Foreclosures and Irresponsible Home THIEVES

preciousjeni · #1 06-02-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Call them dishonorable, call them untrustworthy, call them whatever you like, but the only way to throw them in jail would be to bring back true debtors prisons.

That's exactly what I was thinking. lol

DrPhil · #2 06-02-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's exactly what I was thinking. lol

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

Drolefille · #3 06-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's exactly what I was thinking. lol

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.

preciousjeni · #4 06-02-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Not at all.

DrPhil · #5 06-02-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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

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

preciousjeni · #6 06-02-2010, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

StargazerLily · #7 06-02-2010, 11:05 PM

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 -

. 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.

Drolefille · #8 06-02-2010, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StargazerLily

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 -

. 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.

Drolefille · #9 06-02-2010, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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

Not at all.

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.