UGH!!
Not uncommon when buying a foreclosure.
Is your point that Dimocrats are low-lifes?
Hardly breaking news.
Hey,she’s honest. She could have earmarked her mortgage or
sold her mortgage to a lobbyist for her vote!
Or are taxes for the little people?
After all, she's a Demoncrat looking out for the poor folk and she needs to be elevated and subsidized above others, right?
Sound like she is taking after her mentor, Hillary....who pays for nothing :-)
God help us and US.
In the great democrat tradition of Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
She is entirely accurate when she says that her house "is not in foreclosure". It has already been foreclosed.
She is also accurate when she says that the house "has NOT been seized by the bank." It was sold to a third party buyer at foreclosure, so title went directly from her to the buyer and not to the bank.
False but accurate.
Btw, this was a second home, not her principle residence, and she bought it no money down.
I fail to see the problem here. She is a ‘Rat, and even ‘Rats need training so that they can perform on the job. What better training experience than this? We wouldn’t want a ‘Rat to enter office and be unprepared to do what ‘Rats do best, now, would we?
I’m sure plenty have did this. I usually would jump on the opportunity to take a bite out of a Democrat but this is just a highlight of how things work. I’d personally like to see big reform in the way housing is handled. Those buying have really been at the mercy of an industry that treats housing like a stock market and people who have been encouraged to treat their houses like risk free piggy banks. Whatever happened to the ideas of financial independence and buying only what you can afford?
The local governments have also added to the woes by trying to assess houses at the unrealistic higher values. Here in Chesterfield VA it has led to the school system having to cut its budget which I think is a very good thing. This is a very conservative county but the local guys are often indistinguishable from liberals in the way they talk about taxes and plan their budgets. The only difference is they know that there is a limit to their spending or else the locals will toss them out.
Some where many Republicans have really lost their way, when they don’t keep in mind as a primary concern the burden of taxes on their constitutes as the first order of their service to the community they can do nothing but fail in that service. The money is not theirs yet they often rush out to spend it they raise property taxes forcing those out who built the nice suburban or rural communities only to be driven out by high property evaluations. I have a friend who lives in a modest older house that had been in their family for years that has been so overvalued that her and her husband have to work two jobs just to keep it.
I think there is something wrong when hard working people who own houses that are paid for are having to sell because of the burden of the property taxes. That is not the way this country was envisioned and certainly is not the one I desire. I’ve seen people lose their homes to localities only to be resold for values that far exceed what was owed. Why doesn’t the GOP start considering more policies protecting people from the hand of government? It is a sure win for them but instead they often sit back and close their eyes to the plight of the citizen as if all they see as reality is their own rhetoric not the actions of a government that far too often burdens those it claims to be there to help.
Also, if she buys anything in the next seven years, voters should demand to know how she qualified for any loan supporting that new purchase. All of the rest of us would have this foreclosure on our credit reports for at least seven years, and qualifying for a new loan under those circumstances would require some political pull.
"Double your pleasure, double your fun
With Doubledem, Doubledem, Doubledem gum", tra la......
Leni
Check out some of the blog responses. I particularly enjoyed this one:
don’t blame her. If I had a house in a collapsing market like Sacramento I wouldn’t pay either. Why should we struggle to keep banks in business when it was their lending practices that created the burst-bubble meltdown of homeowner equity in the first place.
Probably a good business decision to let the house go in a tumbling market and try and pick up another in a market where house prices may be more stable or have already seen dramatic declines.
Morality is so subjective.
This was posted before, complete with a picture of the woman. It seems that she purchased the house on a no down payment, no payments for two years agreement with WA MU. After the two year period was up and payments were due, she walked. So, she not only owed the cost of the house, but two years worth of payments on a house that cost something like $640,000.
So, she not only left unpaid taxes, she lived in an expensive house, FREE, for two years. The woman’s salary should be garnished to pay back the bank.
And....she got a ZERO down loan.....
I see that was your post on the same subject. You need to post the picture of the Dem. congress woman that was posted on the other thread. You know what the say about a picture being worth 1000 words is true in this case.
UGH!!