That's exactly what I was thinking. lol

You don't want debtors prisons. Nothing good can come from that.

Should we ship them off to Australia when they can't pay? Oh wait, we don't own that. Guam then maybe?

People were locked up until their family paid their debts and often died. Later they were often required to pay for their keep too.

You mostly sound personally affronted that they had the audacity to make a choice different than yours and HOW DARE THEY.

Garnishment of wages for money owed during the time they stay without paying is sufficient.

Not at all.

Garnishing wages (and if there aren't any wages to garnish?) is better than a debtors prison. :)

But that's not how these debts work, and that's the matter of a private contract, not the law. The house is what secures the debt, no pay, no house. Beyond that, if they could afford to pay they probably would, even people playing the system don't make that kind of choice for shits and giggles.

Sorry if it makes you feel like a sucker for working hard, having good credit and getting to keep your house, though I'm not sure why it would, but this is all a civil matter and no one's a thief by any sense of the word.

Lack of wages didn't seem to be a problem for Alex and Susan unless they're secretly wealthy and it's a scheme to spark a reaction.

Well, at least somebody is as outraged as I am...

Thos of you who are saying they arent a thieves due to a technicality of the term - :rolleyes:. If you take something without paying for it, and it was not a gift to you, then it is considered stealing.

If you have money to go to Outback, and boating, and gambling, then you have money to pay your mortgage.

The good news is, thanks to asshats like these, the lenders have finally toughened up to where they should have been all along. Because my husband is not working full time, and only acquired his part time job 3 months ago, the lenders will not count his income as income, Therefore, for us to buy a house, we have to rely on my income alone. By myself, I qualified to a whole $100K. My credit is high (no credit card debt) but I have student loan debt. So as disappointing as it is that I cant look in the 130-150K price bracket that I wish for, at least I know what I'm capable of for now. So I can either get a home at 100K, or I can wait until I have some of these student loans out of the way, or for my husband to graduate and get a full time job so that we can qualify for more.

As hacked off as I am at these irresponsible freaks, at least I know I'm not going to be like them - because I am restricted to what I truly CAN afford, and not just on a dream.

Be pissed, but no matter how much you try to change the definition of the word, you're talking about people in a private contract who will lose their homes. Not thieves even if you wish they were.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Through the Looking Glass, Chapter VI.

Words have meaning. Recognizing that isn't a technicality; it's good communication.

Good. They deserve to lose their homes if they dont pay. Yes, even if they've paid 3 times the purchase price already due to stupidity in by refinancing, and just being dumb.

Has anyone suggested otherwise, at least for those who aren't making a good faith effort to meet their obligations and who are eating overpriced restaurant food?

Did you forget where I said If you take something without paying for it, and it was not a gift to you, then it is considered stealing? So because a house can't be physically picked up, it's not considered stealing? riiight. Until the mortgage is paid in full, it belongs to the bank. If the borrower of the money to purchase that house stops repaying the bank, s/he his stealing.

(Notice that stealing is a component of, but not synonymous with, theft under the criminal law)

I'm still missing how they're getting away with anything that can't be handled by the bank. Do they get to keep a lump sum of money and/or a house to show for their
stealing?

Drolefile once told me to not get stuck in the literal (despite how words and phrases have meanings) because you miss the general point that is being made. :) People are debating the "theft" and "steal" parts of this when we all agree that it's not a good thing what these people are doing. What are some solutions to this problem that don't involve extremes of labeling these people based on the criminal code (because, as was said already, all of the people in debt aren't spending money at Outback)?

Except that the house doesn't belong to the bank until the mortgage is paid in full. You're starting with a false premise.

Legally, the house belongs to the owner/borrower, whose name is on the deed. The bank has a secured loan, with the real property as the security. If the owner/borrower defaults on the loan, the bank has the right under the terms of the loan to initiate legal proceedings to take possession of the property (which wouldn't be necessary if the bank already owned the property) and have the property sold in order to satisfy the loan. But despite the fact that people say it all the time, the bank does not own the property unless and until it forecloses. Hence, no stealing.

Call them deadbeats, call them defaulters, call them useless. But thieves simply doesn't fit because they, not the bank, own the property.

Meanwhile, what Dr. Phil said.