.

Under this "reform" a deadbeat can keep his home, work less, and end up earning more (when discharge is considered income).

Most people don't abuse bankruptcy, but historically, there has always been a stigma about filing. Credit wasn't as loose, and the average abuser could only hope to get away with credit card debts being forgiven. The average abuser bought things, rather than converting credit to cash or tangible equity. The total amount of abuse by middle America was limited due to the relatively small amount gained, and the strong consequences of doing so. Now, there is much less of a stigma about filing, and the average family could easily see an immediate $50-100k increase in net worth, if planned properly. What, apart from personal morality, would keep the average person from doing it? Why wouldn't the average person take advantage of this jackpot if everyone else is in BK, and credit with BK is going to be much more common when this economic mess is over?

Yes, most people won't cheat the system for a few thousand bucks. It isn't worth the hassle, even in the low-stigma environment of today. We're talking multiples of gross annual salaries, here. Then, add in the compounding effect on the interest not paid. When you tell the average person that mere paperwork can outearn their yearly job, and allow them to retire years earlier to spend time with their family, personal integrity starts to crumble. We are talking an amount of money that would drive many people to ignore ethics and steal the money outright. But now, the government is telling people that this is an okay thing to do.

I am not sure if this bill is as bad as people are describing.

Let's say Homer Simpson is about to BK, and also can not make house payments. His purchase price was for $200,000, and his payment is $X. Now, reducing the principal balance to, say, $150,000, where $150,000 is the market price now is equivalent to the alternative, i.e., foreclose and sell. In fact, if the house could actually sell at $150,000, reducing the balance is actually better.

Now, of course, it is not always as clean. However, imagine that Homer Simpson had his brother Borat go and buy his own house at a foreclosure sale, and let him live in the house for a payment that compensates Borat for the purchase price forever (i.e., Homer would be renting from Borat forever). Well, we are back to the exact same place, right? Bank only gets $150,000, Homer pays the reduces payment to Borat, and Borat owns it on paper.

P.S. Just saw the above post with actual excerpts from the bill. I guess allowing judge to set principal and payment term does seem like a bad idea.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: People in BK are going to lose their homes one way or another, either short sale or foreclosure.

The writeoff is going to happen one way or another, so I have no problem with BK judges reducing principal to the amount the property would sell for at foreclosure or short sale if it results in an AFFORDABLE payment so the person can stay in the home.

Add in some shared equity provisions, so if the property is resold for an amount above the new principal balance, the govt or lender gets the equity.

Remember filing BK will prevent these people from getting new credit for several years, so they will not be able to "cheat the system" again anytime soon.


Who hijacked SiS's account?!?

I have no problem if the BANK decides it is in their best interest to write off some principal, but to have a judge be able to do that is completely unreasonable!

You just dont get it - what if a person can afford their home at the current FMV but cannot afford their mortgage?

In many states, that means the borrower loses the house. Here in CA where loans are nonrecourse, their only option right now is to try to buy the lower priced home next door, then default on the old one. Both options are Very wasteful. The banks NEVER get to choose if/when a borrower stops paying - the borrower makes that choice.

The borrower is going to pay or not. If they dont have enough money to pay the high mortgage but can simply modify their current mortgage to the same amount the lender would get in foreclosure it costs less for everyone. There would be fewer foreclosures. There would be less bank owned inventory, home prices would come back UP. This is what we want. The current system is headed in a continued downward spiral without action like this.

staci86 said:
If we make the system easier to abuse, then more people are going to abuse it. This isn't about a few thousand dollars - this is about tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, NPV. That is more than enough to induce abuse, on top of abuse committed with credit cards and other consumer debt.

Under this "reform" a deadbeat can keep his home, work less, and end up earning more (when discharge is considered income).


Yes, most people won't cheat the system for a few thousand bucks. It isn't worth the hassle, even in the low-stigma environment of today. We're talking multiples of gross annual salaries, here.


