Why I Cry For America

[LimpDisc]

Our neighborhood has been very lucky when it comes to foreclosures. We had one house that went into foreclosure a while back. The house totally went to crap on the outside and was a complete eyesore when driving into the neighborhood. The grass was dead, weeds 4’ high, light fixtures falling off the outside and so on. I would have rather had the owner get a principal reduction or loan modification instead viewing that for 6 months.

We do have another house down the block where the owners disappeared in the middle of the night. The house was never for sale. The snow is no longer cleaned from the driveway or sidewalk and newspapers are piling up in the driveway.

[sofarsogood2]

l

[sofarsogood2]

Did I miss something??? Who said this???

Not me.

Yes, you are suggesting just that. They should take their lumps, but not you-you could get a bail out. Let me ask, if you had been unable to file and get rid of your debt, could you afford a home or apartment or a vehicle? Did your BK not save you from being quite destitute for quite some time? If your answer is no, then perhaps you should not have filed.

I do feel that if you bought more house then you can afford you should NOT get a govt bailout of any kind

I'm really hoping you didn't strip a 2nd in your Bk, because that would be the height of hypocracy.

By your logic, using more credit than you can afford is just fine- that deserves a bailout. Neither error in judgement is "better" than the other. You're fooling yourself if you think you were not every bit as irresponsible. "Stuff" happens to other people too.

You should stop making payments, use the mortgage money to save up for an apartment and when the bank finally kicks you out you will have some savings built up (assuming you have income) to pay the rent and security deposit.
This might not be easy losing your home but who's going to subsidize this? I sure as hell don't want to. I think most agree with this but are pretty silent.

I am sure if we polled outside of this forum, most people would object to our BK bail outs, too. They sure as hell would not want to subsidize it thru higher interest rates.

A landlord may not like a low credit score but flash money in front of him and he will take it and shut up.[/QUOTE]

Sure he will, and pocket the cash. Can I tell you how many of these landlords are in foreclsure themselves? Beware, check local records. I know people who almost plunked down that large security deposit, but I insisted they do some research. And guess what?

Frankly, who said I wanted the government/ taxpayers to pay for this? The banks should pay, the "sophisticated" investors who bought these securitized loans should pay. But in the end, we will all pay indirectly anyway.

Same as they paid for your (our) lack of judgement in using more credit than you (we) should have. As backtoschool pointed out, if you think your default has no cost on society as a whole, you are naive. Yes, we all subsidize the loses of your (our) creditors thru higher interest rates, less available credit.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend I'm better, smarter than them. My experience has humbled me, given me more empathy, and heightened my concern for the financial perils of others. You- apparently- not so much.

In the end, if you think the continuing foreclosure debacle will not affect you, think again. This is destabilizing communities, will cause an increase in taxes as local governments struggle to maintain police services and provide services to an ever increasing homeless population. As we have seen in Haiti, desperate people can get a little crazy and aggressive. Is that what you want for this country?

I am really sorry you can't find it in your heart to have some compassion for these people. You don't know what caused them to be unable to make their payments- could be medical bills, hours cut at work, loss of a job, a cheating spouse leading to divorce. (not so different than any of us on this forum, is it?) You are lumping them in the category of "bought too much house". That's like lumping all of us on this forum as dead beats who bought too much cr*p.

As you are "Guru" here, I guess I expected a little more empathy. My bad.

[OhioFiler]

It's a complete contradiction to claim "registered Independent" and then long for an "awesome progressive candidate". If you are a true independent you would probably clamor for an awesome independent candidate.

Ah, Ohio, I knew you would reply. As an Independent, I look for a progressive option right now because, in my opinion, the country and it's policies have swung way too far to the right. I have no allegiance to any party- I prefer to vote for what I think the country needs. Both parties, at this time, have ignored the well being of the American public. Do you really think either party gives a rats a$$ about you and yours?

