Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After reviewing the last 6 or 7 pages and spending more time that I would care to on this particular thread, deleting posts that were "bashing" others, I would like to remind you to refrain from attacking other member's posts.
I have allowed this thread to go slightly off topic from the OP because it has been very informative and is addressing a topic that is affecting many Las Vegas residents. It is also a thread that is of interest to many members, seeing it's 23 pages long.
Let's keep it civil, so the thread can stay open.
Thank you.
So we need capitalism with a rational regulation set that confines things to rational limits. I leave how to formulate those regulations to the student. Hope they are vastly smarter than I.
In the past. much of business was done on your word and with a hand shake. As in the hand shake (while looking in the eyes of others) was more powerful than the signed paper. People on average were more ethical and honest people. That approach still exists in some smaller towns across America.
In the 50's 60's, and 70's, we were embarrassed to get free handouts. Embarrassed to be on government assistance, embarrassed to lose our home. It wasn't a free-for-all to screw anybody for "profit". Yes it still happened but not like today.
Now it's different. Both individuals and businesses seem to pride themselves for getting something for nothing and skirting the law. It happens up and down societies food chain. It seems the only difference is the magnitude on how much you are able to scr_w your fellow man. Wall Street and the government happen to control more $$'s so it's a bigger scr_w job.
Lately, the government is all about auctioning off power and influence. But individuals are also all about themselves.
People more easily bail on their debt. Advertisements have been on the air for years about debt consolation.
It seems the USA is law suit happy.
Individuals take unemployment while taking side job. It's now the norm for those in the trades.
It's the goal of many to work the system for food stamps, housing assistance, free medical, free tuition, etc.
People seem to more easily lie on there student loan applications and their taxes.
The scams created are on the rise from credit card fraud, fraud on the elderly, etc.
I can go on and on. Even the simple "good faith" policies now have to be changed: like generous return policies from merchants . Retailers are changing their policies because people are ready and wiling to abuse them.Even Costco is changing their plan on electronics (some idiots bring in there 12 year old TV).
Which comes full circle to what the thread is all about. 12 people on the OP's block decided to walk. Sure. Some people lost their jobs and simply went broke from a mortgage they could have afforded. They did their best but it was on their control. But why did they lose their jobs??? Maybe because others ditched THEIR responsibilities when they could pay but viewed it as "me against them" and created a downward spiral. Why not screw those (fill in the blank) because you can find an example of how they screwed others.
Washington doesn't want to plug the hole and mandate that people pay back the loan that they signed off on. If they did, they might not get re-voted in by some of their deadbeat constituents. It's easier to "be one of them" and go after the mortgage companies.
So it seems we have become very good at rationalizing. Rationalizing that "profit isn't a sin" when you all but know the person you are working with cannot even make his $30 Sears bill. Rationalizing that walking from a loan is o.k.. Rationalizing it's the banks fault (and part of it is) so you can sleep at night. Rationalizing is nothing more that helping you cope as being a POS.
As I have said before. I'm human. I have been a POS in various events in my life. I can admit it to myself.
So yes olecapt. We agree. The hand shake no longer works very well because businesses are now mostly POS. We need to legally install personal responsibility.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 11-14-2009 at 06:13 AM..
In the past. much of business was done on your word and with a hand shake. As in the hand shake (while looking in the eyes of others) was more powerful than the signed paper. People on average were more ethical and honest people. That approach still exists in some smaller towns across America.
The problem with that attitude, never mind the naive nostalgia, is that it doesn't scale. It may exist in small towns, not that they don't have their fair share of people taking advantage of others, but ain't no way it works when you've got corporations involved. Because, at a minimum the entire point of incorporation is to reduce individual liability.
People more easily bail on their debt. Advertisements have been on the air for years about debt consolation.
It seems the USA is law suit happy.
Individuals take unemployment while taking side job. It's now the norm for those in the trades.
It's the goal of many to work the system for food stamps, housing assistance, free medical, free tuition, etc.
People seem to more easily lie on there student loan applications and their taxes.
The scams created are on the rise from credit card fraud, fraud on the elderly, etc.
A) Its debt consolidation, not consolation and it certainly isn't about 'bailing' - its about restructuring so that the debtor isn't so overwhelmed that his only option is to 'bail.' For example, if you can't afford a car because you have no money left over after servicing your debts, it really hard to get and keep a decent paying job, and an unemployed person can't pay off debts anywhere near as well as an employed person.
