Is It Wrong To Strip Everything From Your House In Revenge Against Your Bank?

[LibertyEagle]

what she said!! And i sometimes don't agree with you Liberty.

if i cant pay for my home it is no ones fault but my own. It disheartens me to see so many liberty advocates advocating a retaliatory activity that is the very thing they claim to hate.

take a dose of the medicine you prescribe for yourself liberty advocates--freedom and responsibilty for ones own actions.

like it or not a mortgage is entered into with full opportunity for you to read and understand its terms. if one doesn't take the time to understand or can't understand but enters into the agreement anyway I say tough.

i am not in danger at the moment of losing my house, but it may happen someday. if it does i will take it like a man (since i am not a woman)
and move on.

get real people.

oh and i was nearly foreclosed upon once and took all of my retirement out at a significant penalty to keep the house (was out of job at the time). if i had not been able to do that i would have let the house go and walk away with no shenanigans (probably would've cleaned it up for em)

really-- i almost can't believe that people here think this is OK

Yes, I'm pretty shocked too. I find it to be quite depressing, actually.

What happened to our principles, anyway?

 

[Dr.3D]

Two "wrongs" don't make a "right". Vandalism and destruction are nothing more than an adult temper tantrum.

Ahhh... another person who thinks like I do.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2352157&postcount=33

 

[american.swan]

Is It Wrong To Strip Everything From Your House In Revenge Against Your Bank?

Is it right to buy a house you can't pay for? Is it right to be stupid? Is it right to be ignorant blaming public education? Is it right to be unemployed because you're lazy? Is it right to be in debt for something you don't really need?

 

[micahnelson]

I find it amazing people will be willing to shoot dead a federal officer to oppose government tyranny, but unwilling to strip some copper to oppose fiscal tyranny.

Property rights take a back seat to the right to life, imo.

 

[youngbuck]

what if your contingency plans fail? Does that mean you are being irresponsible? Do you pay a mortgage? Have you ever had to decide to pay a mortgage or pay for an unexpected calamity?

I just detect a wiff of arrogance in your statement "its called being responsible". Sounds like something a bill collector would say to someone out of frustration because no one is paying on a Sunday at 10am.

I'm just trying to be objective and not let my feelings get in the way of logic. I guess there was a whiff of arrogance there, but I am not being arrogant just by saying it. Anyway, I've had to make very hard financial decisions before, and am glad they are now behind me. I learned from them, and now live within my means in such a way that I will not be devastated if I lose my job (which I incidentally have).

Obviously what decision somebody makes in the end is quite subjective, and it's very difficult to make it a black/white, yes/no, binary issue.

 

[newbitech]

I'm just trying to be objective and not let my feelings get in the way of logic. I guess there was a whiff of arrogance there, but I am not being arrogant just by saying it. Anyway, I've had to make very hard financial decisions before, and am glad they are now behind me. I learned from them, and now live within my means in such a way that I will not be devastated if I lose my job (which I incidentally have).

Obviously what decision somebody makes in the end is quite subjective, and it's very difficult to make it a black/white, yes/no, binary issue.

i understand I really do appreciate what you have to say. thats why i said just a wiff. I hope you understood where I was coming from with my example.

 

[klamath]

I find it amazing people will be willing to shoot dead a federal officer to oppose government tyranny, but unwilling to strip some copper to oppose fiscal tyranny.

Property rights take a back seat to the right to life, imo.

I agree but you won't find any post of mine where I endorsed shooting people.

 

[dannno]

That's a terrible metaphor. The previous owner of the home doesn't get the house back (the toy store), nor does the person who is losing the house get any money (the toy buyer). The person who bought the house isn't looking to burn the previous owner of the house either. He is looking to burn the bank, who got $30K out of his paycheck in bailout money, which cost him his job, which is why he can't pay the bills.

A more appropriate metaphor would be that someone went and bought a bunch of toys, got behind on their credit card bills, and sold the toys on the market before they could be repossessed. But then, normally things bought on credit cards aren't repossessed, so even that isn't a great metaphor.

I know it feels great to think you're better than someone because you were prudent with your money, and it's lots of fun to rub their faces in it, and to take the "
holier than thou" attitude while they fight to keep a roof over their heads, but it's not becoming. People aren't "stupid". People just followed the false economic signals sent out by the Fed, and it ruined them. BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE. People, on the whole, act rationally. But when you create a system that feeds them lies, it becomes almost impossible to tell truth from lie. They follow the path that they think is in their best interest.