I am not a Progressive overall, but feel having some in Congress would help balance out policies being enacted (health care, Wall Street Regs.) as Progressive policies lean towards the public good. I am for the good of all Americans- call it what you will- socialist, liberal, "wacked out far left"-whatever- the label doesn't matter- it's the philosophy that counts. Less labeling of ideas and options would probably be a great start towards "bi-partisanship"- what I would call representing the interests of your constituents.

Th Rs in Congress right now would love to take away your right to BK and a fresh start- they certainly made it more difficult in 2005. I find it ironic that someone who couldn't "pull themselves up by their own boot straps" advocates that very philosophy of extreme personal responsibility, capitalism running amok, and no consumer protections/ government intervention in business.

Don't expect me to pick up the tab for his irresponsible decision to buy a house he couldn't afford.

Do you think your filing has no cost to society? Do you not think everyone has, in an indirect way, "picked up the tab" for your discharged debt? If you truly believe in personal responsibilty and going it alone without Government/ Societal help, why are you filing? Ah, you needed help, and recieved the protection of what was, at the time of it's writing, a very uncoventional set of statutes. Debtors prisons was the norm. I would say the BK laws, if proposed now, would be considered socialism and "wacked out liberal" policy- and yet - in your time of need- you embraced it. Things that make you go HMMM.

Obama's actions are exactly as was expected by those who bothered to research his past. The truth was there. He has never accomplished anything except be elected and often that was via dirty Chicago style politics (ask Jack Ryan).

As far as my Obama vote goes, yes, I am disappointed. However, it was a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. A crazy old man and former beauty queen...what was the RNC thinking?

Scott Brown was swept into office by an electorate demanding change.

The Scott Brown win was due to several reasons:

1. MA has it's own Health Insurance Bill.
2. Disenchanted voters stayed home.
3. A really lousy Dem candidate.
4. He avoided identifying himself as an R. I believe he called himself an Independent.

However, wish as you might, it was not a referendum to move the coutry more to the right.

Buy gold? LOL- your kidding?!- gold is at it's peak right now.

America is helping Haiti because Haiti is in dire need of help. When Americans are in similar straits our government and our citizens jump in (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes). America is and will always be a most generous country, unlike ANY other country in the world.

Katrina victims would beg to differ. If our politicians had the good of those citizens on their mind, they would have fixed the levys in the first place. I also don't recall sending in private planes and government planes to quickly evacuate injured people, as we are doing in Haiti. Our citizens are indeed generous when it comes to helping out during large scale disasters. But I do think some politicians would like to ignore the plight of individual poor Americans. Hence the fight over health insurance reform.

BTW, I love my country- just hate greedy, manipulative people who are parasites on the backs of good, hardworking Americans.

Don't bother to respond.

I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. We are worlds apart on this.

I'm going to agree to disagree- you have a right to your opinion and so do I.

* Please note, I am mature enough to not label you or call you any names. I would appreciate the same courtesy in the future.

I have not called you any names. Your "parasites" claim is in direct contradiction to your interest in bankruptcy given the claim you made against me. BTW, I have not filed bankruptcy.

You can claim the mantle of "independent" all you want. Your words are those of a far-left liberal. Accept who you are and you'll find peace.

I will bother to respond at my discretion. It is a typical ploy of the left to tell someone not to respond.

[OhioFiler]

Small point here, but 55 Repubs (ALL of them) and only 18 Demos voted for the BK reform act. There were 25 nay votes, as listed below, the "good guys" as I call them (w/ the exception of Lieberman of course). I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, which is unusual considering this board is dominated by far right conservatives and seditionists.

S. 256 [109th]: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Vote On Passage) Senate Vote #44 --- Mar 10, 2005

Ayes: 74
Nays: 25
No Vote: 1

Ayes by Party: 18 Democrats and 55 Republicans and 1 Independent
Nays by Party: 24 Democrats and 0 Republicans and 1 Independent

ALL Republicans senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.
A Minority of Democrat senators voted for the 2005 BK Reform Act.