B) Are you sure that the USA is lawsuit happy? All the evidence I can find suggests that the number of lawsuits per capita has been decreasing. For example, in New York State the number of cases before new york supreme courts has decreased by 13,000 from 2002 to 2006. Research by Rogers and Galanter from the University of Wisconsin Law School shows that lawsuits filed per capita were a lot higher in the 1800s than they are now. The National Center for State Courts reports that, nationwide, tort filings decreased by 15% from 1992 to 2001 and the DOJ reports that the number of civil trials decreased by 47% and award $$ decreased by 56% over the same time period.
C) Everything else in your list is about people committing fraud in one form or another. Those are your gut feelings. I'm willing to bet at least even money that the over all rate of fraud, regardless of the specific methods, hasn't really changed at all over the centuries. My reasoning? Is that people are people, and their ain't no such thing as "the good ole days."
Quote:
Even Costco is changing their plan on electronics (some idiots bring in there 12 year old TV).
Look more closely at that, not just all the people making 'obvious' assumptions and citing personal anecdotes. Read the statements by the CEO very closely and listen to what costco's suppliers have said. It turns out that it wasn't really any significant abuse that caused the change, what happened was that Costco had been able to negotiate sweetheart deals with its suppliers where the suppliers ate the cost of the indefinite warrantees, not Costco. Because of Costco's insistence that their wholesale prices must be equal to or less than wholesale prices to any other retailer, the suppliers had to amortize that cost across all of their retailers, including the ones who couldn't offer indefinite warrantees. Eventually those retailers got annoyed enough/strong enough to push back and even Costco's buying clout was no longer sufficient to require those terms anymore.
Quote:
Washington doesn't want to plug the hole and mandate that people pay back the loan that they signed off on.
Because we have this little clause in the constitution - section 9, paragraph 3 - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Quote:
So it seems we have become very good at rationalizing.
Thanks for your viewpoint Kaiminani. I agree that my opinion that American's are less moral and less ethical is exclusively based off of my gut feel.
At the same token, your opinion that "people are people" over time is also your gut feeling. So it seems we are both shooting from the hip.
I don't have the exact data but I do know that Target, the GAP, Walmart, JCPenny's all have tightened their liberal return policies to stricter policies. Kohl's and Costco still have generous policies (all based off of where I shop). The manager at Costco told me that they "eat" most of the returns. I might be wrong but the trend is tightening return policies.
Teachers have complained in my circles that the Kid's are harder to manage and the broken family is to blame. I know. Hardly scientific. Maybe Kid's in the inner city with broken families are more moral but I doubt it. Again, unscientific gut statements on my part again.
I cannot speak about NY law Suits. I do know however that companies have increased the size of their manuals to include legalize to CYA. For some reason or another, they didn't have thick legalize in 1975. Now I could be wrong because I don't have time to prove my point so it will have to stay as a gut feeling.
A lot of people talk about the lack of personal responsibilities. Again. I'm not sure how to prove that personal responsibilities are on the decline.
With regard to defaulting mortgages. (Again just a hunch). But if we chased down all the people that bailed on their mortgage, a lot less people would have been hurt with the economy. ANd you and I as a whole would be in better shape unless you are a bankruptcy attorney.
A core problem is our culture seems to live on the edge with debt and it's encouraged by our government. Again. Just a gut feel.
A few years ago, I made a small fortune (to me anyways) every month. It was like picking money off the ground. Without putting out a number, I have had a 500% decline in wages which still more than I need. But I could have bought a fancy car, house etc. I didn't. I lived within my means.
I'm not begrudging the guy who bought a home and worked hard to get started. But I am taking shots at the investor who got over his head, the guy who kept on refinancing to buy his new toys, the idiot who thought the ARM was a swell idea, and the guy who could afford his mortgage but decided it made more sense to walk.
That peer pressure use to mean something. It's good to realize that when people talk to someone who bailed on their responsibility they are thinking less of them. I think that motivation is a good thing.
Thanks for your viewpoint Kaiminani. I agree that my opinion that American's are less moral and less ethical is exclusively based off of my gut feel.
At the same token, your opinion that "people are people" over time is also your gut feeling. So it seems we are both shooting from the hip.
