Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:04 AMOriginal message I was watching the news the other night and something struck me very wrong and very odd I live in an area of potentially disastrous weather situations.The man on the teevee was trying to extrapolate that it will be bad because of the high foreclosure rates and that NOBODY was responsible for "battening down the hatches" on these homes.Uh...excuse me. Don't the BANKS own these homes? And WHY can they not be responsible to secure their properties from inclement weather? Because if I am not mistaken, if something HAPPENS to these homes...there will surely be an insurance check cut to take caer of the repairs.
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:07 AMResponse to Original message 1. no worries! they'll just get another trillion from their boy geithner to make any losses more than good.
DJ13 (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:07 AMResponse to Original message 2. I wonder the same thing when the states claim the housing crisis .....is creating huge losses in property taxes.Shouldnt the banks be paying those property taxes?It seems like the government isnt holding the banks liable for their obligations.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:09 AMResponse to Reply #2 3. Well I guess corporate personhood only extends to the benefits and not the social responsibilities of being a person.WHOEVER owns these properties should be paying maintenance, upkeep, and taxes. Maybe THEN the banks would tend to work with folks a little more if they actually had to take care of THEIR property if they choose to take it back.
sandnsea (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:19 AMResponse to Original message 4. Craigslist had a lawn cutting ad For foreclosures out here, $20 dollars for the first cut and weed-eat, $12.00 thereafter. Something like that. So they might do something similar for storms, but with that kind of pay it isn't going to be very good. So the damage will be extensive and all of our insurance will go up to cover it. Woohoo!
imdjh (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:25 AMResponse to Original message 6. Around here, mostly only poorer people batten down the hatches. OK, so there are many exceptions. But I'm not lying from an observation assessment. When the weatherman gets all excited about some breeze in the African coastal zone, it's the lower end homes that you see Harry Homeowner nailing the plywood to. OK, so many of the upper end homes have cool stuff like hurricane proof windows or roll down doors on the openings of the house. But you hardly see preparation in the lower upper end to the middle middle. Many of us in older homes simply don't bother- our houses have been here a long time without damage. This particular area gets lots of scares, but not much action. And in truth, it's the lower end that gets hit harder. For some reason, their roofs get stripped off or even structural damaged with much greater frequency, and all the window covers in the word don't do a thing about that. I suspect that these lower end homes lose their roofs quicker because many of them have had multiple owners, and they might have newer roofs. During the last big one, the new roofs were winging shingles everywhere while the older sap coated and sun soaked roofs held steady.
aquart (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:48 AMResponse to Original message 7. Now ask your senators, congressman, and local representatives this question. Make it an issue.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 02:51 AMResponse to Reply #7 8. Good point but I have Ralph Hall, Cornyn and Hutchison.They don't give a shit (as evidenced by the form letters I receive back).
aquart (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-09-09 06:17 AMResponse to Reply #8 12. Do it anyway. You never know when they'll be panicked by a bad poll.
Greyhound (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 03:21 AMResponse to Original message 10. I think you answered your own question. Banks used to hire people to do this kind of stuff (I was one long ago), but some MBA noticed that money was being paid out and there was no immediate return, so...If they can lay some of the losses off on to the insurance company, who cares? It's just our rates that will go up and, in the end, we're going to pay for all of the losses anyway.
Ghost Dog (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 06:45 AMResponse to Reply #10 11. All the (new) rich know that being rich is all about making sure others pay.
will these people never shut up.... someday soon their taxes will increase 60% to pay for this utopia nightmare and they will be screaming mad.
You know, I'm intrigued by something.I'm sure the banks have to pay the property taxes.And then of course they recover those expenses from selling the property.
You know, when DUmmies finally get everything done for them they think the government should do for them, they'll each one have their own private Mezzican to wipe their butt for them.