Your argument is saying too many people are going to file BK if it results in a larger payout....I dont agree.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:

Remember filing BK will prevent these people from getting new credit for several years, so they will not be able to "cheat the system" again anytime soon.

They aren't prevented from getting credit from many places...they just pay a lot more to get it since they are a bad risk. And many of them end up filing BK again and get to write off the debt all over again. I work in Chapter 13 BK so I see it every day. The only good thing about all of this is it makes my job more secure each and every day unless like all of the others who have (or at risk) of losing their jobs.

lenders who lend to people with bad credit and fresh out of BK are price-in that higher default risk in their loans such that, even with a high default rate, they are still profitable.

More food for thought,

I am an honest person. I work hard, and save 95% of my discretionary income. I've been forgoing WANTS for years, trying to gain REAL wealth and prosperity for my family. Meanwhile I've watched everyone around me participate in instant gratification (including some of my own family members).

People purchase what they want, when they want regardless of their ability to do so. I'm slowly starting to say to my self "screw this, I'm throwing in the towel".

Why should I forgo my wants, and struggle when everyone around me is buying their cake, eating it, and then being handed another one, paid for BY ME. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of paying taxes that are clearly being misappropriated, siphoned off and disappearing into a freaking abyss. Meanwhile I have old clothes, sneakers, transportation, and a modest home, which I rent (although if I maxed my credit cards and blew my savings I could live "the lifestyle of the rich and famous" which apparently every John Doe deserves (sarcasm)). Why should I be locked out of a grossly overvalued home because some prick drove up the price, and now that he can't afford it, he gets a refund (which prevent house prices to falling back to a more reasonable level). Why the hell should I slave my ass away as a corporate drone, and DO what is right, when I can just lie cheat a steal from all the SHEEPLE just like these other UNSCRUPLOUS animals do day in a day out and become "wealthy". WHY SHOULD I slave to pay STUDENT LOANS, and TAXES when others are BEING GIVEN MONEY for not working?

How many responsible people are at their breaking point? How many people are starting to feel this way? Our country is like American Idol, people vote for issues based on popularity, not on substance. (btw I don't support Nobama or Mcsame)

God I wish my parents never gave me morals (or an education). I'd much rather be ignorant and not give a sh*t about anyone or anything.

So far we have spent/owe upwards of 50,000,000,000,000 Dollars. Lets close the damn checkbook, and open up the jail cells. Start locking people away and throwing away the key, start BEING transparent with the American people, and get back to a sustainable economy. Not bubblenomics.

People have zero faith in the government, our markets, or our laws. Until this changes life will not be pretty again. Our whole system should not be based on debt and artificial inflation (which the government is trying to do now with its printing press) it should be based on productivity, education, hard work, and innovation. Apparently 99% of the country can't do simple math. I want all the money I've thrown away in taxes on education BACK among other things.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: There would be less bank owned inventory, home prices would come back UP. This is what we want. The current system is headed in a continued downward spiral without action like this.

Um....you do realize that the reason homes prices are falling is because people bought and built them at prices and quantities that are not sustainable right? Along with the bank and government allowing to much cheap and loose credit to be handed out...?

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow the prices of homes to fall to a point where "middle" class family can actually afford them without struggling with some exotic mortgage? PEOPLE for years were buying homes THAT THEY COULD NEVER AFFORD.

It is the American dream to own a home, not your RIGHT. If you can't afford to buy you rent! You get a roommate! Why the hell should the value of homes go up again at an unsustainable rate, we don't need people using them like atm machines anymore. We don't need another cycle of idiots gaming the country for a quick buck.

If this does happen though, trust me, I'll ride the train this time (because I know the government will just dig me out when we crash again).

Skipping 397 Messages...
Cramdown bill hits senate floor today. However the chance of it passing is "slim".

I'd urge people to call your senators to express your opposition to this measure, at least in its current form. They need our encouragement to put the nail on the coffin! [what the heck citibank was thinking? tsk tsk...]



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017