The 25 Nay votes for the 2005 BK Reform Act were:
CA Barbara Boxer (D)
CA Dianne Feinstein (D)
CT Christopher Dodd (D)
CT Joseph Lieberman (I)
HI Daniel Akaka (D)
IL Richard Durbin (D)
IL Barack Obama (D)
IA Thomas Harkin (D)
MD Barbara Mikulski (D)
MD Paul Sarbanes (D)
MA Edward Kennedy (D)
MA John Kerry (D)
MI Carl Levin (D)
MN Mark Dayton (D)
NJ Jon Corzine (D)
NJ Frank Lautenberg (D)
NY Charles Schumer (D)
NY Hillary Clinton (D) no vote
ND Byron Dorgan (D)
OR Ron Wyden (D)
RI John Reed (D)
VT Patrick Leahy (D)
WA Maria Cantwell (D)
WA Patty Murray (D)
WV John Rockefeller (D)
WI Russel Feingold (D)

All Democrats (including Obama), and NO republicans on the Nay list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-44

BAPCPA has had no effect on the number of BK filings, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. Arguing about it is useless.

[OhioFiler]

It is naive to think that the banks will not recoup their losses. Some of those losses are insured and some of those losses are recouped through higher fees, etc...

It is also naive to believe that bankruptcy protection is not a bail out of a sort. Being relieved of obligations or being given money to help with obligations is the very definition of "bail out". The difference between when I say "bail out" and when a conservative reactionary type says "bail out" is that I do not mean the word negatively. I will happily take any and all bail outs given to me.

Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts.

On the contrary. I entered into all contracts with my creditors with both parties understanding that the Constitution od the United States allowed me the option to fore go paying the debt should it become too difficult. This is in perfect harmony with free market values.

[OhioFiler]

Thank you backtoschool.

"Conservatives who file for bankruptcy protection have to reconcile their free maket values with the fact that they are not honoring their free market contracts. They are instead letting "Big Government" step in and "bail them out", and help them cancel those free market contracts."

To say BK is not a bail out and that "stupid people who bought more house than they could afford" should take a hike doesn't make sense, esp. on this forum. Many on this forum have stripped a 2nd- how is that so different from a principle reduction?

People on this board have all made some financial mistakes- be it buying too much house, charging too many flat screens, buying that fancy car, not having enough insurance to cover their illnesses. Whatever- no error in judgement is "better" than another. We were all caught unaware and unprepared in some way.

For some people, who have erased their debt or reduced it thru BK, to think they are better than someone who can't keep up with house payments is hypocritical.

As far as Haiti is concerned, I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't think we should help- of course we should. I have friends who are down there right now doing just that.

I was trying to point out that we have our own crisis here and can't seem to get our Congress and President to take the necessary steps to help middle/lower class Americans. That is why I believe our government has moved too far to the right.

American people, children, are sleeping in cars, don't have enough to eat, no money for shoes, clothes or school supplies. We are a wealthy, powerful nation and I am ashamed that this is allowed to happen. It contradicts everything America stands for IMO.

No child in America has to suffer. This nation through government programs and private charities will provide for ANY citizen in need. It's absurd to make the claim that our country is acting in a way contradictory to what she stands for.

[backtoschool]

On the contrary. I entered into all contracts with my creditors with both parties understanding that the Constitution od the United States allowed me the option to fore go paying the debt should it become too difficult. This is in perfect harmony with free market values.

A contract that can be nulled and voided by a government bail-out (ie bankruptcy) is not a free market contract by definition. A truly free market contract would give your creditor recourse to collect the debt, such as suing you, taking your possessions, garnishing your wages, putting a lien on your house, etc....

Once a creditor loses all rights because the Government steps in and voids the contract, then that contact is no longer a free market contract.

[OhioFiler]

A contract that can be nulled and voided by a government bail-out (ie bankruptcy) is not a free market contract by definition. A truly free market contract would give your creditor recourse to collect the debt, such as suing you, taking your possessions, garnishing your wages, putting a lien on your house, etc....