This is the government's fault, not the people's. There is a war on, whether you want to believe it or not. It's being fought with little green pieces of paper, and with ones and zeros. We have to fight back, and this is one way of doing it.

BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE.

This is by far the best post of the thread. The Fed sent distorted economic signals out into the market, you can't blame the market when they act rationally in a distorted economy. The market is not going to figure out these secretive distortions right away, it will take time to iron out. Blame the one who is distorting the market, the Fed...

 

[LibertyEagle]

This is by far the best post of the thread. The Fed sent distorted economic signals out into the market, you can't blame the market when they act rationally in a distorted economy. The market is not going to figure out these secretive distortions right away, it will take time to iron out. Blame the one who is distorting the market, the Fed...

Excuse me, but aren't we the people who have been talking about personal responsibility? Because this sure doesn't look like we walk our talk very well.

 

[tmosley]

Excuse me, but aren't we the people who have been talking about personal responsibility? Because this sure doesn't look like we walk our talk very well.

That's like saying that you should respect the law while a Swat team is gang raping your daughter (and then proceeds to charge her with sexual assault on an officer).

We're not far from a physical shooting war here. Taking financial action against government corporations may be considered an act of aggression, but that is a natural course of action in wartime. Pacifism is great, but a pacifist can't turn up their nose at someone for striking down an agent of oppression, whether it is with the sword, with the pen, or with a screwdriver.

These are acts of aggression, and would be considered both immoral and likely illegal under a just system. But we don't live under a just system. The judiciary no longer upholds our laws. The legislature no longer represents us. The executive oppresses us. There isn't any justice. The system no longer recognizes natural law. Therefore, there is no need (outside of expediency) to recognize the rule of law. It's time to tear down the corrupt institutions and replace them with new ones, hopefully ones that will last longer and be less susceptible to the authoritarianism that has crept in over the last 150 years.

BLAME THE GOVERNMENT. The people only did what was logical at the time.

 

[newbitech]

snip

The people only did what was logical at the time.

Yep this is what I have said in this thread as well. The banks are giving these folks incentive to do this kind of action. Hell they are financing it. You notice is not the banks calling for prosecution. The banks have insurance for this kind of thing. That's what that escrow account was all about. The banks love it when neighbors, law enforcement, realtors etc.. start calling the home owners the thieves.

 

[Firegirl]

Sorry but I don't think two wrongs make a right here.

Banks are evil we all know that.

But who's fault is it really when you KNOW bank are evil, money grubbing bastards and you KNOW they gave you a crappy mortgage on a house you couldn't afford anyways?

That lady on the video even said that the bank should have never given her the loan in the first place. Why the hell did she take it then?

I'm sorry but these people are retarded and the banks are not fully to blame here. Would I buy a house I couldn't afford? No. Would I get a retarded loan that not even the most seasoned of mortgage loan officers could understand? No. Don't get me wrong, I've had an ARM before when I bought my first house, but I fully understood what it meant, when they could adjust my interest rate, how MUCH they could adjust my rate, etc. because I READ EVERY DAMN PIECE OF PAPER. And I promptly refinanced 2 years later to a fixed rate. Point is, I knew what I was getting into.

And to the poster who said every mortgage rep is evil, well that's part of your responsibility as a borrower to know who is selling you what. Do your homework, go to someone who others have used, who have good reviews, etc. And when they start offering to give you unicorns, rainbows, and pots of gold, then find someone else. My mom is a mortgage loan officer and I have seen first hand that going to someone who is honest and trustworthy will save you a lot of heartache. I've watched my mom deny people loans telling them they can't afford the house, their credit is bad, etc. and watched as people FLIP a lid that they aren't getting what they want, instead they are getting the truth. Since they get denied, they willing go to the shady, greedy lenders to fulfill their needs. And they wonder why they get screwed.

And don't come crying when you lose your job and can't afford the mortgage. Where was your 6-12 month emergency fund? Oh, you couldn't save one AND pay the mortgage at the same time when you had a job? Then don't buy the damn house. If you can't afford to save and pay all your bills, then you need to sit and rethink what you are spending your money on. Most people I know wonder why they can't save money while buying apps on their iPhone, getting manicures every week, eating out 5 times a week, and buying blu-ray movies to play on their 50-inch HDTV. Priorities people.

