Aloha oe, Aloha...

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208625901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 18, 1:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:1208553301-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
>>> times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
>>> reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
>>> touch.
>>
>> You have a bad habit of accusing someone of thinking or saying things
>> that
>> they never said.
>
> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.

Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
People buy
homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
can live
in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
money.

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208665800-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 16, 11:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> 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.

On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message

>> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
>> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
>> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
>> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
>
> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
> People buy
> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
> can live
> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
> money.

No you haven't mentioned that there are those who only by for one
reason-- and that is to own a home. In fact, in all our postings you
claim that homeowner (as an investor) deserves no bailout. We're not
talking about investors here. You've been purposely avoiding the
subject of this discussion.

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208798100-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
>>> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
>>> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
>>> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
>>
>> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
>> People buy
>> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
>> can live
>> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
>> money.
>
> No you haven't mentioned that there are those who only by for one
> reason-- and that is to own a home. In fact, in all our postings you
> claim that homeowner (as an investor) deserves no bailout. We're not
> talking about investors here. You've been purposely avoiding the
> subject of this discussion.
>

What can't you understand about the statement "One of course is to own that
home, so they
can live in that home....."? And yes, someone who makes a bad decision
should not be rewarded for their bad decision. It sends the wrong message
to everyone else, that you too may make bad decisions and someone will
"bail" you out as well. When we make bad decisons we should pay the price
for that bad decision. It applies to individuals and it applies to
companies....I am also not in favor of bailing out busiensses that get into
trouble because their President makes bad decisions, that resulted in the
company being in that kind of trouble. Does that make my position a little
clearer?

On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
> People buy
> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
> can live
> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
> money.

You aren't clear here. I have only been talking about people who buy
for only ONE reason. They aren't interested in making money on the
house. You don't want to admit that there are such people.

[Still seem to be having problems posting through my ISP, and I'm not
too should about Google either]

On Apr 21, 1:10 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1208798100-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because
>>>> they
>>>> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
>>>> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
>>>> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
>
>>> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
>>> People buy
>>> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
>>> can live
>>> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
>>> money.
>
>> No you haven't mentioned that there are those who only by for one
>> reason-- and that is to own a home. In fact, in all our postings you
>> claim that homeowner (as an investor) deserves no bailout. We're not
>> talking about investors here. You've been purposely avoiding the
>> subject of this discussion.
>
> What can't you understand about the statement "One of course is to
> own that
> home, so they
> can live in that home....."? And yes, someone who makes a bad
> decision
> should not be rewarded for their bad decision. It sends the wrong
> message
> to everyone else, that you too may make bad decisions and someone will
> "bail" you out as well. When we make bad decisons we should pay
> the price
> for that bad decision. It applies to individuals and it applies to
> companies....I am also not in favor of bailing out busiensses that
> get into
> trouble because their President makes bad decisions, that resulted
> in the
> company being in that kind of trouble. Does that make my position
> a little
> clearer?

[Just discovered this on Google after I had posted another. Now it
looks like my ISP is older than Google. When it was just the opposite]

You overlook your own statement's wording. What you should state if
that is what you want to say is that some people only want to buy for
the dream of the home. It would also help if you recognize that the
dream is not like any other purchase decision or a business decision.
Because that's what probably makes you think that their second reason
is to invest their money. You probably still don't get it.

[moderators note: guys, please trim...don't just keep adding, and
especially don't just add one line without trimming...]

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1209003006-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 21, 1:10 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1208798100-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because
>>>>> they
>>>>> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
>>>>> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
>>>>> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
>>
>>>> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
>>>> People buy
>>>> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
>>>> can live
>>>> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
>>>> money.
>>
>>> No you haven't mentioned that there are those who only by for one
>>> reason-- and that is to own a home. In fact, in all our postings you
>>> claim that homeowner (as an investor) deserves no bailout. We're not
>>> talking about investors here. You've been purposely avoiding the
>>> subject of this discussion.
>>
>> What can't you understand about the statement "One of course is to
>> own that
>> home, so they
>> can live in that home....."? And yes, someone who makes a bad
>> decision
>> should not be rewarded for their bad decision. It sends the wrong
>> message
>> to everyone else, that you too may make bad decisions and someone will
>> "bail" you out as well. When we make bad decisons we should pay
>> the price
>> for that bad decision. It applies to individuals and it applies to
>> companies....I am also not in favor of bailing out busiensses that
>> get into
>> trouble because their President makes bad decisions, that resulted
>> in the
>> company being in that kind of trouble. Does that make my position
>> a little
>> clearer?
>
> [Just discovered this on Google after I had posted another. Now it
> looks like my ISP is older than Google. When it was just the opposite]
>
> You overlook your own statement's wording. What you should state if
> that is what you want to say is that some people only want to buy for
> the dream of the home. It would also help if you recognize that the
> dream is not like any other purchase decision or a business decision.
> Because that's what probably makes you think that their second reason
> is to invest their money. You probably still don't get it.
>

What don't I get? Why do people spend money to buy a home?

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1209003001-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
>> People buy
>> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
>> can live
>> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
>> money.
>
> You aren't clear here. I have only been talking about people who buy
> for only ONE reason. They aren't interested in making money on the
> house. You don't want to admit that there are such people.
>
Well, yes. I said exactly that. I said that "one of course is to own that
home, so they can live in that home....".

On Apr 24, 7:35 am, Maren at google <m.pur...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:

> Al,
>
> and if the only reason to buy a house is to pay less in mortgage
> payments
> than in rent, that's good enough for me to be a wise investment and
> on the other hand no investment to make a profit at all. We live in a
> paid
> for house that we're not planning on moving out of. when we bought
> this
> house with a substantial downpayment we first paid twice as much on
> the mortgage as we paid in rent before (same house), at a time when
> mortgage interest rates were above 10% even on 15 year mortgages.
>
> I wouldn't consider the house I live in an investment as such, other
> than
> maybe for the far distant future. We bought that house to live in it,
> and while it may need some work, heck, it's paid for, dedicated
> 'non-speculative residential use' for the second time now (10 years
> each), and while I don't really consider it an "investment", at the
> same
> time it's about the best investment we made so far.

Of course, you realize that many home buyers in the mainland are
paying increased mortgage payments that strain their budget. Not only
that, it is probably the worse investment that they made, because
current prices are way below the speculative highs when they bought
it. They can find a cheaper place to rent but they want to own their
own home.

Like you say, they don't consider it an investment, and would like to
live their dream of their own home if they can afford it. Foreclosing
on them and millions others like them would be very disrupting to our
society, not to mention the unfairness that most of them were lead
into their terrible loans by shyster sub prime loan officers. Some
like Jerry have no compassion or sympathy for their situation. In
fact, Jerry still insists that all people buy a home for TWO reasons--
for their dream and as an investment. He doesn't like the bailout like
for example, rolling back their interest rates to say 5%. But my own
opinion is similar to George Soros recent book as I mentioned earlier
in this thread. If our govt likes deregulation as it has done under
Greenspan, then it must be willing to afford the mess that
deregulation creates like the bailout of savings and loans, sub prime
loans, etc.