Leaning on gov't largesse to get you through a rough patch

[TimC]

How about after the rough spot ends, the Government takes back $10.00 a month until it's paid back?

[wiegie]

Why should I care if they appreciate my ideals or not? My creditors have collateral sufficient to protect their economic interests. I could be wrong, but I don't believe I'm contractually or morally obligated to anything more than: (1) pay my mortgage; or (2) turn my house keys over to the bank and pay any remaining balance after the foreclosure sales proceeds are applied to my mortgage. Do you disagree?

the example being used here said that the person was going to declare bankruptcy

[whomper]

How about after the rough spot ends, the Government takes back $10.00 a month until it's paid back?

 

 

Great scene in the Movie Cinderella Man when Braddock gave back the money he got on public assistance when he regained his boxing career

[Ursa Majoris]

Sometimes you swallow your pride and do what must be done in order to take care of your family.

+1. There's a point at which politics and beliefs (should) end and practicality kicks in.

[Azazello1313]

Why should I care if they appreciate my ideals or not? My creditors have collateral sufficient to protect their economic interests. I could be wrong, but I don't believe I'm contractually or morally obligated to anything more than: (1) pay my mortgage; or (2) turn my house keys over to the bank and pay any remaining balance after the foreclosure sales proceeds are applied to my mortgage. Do you disagree?

 

 

the example being used here said that the person was going to declare bankruptcy

 

also, a mortgage debt is secured by real property, but it's not like you satisfy the debt by simply turning over the property. if you turn over property worth less than what you owe, you are still defaulting on your debt.

 

personally, I'd have a LOT more shame defaulting on a personal debt than I would in accepting government assistance for which I qualify.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Azazello1313

[yo mama]

the example being used here said that the person was going to declare bankruptcy

I'm not sure why that matters. Are you intimating that people should feel obligated to exhaust all forms of public assistance prior to declaring bankruptcy?

[yo mama]

1. also, a mortgage debt is secured by real property, but it's not like you satisfy the debt by simply turning over the property.

2. if you turn over property worth less than what you owe, you are still defaulting on your debt.

3. personally, I'd have a LOT more shame defaulting on a personal debt than I would in accepting government assistance for which I qualify.

1. I know. I said so above.

2. not necessarily true. You are still liable for paying the balance of the mortgage after the foreclosure sales proceeds are applied to the debt. In theory, you could continue paying that balance without defaulting on it. And even if you declared bankruptcy that doesn't necessarily mean you get out of the entire remaining balance, either.

3. depends. If the collateral is sufficient to pay the remaining mortgage balance I wouldn't feel bad at all. Besides, default was an outcome both parties contemplated and addressed contractually.

 

Bottom line, either way I'm not going to be happy. I just can't shake the notion that if I can't afford this house without the aid of public assistance, then I just can't afford this house. Period. Frankly, I'd have less of a problem moving in with family than taking public assistance.

[Azazello1313]

Are you intimating that people should feel obligated to exhaust all forms of public assistance prior to declaring bankruptcy?

 

can't speak for wiegie, but that's certainly how I would feel. I would much sooner take what is rightfully mine under the social contract than try to get out of paying back what I borrowed from someone else.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Azazello1313

[The Irish Doggy]

Good golly. Refusing to accept help is just a case of cutting off one's nose. I'm not impressed.

[Ursa Majoris]

Frankly, I'd have less of a problem moving in with family than taking public assistance.

Family might have a different opinion.......

[yo mama]

1. can't speak for wiegie, but that's certainly how I would feel.

2. I would much sooner take what is rightfully mine under the social contract than try to get out of paying back what I borrowed from someone else.

1. Okay, I understand and respect your point. Just not sure that I feel the same way. I view the social contract as providing basic social services and protections to people as a safety net, not to ensure that people can live in homes they can't otherwise afford. Assuming I could still afford to rent a decent place I'd just go do that.

2. But if the bank is made whole via the value of the collateral you're not getting out of anything.

 

I dunno. I'm not above accepting help. I guess I'd just look to family first is all. And while I am disinclined to accept a form of public assistance that I do not agree with, I suppose if it was between that or bankruptcy I know my wife would force the issue regardless of what I said. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure what I'd do unless I was actually faced with the situation, so its entirely possible I'd change my tune when faced with that situation.

Edited August 6, 2009 by yo mama

[yo mama]

Family might have a different opinion.......

Nah. We've had detailed discussions about this with my parents and their parents.

[Ursa Majoris]

Nah. We've had detailed discussions about this with my parents and their parents.

Relatives and fish......

[Azazello1313]

But if the bank is made whole via the value of the collateral you're not getting out of anything.

 

the bank is not made whole in any of the circumstances we are talking about. if the value of the collateral (the house) exceeds the value of the debt, none of this is even an issue. hell, you just sell the house and move somewhere else. or refi and get a lower payment.

 

but that wasn't even the question I was addressing, which was specifically your question about public assistance versus declaring bankruptcy. the very definition of bankruptcy is a process for getting out of paying back debts. now I'm not saying I would never declare bankruptcy if I felt it was the only way out for my family, but I would definitely have much stronger moral reservations about it than I would in applying for some sort of government-underwritten mortgage adjustment.

[yo mama]

the bank is not made whole in any of the circumstances we are talking about. if the value of the collateral (the house) exceeds the value of the debt, none of this is even an issue. hell, you just sell the house and move somewhere else. or refi and get a lower payment.