And stealing things from a house when you bought these things as PART of the house isn't right. Buying a house is like buying a package deal. You buy a house it usually automatically comes with toilets, showers, lights, etc. unless you are buying AS IS. These people are just being vindictive and not solving the real problem, THEIR OWN GREED....

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Yes it's wrong, remember, you signed a contract, so you willingly entered into this contract (hopefully) knowing what you were promising to and it is wrong to intentionally hurt the value of the property that you have obligated yourself to upkeep. Refusing to participate in their scam may temporarily lower your standard of living, either by living with your parents or in very low rent properties until you can afford a small home then selling to by larger properties as your savings allow. Yes I know, most people think this is asking too much but it is the only way that the average citizen can really get ahead in the long run. We live in a society the encourages poor spending practices and things won't change until we have a revolution in the way people save and spend their money.

 

[tmosley]

Sorry but I don't think two wrongs make a right here.

Banks are evil we all know that.

But who's fault is it really when you KNOW bank are evil, money grubbing bastards and you KNOW they gave you a crappy mortgage on a house you couldn't afford anyways?

Except they DIDN'T know. Remember, everything was covered up by the bad economic signals the Fed had been sending. It's like an illusion was cast over everyone's eyes, and only now that illusion is starting to break up. They thought they could afford it, and they were told (repeatedly) that if they couldn't, all they had to do was turn around and sell it. There were TONS of examples of people doing just that. At the time, no-one was thinking about Ponzi schemes, certainly not from the AAA rated banks.

Don't blame the people, blame the FED!

 

[ARealConservative]

Except they DIDN'T know. Remember, everything was covered up by the bad economic signals the Fed had been sending. It's like an illusion was cast over everyone's eyes, and only now that illusion is starting to break up. They thought they could afford it, and they were told (repeatedly) that if they couldn't, all they had to do was turn around and sell it. There were TONS of examples of people doing just that. At the time, no-one was thinking about Ponzi schemes, certainly not from the AAA rated banks.

Don't blame the people, blame the FED!

This sounds like how my mom tells me that they didn’t know smoking was bad for you in her day.

 

[Feenix566]

Yes, let's punish the banks for lending money to people. That'll teach 'em! Maybe next time they'll keep their money to themselves!

 

[tmosley]

Yes, let's punish the banks for lending money to people. That'll teach 'em! Maybe next time they'll keep their money to themselves!

Except it's not the banks that take the punishment, rather the government that now owns them, and the Fed, which supplies the "money".

 

[tmosley]

This sounds like how my mom tells me that they didn’t know smoking was bad for you in her day.

Well, it had been done for hundreds of years, so yeah, you wouldn't expect there to be a problem, absent evidence to the contrary. The companies found out about it, and acted irresponsibly, and got sued into oblivion for it, as should happen under a free market system. Then the government went overboard and started imposing taxes and restricting use (I think they took over many of the lawsuits as well, but I was too young at the time to remember), which is not free market policy.

 

[dannno]

This sounds like how my mom tells me that they didn’t know smoking was bad for you in her day.

Yes, again tmosley hits it spot on.. People HAD been smoking for centuries with relatively benign effects..

So what happened?

Chemical fertilizers used by the Tobacco industry cause a fine, radioactive dust to settle on the tobacco leaves. This makes the plant more cancerous. This has been proven by real science and everything if you look into it.

Popular methods for drying, such as utilizing propane tanks in an unventilated area have also been proven to increase cancer.

So maybe smoking wasn't so bad for people back in your mother's day? I mean, I'm not saying it's a tonic, but it certainly was not as poisonous as it is today either.

It appears to me that you're just assuming that smoking was all that bad back then.. if it was so bad, I'm pretty sure people would have figured it out LONG before the end of the 20th century...People have been smoking forever..

 

[dannno]

Yes, let's punish the banks for lending money to people. That'll teach 'em! Maybe next time they'll keep their money to themselves!

It's not their money, they create it out of thin air...

It is amazing how far backwards the monetary knowledge has gone in this thread as soon as people think they are debating about property rights..