Imho, yes to extents, and now we as a whole/society are reaping the
massive default consequences, and some panic

What the h am I postulating?

There are very specific terms of loans disclosure laws regarding debt-
credit advertisements

These regulations may be completely, sporadically, feintingly or
ambigously obeyed by advertisers

A "baiting" advertisement such as "e-z payments" & "no money down,"
that does not simultaneously CLEARLY set forth the interest rate, the
time period, and overall accumulated interest and the total inclusive
price is not complying with the Federal Trade law

You have seen that often the car dealer and the house-seller indeed
have spelled-out all the required terms

Such may be in nearly unreadable cliche fine print, and takes an
attorney to interpret

My unoriginal point: The teaser loan or mortgage offers procuring
customers that are now wreaking massive default-foreclosure havoc,
imho, were often sold through sleazy and tricky subtefuges-dodges

This is sometimes euphemistically known as "marketing" technique

"Robert Cohen" msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187879105.305851.142170@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

We are not talking about a cell phone contract. This is a home
purchase.
Certainly if home mortgage lenders lied or mislead (gave information
so as to conceal the true nature of the contract) their customers this
would be an actionable offense, but if a consumer make a home purchase
and fails to read the fine print of one of the most important legal
contract they will ever make, shame on them.

The problem here is that people were greedy saw something that looked
to good to be true and made a mistake. Now they want to blame someone
else for their stupidity.
I'm not saying all mortgage loans that go into default are the result
of stupidity of the home purchaser.
The only blame that goes to mortgage companies is the obvious
criticism that they made loans that they should not have. But the
market will punish these companies (and already has). I don't see how
the government should step in. Certainly I don't want my tax payer
dollars to be used to bail out idiots.

What if they read it, but still didn't understand it?

Why are you assuming it's the "home perchasers" who were greedy, stupid, or
made a mistake .. and seeking someone to blame?

No one is forcing anyone to sign a mortgage to buy a house. If the
purchaser did not understand the mortgage, then they should have hired
someone to help them understand it. In fact most states require that
the buyer hire an attorney for that reason.

I made a home purchase about five years ago when these no interest
loans with very low teaser rates were just starting to heat up. These
loans let people get greedy and think they could buy "more" house then
they could actually afford. Obviously they made those purchases
thinking that "good" things would happen in the future and that it
would all work out. It is called risk. They took a chance and they
were wrong. Ok, in every case it might not have been greed, but the
motive does not change the facts. They took a loan they could not
afford and may well lose their house. The mortgage companies made
loans that were risky and many of these companies have gone out of
business.

On Aug 24, 10:02 am, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

You participate in the protection that the police provide for your
property (in general) as well as mine.

We both pay for the police (through our taxes) and we both receive the
same "public" benefit (general ideas of protection and help in time of
need).

At any one point it time, I may be realizing a specific form of that
benefit and you may not, but what we are paying for applies to both of
us.

Your home purchase has no implied be benefit for me. It is a private
matter.

Unless you are suggesting that the government should create a
universal mortgage default insurance that applies to all people (which
I would not support), a default on a home is a private issue not a
public one.

It would really be helpful if you could answer my question. I asked
about your purchase of an automobile, which is a choice that you make
that has some inherent risk, and is exclusively for your benefit. Why
should I be coerced into paying for the protection of your automobile?

-tg

Are you talking about some other cost then the cost to the police
department to search for and recover stolen property? A cost that is
past on to property owners via taxes.

As I explained this benefit (recovering stolen property) is like an
insurance (although not as reliable). Everyone pays into the system
(via taxes) and we recoup that benefit in times of need (like when
your car is stolen).

As I mentioned this would be considered a public benefit that is
provided by the government. It is these types of benefits that are
the reason government exists.

You may not own a car, but you collect upon this benefit with such
things as safer streets and a general sense of law and order. I.E.
The benefit is not tied directly to my car purchase.

What if they hired an attorney .. sort of mandatory in Australia as well btw
when buying real estate [ but that has nothing to do with the details of the
loan they are obtaining, just the real estate itself] , and they STILL
didn't really understand it?