Once a creditor loses all rights because the Government steps in and voids the contract, then that contact is no longer a free market contract.

Nope. The contract was written with the understanding that the Constitution was in full force. I would not have entered into the agreement without the protection afforded me by the Constitution. The lender was aware of this and has his own constitutional protections.

[backtoschool]

Nope. The contract was written with the understanding that the Constitution was in full force. I would not have entered into the agreement without the protection afforded me by the Constitution. The lender was aware of this and has his own constitutional protections.

I understand where you are coming from OF, but free markets have little to do with constitutions.

A free market can exist where there is not a constitution in place. Laissez Faire free market economies, by definition, are economies that allow business and trade to operate free of restrictions. Voiding owed debt in bankruptcy would constitute a restriction.

[sofarsogood2]

No child in America has to suffer. This nation through government programs and private charities will provide for ANY citizen in need. It's absurd to make the claim that our country is acting in a way contradictory to what she stands for.

Ever try being one of them? Of course not. What is absurd is to suggest that there are no poverty/suffering problems in this nation, or that charity/gov. programs have solved it.

If you listened to the news, you would know that increasingly, charities and food banks are running out of supplies as the segment of the population needing help grows and those able to give shrinks.

Is it acceptable to you to expand government assistance to those Americans in need, acknowledging, of course, that taxes will increase? Or, is it only OK to expand government assistance to citizens of other countries when a natural disaster hits? The Americans should pay higher taxes for that, but not to help it's own?

I am not saying that we shouldn't help Haiti, just pointing out that for some reason people don't object to footing the bill for other countries, but God forbid our taxes go to help some struggling American family that has fallen on hard times and can't pay their mortgage.

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


Again, in answer to your other post, I consider myself an Independent and registered as one because I find both parties to be in the pockets of big business, with no interest in solving the problems facing middle/lower class Americans.

I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

[banca rotta]

Did I miss something??? Who said this???

Not me.

Yes, you are suggesting just that. They should take their lumps, but not you-you could get a bail out. Let me ask, if you had been unable to file and get rid of your debt, could you afford a home or apartment or a vehicle? Did your BK not save you from being quite destitute for quite some time? If your answer is no, then perhaps you should not have filed.

It's a moot point. If no one could file then debt wouldn't exist. Prices for homes and cars (if any would even exist) would be very low due to little or no credit.

While I never planned on filing when I racked up debt I will say that if it weren't for bk laws in our constitution I would never, ever take on debt.

There would be too much risk for the borrower and no risk for the lender. Bk levels the playing field. Lenders and investors can make prudent descisions knowing they may get stiffed if they go too far with rates and fees as well as low credit standards.

Take a look at student loans for example. Few people if any can discharge these debts so they become balanced in favor of the creditor and colleges are much more expensive because of them. Make them dischargable and watch how much college tuition falls back down to earth.

Lenders will lend less, less students will go to college, they will lower their costs to make it affordable as it should be!!!!

There would be no lenders, no borrowers, no risk taking, just a bunch of farmers bartering goods without bk.

The point is bk is part of the free markets!!!!! Bailouts are not!

[FLBK7]

On the contrary. I entered into all contracts with my creditors with both parties understanding that the Constitution od the United States allowed me the option to fore go paying the debt should it become too difficult. This is in perfect harmony with free market values.

Wow, that sounds quite calculating imo....

[FLBK7]

Take a look at student loans for example. Few people if any can discharge these debts so they become balanced in favor of the creditor and colleges are much more expensive because of them. Make them dischargable and watch how much college tuition falls back down to earth.

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

Cause and effect.

[banca rotta]

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

Cause and effect.

I remember they were dischargable before the change in bk laws. I wish they were still dischargable. This way just as banks aren't lending much money, credit lines are being pulled, etc., the student loan sharks would be making much less loans and our young would have more affordable educations instead of this nonsense today.

With the world going broke college costs are still rising. Do you think student loans have to do with this? I do.