NY Times sob journalism

The story didn't say she refinanced her condo for $200,000. She owes $143,000, so it's impossible for her to have gone 100% LTV on a refi. One expense noted was a roof, which is always a pretty damn big expense, and kinda essential (you know, roof over your head).

I don't think the point of the Times story was make this woman into a charity case. Sure, you can argue she spent a little more than she should, but she also didn't buy a $600,000 house on a $20,000 income. Anyway, all the Rick Santellis of the world who want to blame all this on the "losers" sure weren't singing that tune when people were getting those mortgages. Ownership society! Yay!

By the way, Pete, when that daughter gets bigger, you're going to wish you had that second bathroom. Trust me. Anyway, I'm a great believer in Dave Barry's dictum that separate toilets are key to happy marriage. Also, I'll never expect either Pete or Rick to buy the next round.

 

i read one of these in the NYT recently. A front page story on some couple living in a McMansion, who were getting divorced, but the bad market meant they had to divide up the house and still live together, because -- <i>qu'elle dommage</i> -- they couldn't sell the house.

Screw them and the horse they rode in on.

 

I misread - looking back over it, I thought it said she at one point owed more than $200,000, when in fact it meant that at one point the condo was worth more than $200,000.

My point stands, though. She paid $77,000 for that condo 12 years ago and she now owes $143,000 on it? That's insane. Add in the cost of a roof for a condo, and that's still generously $50,000 more than she paid for the thing in the first place. Somewhere along the line she blew a shitload of money that the story completely ignores, while painting her as a nice little penny pinching lady who got a bad break.

 

I would, but only after carefully considering the implications to my budget.

 

Same here.

 

It's not the out-of-work people I chastise, but the airheads who get suckered into buying a $350,000 house while making $35,000 a year. Just because some bank is willing to sucker in folks on bad deals like this doesn't excuse the idiot buyers who have their hand out gimmee, gimmee, gimmee when first-grade math tells them they are in deep trouble.

 

I don't support people buying homes they can't afford, but let's say you've saved for six month of living if you lost your job, but you're out of work for a year?

Or how about you do find a job but it pays quite a bit less than what you were making when you bought your house? I think people are in a lot of difficult situations they didn't necessarily bring on themselves.

It's hard to say downsize, because if you're home isn't paid off, and you can't find a buyer, what can you do. It's great if people have planned better for their future, but there are a lot of circumstances to consider that makes it hard for me to say I'm not sorry for some of these people.

 

This is my gripe, too. I work with someone who complains she's always broke yet spends at least $80 a month for a Blackberry with Internet and every bell and whistle. Why? Because you just HAVE to have the ability to send Facebook messages from the line at the airport?

I get that reporters need cell phones, but I think it's a luxury for almost everybody else. And if you feel you need one for safety, get a pay as you go phone. I have one and I spend maybe $15 a month on it.

(This same coworker bought a house she can't afford and has never pushed her own lawnmower in her life. But don't get me started.)

 

Y'all talk a hell of a good game.

 

Boy oh boy, won't the jerk who stole it be surprised when they go to make a withdrawl?!

 

Very sorry to hear all that. I've been there. You seem to be doing the right things, and while it'd definitely be nice if the government was a little more willing to help people, you are more likely to come out of this okay that someone who refused to make the cuts you've made.

 

Many of our ancestors, including my own, moved to a new continent and a new country with nothing. They acquired land for free from the government and took out a loan despite any lack of personal capital so they could farm it. Yes, people have been gambling with their lives and (if applicable) their credit for as long as the landmass been accessible. Plenty of good people, then and now, had honest ambitions that worked out -- and others had the same that did not.

The fact that we're on the internet arguing about this issue makes enough of a point. What we pay for our monthly internet -- whether it's 10 bucks for dialup, 50 bucks for high speed, etc. -- could feed entire families for that month in the world's underdeveloped nations.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but let's have some perspective here. We're all quite lucky, and not just the bankrupt profligates propped up by others' taxes and insurance premiums.