 

but that wasn't even the question I was addressing, which was specifically your question about public assistance versus declaring bankruptcy. the very definition of bankruptcy is a process for getting out of paying back debts. now I'm not saying I would never declare bankruptcy if I felt it was the only way out for my family, but I would definitely have much stronger moral reservations about it than I would in applying for some sort of government-underwritten mortgage adjustment.

Okay. You're certainly free to feel that way. I'm not arguing otherwise.

[TimC]

Relatives and fish......

 

When my house was being built a few years back and I had already sold my old house, I had to move in with the parents during the construction delay. I would rather be knocking on Obama white door and suckling him right then and there than move back in with the parents again. I would basically go to each American's house and rob $1.00 from yer piggy banks myself rather than go through that ordeal again.

[whomper]

I think you are right to an extent. Sure they would love to live within their means now. Problem is that is a new desire for them, and part of the reason they are in the shape they are in is that they did not have the same desire the prior to about a year ago. It is hard to have sympathy when you see people living lavishly, spending money on junk like manicures, satellite, nice cars, too much house, too much bling, designer clothes etc...all of a sudden wake up to the realization that they've can no longer afford their life style, and want my tax dollars to help them out of that mess.

 

 

And I can see why that would piss you off and justifiably so. My problem is when we lump in the people that lived within their means and just had their jobs ripped out from under them and now are trying to find a new job in a barren market. If they do find something there is a good chance they will be making less than they were and even if they were responsible and lived within their means they may not be able to cut it.

 

Unless you make big bucks or have saved a majority of your expendable income over a long period of time, no matter how responsible you were if you lose your job you will eventually run out of money if you cant find something somewhat comparable to what you were earning.

Edited August 6, 2009 by whomper

[bpwallace49]

And I can see why that would piss you off and justifiably so. My problem is when we lump in the people that lived within their means and just had their jobs ripped out from under them and now are trying to find a new job in a barren market. If they do find something there is a good chance they will be making less than they were and even if they were responsible and lived within their means they may not be able to cut it.

 

Unless you make big bucks or have saved a majority of your expendable income over a long period of time, no matter how responsible you were if you lose your job you will eventually run out of money if you cant find something somewhat comparable to what you were earning.

 

Whomper you are EXACTLY right, IMO.

 

All too often anyone that gets caught in a bad situation is portrayed as food stamp collectin', bling wearing welfare rats that are unfairly taking money to get new spinning rims on the Escalade.

 

With the economy going south, I am willing to guess that there are more people that have NOT lived beyond their means, but now face an inability to provide for their family through no fault of their own.

[yo mama]

And I can see why that would piss you off and justifiably so. My problem is when we lump in the people that lived within their means and just had their jobs ripped out from under them and now are trying to find a new job in a barren market. If they do find something there is a good chance they will be making less than they were and even if they were responsible and lived within their means they may not be able to cut it.

 

Unless you make big bucks or have saved a majority of your expendable income over a long period of time, no matter how responsible you were if you lose your job you will eventually run out of money if you cant find something somewhat comparable to what you were earning.

Everyone who enters into a mortgage is basically betting they'll have sufficient cash flow to service the debt. Some people are going to lose that bet, some due to no fault of their own. But why does that person's lack of fault mean that I suddenly have to start paying part of their mortgage? Certainly I'm even less at fault than the homeowner and the bank who entered into the mortgage, no?

 

The truth is that there is job-loss mortgage insurance. Most people choose not to get it. If your house burned down and you opted not to purchase fire insurance would you expect the public to build you a new home?

 

(When did I become a republican? )

Edited August 6, 2009 by yo mama

[wiegie]

If your house burned down and you opted not to purchase fire insurance would you expect the public to build you a new home?

It depends: Do I live in New Orleans and did my house burn down in the middle of a hurricane?

 

[AtomicCEO]

The college economist getting abused by the Hall & Oates/ Shatner fan...

 

Do you think it makes you look smarter when you go around doing this all the time?

 

"Oh man! He sure showed you a thing or two! Yuk yuk!" You're like a machine that agrees with any conservative opinion, no matter how off-base it is.

[yo mama]

It depends: Do I live in New Orleans and did my house burn down in the middle of a hurricane?

 

So wrong.

[muck]

LO --

 

Sounds like you've made some good (hard) decisions.

 

Hopefully, once your professional situations turn the corner, and the lease is up with the doctors, you can move back in to your dream house (after having had your mortgage paid by these other people for a year or two) to your dream house. Most others would have had to sell their house for less than they owed, faced a deficiency notice from the bank, and been hounded into paying or declaring bankruptcy.

 

So, while you've got a bad hand, it sounds like you're playing it rather well.

 

Good luck!

 

Muck

[wiegie]

I dropped off some stuff at Goodwill today. They gave me a receipt. Is it morally acceptable for me to take the deduction on my taxes? I would have given the stuff to Goodwill anyway, so now it is just a question of whether I take free money from the government or not.

 

yomama, what say you?

[Chavez]

You, like most, marginalize the independents.

 

I voted, but for neither Dem or Rep.

 

My wife and I DID struggle for a bit about taking unemployment when she got laid off, but eventually I just went "we've been paying taxes for this for a combined 35+ yrs, screw it."

 

Other than that, we've been fortunate enough not to need federal assistance. As far as I'm concerned, it would be your tax dollars coming back directly to help you, it's really a no-brainer, especially if it's just one of those "well, I need it and this isn't going to be a life-changing decision."

 

As far as Q3 and Q4, I don't know that I'd necessarily feel one way or the other - I don't EXPECT the gov't to help me keep my home if the sh*t hits the fan, but if they have a mechanism there to allow me to do so, good for me. If they don't, bad for me.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Chavez