I don't have the exact data but I do know that Target, the GAP, Walmart, JCPenny's all have tightened their liberal return policies to stricter policies. Kohl's and Costco still have generous policies (all based off of where I shop). The manager at Costco told me that they "eat" most of the returns. I might be wrong but the trend is tightening return policies.
Teachers have complained in my circles that the Kid's are harder to manage and the broken family is to blame. I know. Hardly scientific. Maybe Kid's in the inner city with broken families are more moral but I doubt it. Again, unscientific gut statements on my part again.
I cannot speak about NY law Suits. I do know however that companies have increased the size of their manuals to include legalize to CYA. For some reason or another, they didn't have thick legalize in 1975. Now I could be wrong because I don't have time to prove my point so it will have to stay as a gut feeling.
A lot of people talk about the lack of personal responsibilities. Again. I'm not sure how to prove that personal responsibilities are on the decline.
With regard to defaulting mortgages. (Again just a hunch). But if we chased down all the people that bailed on their mortgage, a lot less people would have been hurt with the economy. ANd you and I as a whole would be in better shape unless you are a bankruptcy attorney.
A core problem is our culture seems to live on the edge with debt and it's encouraged by our government. Again. Just a gut feel.
A few years ago, I made a small fortune (to me anyways) every month. It was like picking money off the ground. Without putting out a number, I have had a 500% decline in wages which still more than I need. But I could have bought a fancy car, house etc. I didn't. I lived within my means.
I'm not begrudging the guy who bought a home and worked hard to get started. But I am taking shots at the investor who got over his head, the guy who kept on refinancing to buy his new toys, the idiot who thought the ARM was a swell idea, and the guy who could afford his mortgage but decided it made more sense to walk.
That peer pressure use to mean something. It's good to realize that when people talk to someone who bailed on their responsibility they are thinking less of them. I think that motivation is a good thing.
Raised my children in the 1970s in upstate NY and Los Angeles. My kids always walked to school. Crime rate now is half of what it was then...but kids can't walk to school. Sounds to me like a parent problem.
In actual fact the vast majority of the mortgage "victims" are still haniging in there. Checked Silverstone Ranch the other day, a place where everything is underwater more than 50%. The majority of the original owners are still in place.
I also fail to see how walking or not walking would impact anyone other than the holder and mortgagee. The loss is there. Is it better distributed among all the mortgagees or the security holders of the mortgages? Is it better to take the loss now or later? It would appear to me much better for the mortgagee to take the loss early and get on with life. Does tnat do more damage to the economy via the hit to the holder? I don't find it obvious.
The problem of "punishing" the guilty is when can't tell them from the innocent. Basically anybody who bought between 2004 and 2007 got whacked. Sorting that set is a pretty difficult task. And a lot of it may get to intent. Policing based on intent is a loser.
I'm not begrudging the guy who bought a home and worked hard to get started. But I am taking shots at the investor who got over his head, the guy who kept on refinancing to buy his new toys, the idiot who thought the ARM was a swell idea, and the guy who could afford his mortgage but decided it made more sense to walk.
While I agree with many of your viewpoints, the mortgage one is a difficult one for me as I am currently in the situation now and I Just wanted you to know that not everyone walks away with a sense of relief or excitement or whatever it is you are assuming. My heart has been heavy every day since I lost my income. It has been one of the most difficult decisions that I am still in the process of making (after 6 months) of what to do about my home. Bottom line is, I may be "rationalizing", but I did everything right, by putting 20% down (all the money i had saved since I was 16 years old) and having no second mortgage, having more than enough income to cover my debts, and still... i was effected by absolutely no control of my own. (i suppose maybe this is debatable by some?) Technology took over my job, I didn't even get a warning from my boss (thanks). so then when I interviewed several times in my home area, and nothing came of it, I had to decide to look elsewhere, because what is important to me right now is to make a living, so I applied in other cities, and if I have to move for a job, I will do it. Leave behind my home? What else are my choices? I mean, I guess that's a serious question? It is now approximately $90,000.00 under water, and still declining, my 50K down LONG GONE (to add to the heartbreak of losing my home). If i could have my job and home in a heartbeat i would, because i still have to live somewhere! thankfully i have had savings to cover my a$$ for the past several months but that is running out, you know, i wasn't PERFECT with my money, and it's a hard lesson to be learning, but something I will never forget. My "American dream" is shot, im afraid to ever buy a house again, which is all I ever wanted... have a home and a family.
