it is not marxist.
if they walk away from the house, the bank gets posession of the house. EXACTLY as the parties contracted.
That was the contract.
no pay no keep house.
The problem right now is that the banks are doing nothing if anything to make this situation workable. Even in bankruptcy the banks tend to be penny wise and pound foolish.
(quite frankly we would have been better off if the stimulus money went to pay down mortgages in the same way that plastic vouchers were issued to pay for digital converter boxes)
And whose mortgage would have been chosen to be paid down?
“(quite frankly we would have been better off if the stimulus money went to pay down mortgages in the same way that plastic vouchers were issued to pay for digital converter boxes)”
I agree, even though it would have made me just as sick as it did when the banks got the cash.
****That was the contract = no pay no keep house***
Your comments are very logical - for a two-party contract.
However, the Gubmint stepped in with other people’s money and perverted the whole principle of *free enterprise*.
A home is first of all shelter on a daily/current basis. It is secondarily an investment in the longterm. A 5-10 year cycle should not be a basis for forfeiting shelter and lower monthly payments. That is short sighted and financially foolish.
(p.s. where are all these walk-aways living? With relatives and friends?)
The two parties have a contractual arrangement: the party of the first part has the option to either pay X amount to the party of the second part each month, or to surrender possession of a building. As circumstances change, the latter option may become preferable to the former. It's a business decision, nothing more, nothing less.