[Milton Miteybad]

These walkaways are essentially deciding that, even though they have pledged via their mortgage or deed of trust that they will eat the loss occasioned by a decrease in the value of the real estate (yeah, mortgage instruments essentially say that, as a general rule), that they, the borrowers, will turn around and make the deficit not their own problem, but that of the lender, who fronted the purchase money in the first place. From where I'm standing, it's merely grand theft going under another name.

And articles such these attempt to excuse this type of theft not just on an individual basis, but on a societal scale as well. It's now fashionable, it appears, to stiff the lender (in essence, steal the purchase money and stick them for the loss) just because it's now inconvenient for the borrower to live up to his promises.

Of course, the taxpayer ends up eating the loss in the long run, since the lender probably gets bailed out.

[steve-b]

These walkaways are essentially deciding that, even though they have pledged via their mortgage or deed of trust that they will eat the loss occasioned by a decrease in the value of the real estate (yeah, mortgage instruments essentially say that, as a general rule)

Nonsense.

The bottom line of any mortgage instrument (by definition) is: The party of the first part receives a loan of such-and-such amount from the party of the second part. The party of the first part offers a certain building as security for that loan. Ergo, the risk that the certain building will lose value is inherently assumed by the party of the second part (barring the special case of the value loss being directly caused by the party of the first part's actions).

[VegasCowboy]

Of course, the taxpayer ends up eating the loss in the long run, since the lender probably gets bailed out.

Actually, everyone pays the price in the long-run, including the "bailed out" lenders, who either go under or have to dilute their stock holders considerably to pay back TARP (the "bail-out" funds were a loan, not free money). If this phenomenon gains speed, the cost to acquire a mortgage will go much higher. Part of the reason mortgage rates have been so low is that it was considered a very low-risk loan. This won't be the case if most people begin to simply walk away as soon as they get underwater.

[YankeeReb]

It's now fashionable, it appears, to stiff the lender

Well for the last 2 weeks banks have become the new demon in the Dear Reader's world. They paid back the money they took (sometimes after being forced by congress to take it). They paid interest on it and now they have to pay an extra tax as punishment. No wonder it's fashionable to stiff the banks especially among 0bamas core supporters.