"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208665800-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 16, 11:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.>
> wrote:
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in messagenews:1208383800-
>> sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
>>> worthy of protection for the consumer....
>>
>> Because it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the hopes
>> that the
>> purchase will appreciate in value. And yes, anyone who buys a home,
>> that
>> should know better, i.e. that they cannot keep up with the payments
>> such a
>> decision involves, is not worthy of protection. It is the same basic
>> problem when our government "bails" out a business.
>
> Not many homebuyers buy in hopes of increasing value.
> It's nice but not necessary. Too bad you can't see this. Or maybe
> you just want to justify not protecting them from shyster lenders?
ah, the old "I am just a victim" explanation.
>
>>> But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
>>> debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
>>> obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
>>> best to do that.
>>
>> Companies can "escape" their obligations because the very Government
>> that
>> you support, gave them that ability to "escape" from their
>> obligations.
>
> This is a moral discussion not a legal one.
>
I suppose you can say it is a moral discussion, but it is a fact.