|
Another aspect of the mortgage crisis. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 09:47:29 |
|
The laws changed recently | by subbywan | 2008-07-29 09:51:05 |
|
That makes sense. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 09:54:32 |
|
Yes, both should be penalized. | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:02:35 |
|
The borrowers are penalized. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 10:16:12 |
| Maybe 60/40? |
by Illiad |
2008-07-29 10:21:04 |
| Trashing one's credit rating only hurts for 7 years in .ca. Sure, we should put more onus on the lender, since they came up with these ridiculous financial products, but "losing your home" isn't enough in my mind if you're someone who deliberately entered into a binding contract you knew you couldn't afford, just so you can live ("temporarily" seems to escape their thinking) in the manner in which you feel you're entitled.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Well - I could agree to that. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 10:32:04 |
|
Not "no return," no. | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:48:42 |
|
I will say, though, that I give him props for | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:52:15 |
|
A slight adjustment to 3) | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:54:49 |
|
That's one way of reading it. | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:56:59 |
|
In other words | by MatthewDBA | 2008-07-29 10:52:56 |
|
In the subtext... | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:55:46 |
|
Or, "Man, I was hoping this would be a sugar daddy | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:56:16 |
|
I'd forgive him. He doesn't have enough | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 11:15:22 |
