Morality in this instance, is not a one way street. Home owners WANT to keep their homes, but when a bank refuses to lower the principal on the loan, or modifies the loan by lowering the interest by a quarter point, but then extends the life of the loan by ten years so that MORE is paid in the long run, it is not financially feasible to keep the home. That is what is happening and it is simply greed on the part of the banks. So then I ask, is greed moral?

In recourse states, is it moral for the bank to get their security, i.e., the house, through a foreclosure, AND get a deficiency judgment against the debtor? Bankruptcy is the ONE recourse the debtor has. The bankruptcy code allows the value automobiles to be “crammed down” to reflect their true value, but explicitly EXCLUDES mortgages from being crammed down. Is that moral? Go talk to Barney Frank and the other geniuses in Congress who thought it was a good idea to change the mortgage rules so that someone earning $12 per hour could get a $100k mortgage.

This is business. Yes, my neighbor’s foreclosure effects me, but then, I should have been smart enough to not buy a home in an over valued neighborhood to begin with.

Personally I am in the “greed is useful, but definitely not good or optimal” camp.

The GOP has made clear they intend to serve the interests of Wall Street and the banks — even more than the already-supine Democrats.

And Wall Street and the banks have made clear that American citizens and taxpayers can go f— themselves.

Conservatives work like busy little beavers to assist corporations in f—— you, and Democrats are better only in degree, not in kind.

So it’s one great, big, go f— yourself country. If you’re wealthy or powerful.

So don’t act like your betters and cop a “go f— yourself” attitude. Instead Join the Powers That Be and help them in their important work by going and f—— yourself.

When you’re living in a box under a bridge no doubt some banker will toss you his spare change.

Not surprisingly, Congress will treat these people as victims and no doubt either bail them out (one estimate is it would take about $750 billion to pay off the difference between what underwater borrowers owe and what their houses are worth), or make some accommodation with credit reporting services to give these strategic deadbeats a pass. Encouraging irresponsibility has been the hallmark of the Obama administration housing policies so why should we expect anything to be different here?

Not sure where this certainty re: Congress is coming from, but seeing how poorly the 75 billion already allocated for helping underwater/behind mortgage holders was spent, the chance of more money spent on this are slim at best. I mean, do the Dems really want to add such a thing to their plate this election year, seeing how bad they are at getting anything else done?

You may also wish to look at how many of there “deadbeats” are actually the victims of mortgage fraud and other financial shenanigans before coming to such a sweeping judgement. Not saying we need to have any special help for them (as that would be spectacular government overreach), but the circumstances are hardly black and white here.

Finally, the housing debacle has its roots in the Clinton era and was propelled along by Bush (all the while abetted by Greenspan), so calling Obama irresponsible in this matter is quite partisan. No president or party alone could have fucked up this badly.

Here is another little factoid for your “moral” consideration. When you walk away from a mortgage, it is effectively a cancellation of debt, which can and often is then considered income. Income that is usually taxable income, unless it is a business, a farm, or a couple of other rare exemptions. Let me know how telling the IRS that there rules are subjective and inconsequential with Deontological ethics works out.

Arrogant and stupid. Not a good combination.

Here is another little factoid for your “moral” consideration. When you walk away from a mortgage, it is effectively a cancellation of debt, which can and often is then considered income. Income that is usually taxable income, unless it is a business, a farm, or a couple of other rare exemptions. Let me know how telling the IRS that there rules are subjective and inconsequential with Deontological ethics.

Arrogant and stupid. Not a good combination.