Thanks for your viewpoint Kaiminani. I agree that my opinion that American's are less moral and less ethical is exclusively based off of my gut feel.
At the same token, your opinion that "people are people" over time is also your gut feeling. So it seems we are both shooting from the hip.
I don't have the exact data but I do know that Target, the GAP, Walmart, JCPenny's all have tightened their liberal return policies to stricter policies. Kohl's and Costco still have generous policies (all based off of where I shop). The manager at Costco told me that they "eat" most of the returns. I might be wrong but the trend is tightening return policies.
Teachers have complained in my circles that the Kid's are harder to manage and the broken family is to blame. I know. Hardly scientific. Maybe Kid's in the inner city with broken families are more moral but I doubt it. Again, unscientific gut statements on my part again.
I cannot speak about NY law Suits. I do know however that companies have increased the size of their manuals to include legalize to CYA. For some reason or another, they didn't have thick legalize in 1975. Now I could be wrong because I don't have time to prove my point so it will have to stay as a gut feeling.
A lot of people talk about the lack of personal responsibilities. Again. I'm not sure how to prove that personal responsibilities are on the decline.
With regard to defaulting mortgages. (Again just a hunch). But if we chased down all the people that bailed on their mortgage, a lot less people would have been hurt with the economy. ANd you and I as a whole would be in better shape unless you are a bankruptcy attorney.
A core problem is our culture seems to live on the edge with debt and it's encouraged by our government. Again. Just a gut feel.
A few years ago, I made a small fortune (to me anyways) every month. It was like picking money off the ground. Without putting out a number, I have had a 500% decline in wages which still more than I need. But I could have bought a fancy car, house etc. I didn't. I lived within my means.
I'm not begrudging the guy who bought a home and worked hard to get started. But I am taking shots at the investor who got over his head, the guy who kept on refinancing to buy his new toys, the idiot who thought the ARM was a swell idea, and the guy who could afford his mortgage but decided it made more sense to walk.
That peer pressure use to mean something. It's good to realize that when people talk to someone who bailed on their responsibility they are thinking less of them. I think that motivation is a good thing.
The word "gut" was intentionally used as often as possible. Thanks for noticing but it was tong-and-cheek. Kaiminani point was he saw no proof and therefore I was wrong. (I might have been reading into to it too much). The forum is full of gut feelings.
Raised my children in the 1970s in upstate NY and Los Angeles. My kids always walked to school. Crime rate now is half of what it was then...but kids can't walk to school. Sounds to me like a parent problem.
In actual fact the vast majority of the mortgage "victims" are still haniging in there. Checked Silverstone Ranch the other day, a place where everything is underwater more than 50%. The majority of the original owners are still in place.
I also fail to see how walking or not walking would impact anyone other than the holder and mortgagee. The loss is there. Is it better distributed among all the mortgagees or the security holders of the mortgages? Is it better to take the loss now or later? It would appear to me much better for the mortgagee to take the loss early and get on with life. Does tnat do more damage to the economy via the hit to the holder? I don't find it obvious.
The problem of "punishing" the guilty is when can't tell them from the innocent. Basically anybody who bought between 2004 and 2007 got whacked. Sorting that set is a pretty difficult task. And a lot of it may get to intent. Policing based on intent is a loser.
Olecapt. We are on the same page re: paranoid parents. I don't know too many Kid's that have been abducted, hit by cars or murdered.
The "majority" of people hanging in there isn't good enough. AIG was brought to it's knees even with the majority intact.
You didn't really say this did you??"I also fail to see how walking or not walking would impact anyone other than the holder and mortgagee."
For starters, ask the guy who started this thread. Aren't you in the RE industry??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both individuals and businesses seem to pride themselves for getting something for nothing and skirting the law. It happens up and down societies food chain. It seems the only difference is the magnitude on how much you are able to scr_w your fellow man. Wall Street and the government happen to control more $$'s so it's a bigger scr_w job.
Even Costco is changing their plan on electronics (some idiots bring in there 12 year old TV).
The hand shake no longer works very well because businesses are now mostly POS. We need to legally install personal responsibility.
"I also fail to see how walking or not walking would impact anyone other than the holder and mortgagee."
