My favorite talk-radio show yesterday aired a segment on the recipients of an Extreme Makeover, Home Edition. They went from owning a "dangerous" home to a 5,000 sq. ft. mansion in Atlanta (4 fireplaces, 1,00o sq ft kitchen, etc.). They were gifted with enough money to keep the home up for some number of years. Now they will lose the house. They took the house (owned free and clear), refinanced and took out 90% of the value to invest in a construction company that is now failing. They are facing foreclosure and may soon be worse off than they were when it all started.
Taking ANYONE and jumping them 3-5 income brackets without giving them the tools and training (and sustainable income) to correctly use the gift should be a crime. Beazer Homes, ABC, Sears and all the other company should be ashamed of what they have done to people. They give them hope and help and then abandon them to disaster all in the name of ratings.
This same theme is played out across our nation daily. How many rebuilt homes, lotto jackpots and extreme makeovers are still intact 3-5 years later? We use, discard and destroy people's lives for our own entertainment.
Link to LA Times article -> HERE
5 comments:
I partially disagree. I didn't see the show on Sunday so I don't know the first part of the story, however I've seen past shows and have been quite touched and inspired by what they have done for people. There are plenty of people who get the rug pulled out from under them and it's nice to know there's people out there who are willing to give so much to those in need.
The problem that triggered the housing collapse was when housing became an investment instead of a home. There was a time when people saved money to put down on a house instead of financing 100%. There was a time when people got their hands dirty and improved what they had instead of buying bigger and better. There was a time when people purchased a home to live in instead of flipping it or renting it out. Somewhere along the line, people started buying properties and calling them houses instead of buying a house and calling it home.
It concerns me when "we" start talking about protecting people from their own stupidity because in the end, it's the honest everyday Americans that end of suffering as a result.
Nope what I am saying is that while we did somethig nice for the people, we didn't make sure they could hold on to what we did. Read up on the UN program in the 60's to supply cattle to the tribes in the northern Sahara. They over-grazed the area as a result and destroyed the land leading to an expansion of the Sahara in the region. The "gift" impoverished the tribes and destroyed the environment.
Dumping $500K+ into the economy of someone who can lives in the sub-$15K income bracket is a recipe for disaster. Most of the time they can't manage the new assets (house, money) in a way that ensures they hold on to it.
"We" aren't responsible for other people's actions. You don't ask a homeless man a list of questions before you give a five. The "bad guys" in the scenario you posted wasn't Extreme Home Makeover; it was the questionable practice of the institution that decided to give these people a check for 90% of the home's value to start a business. No reputable lender that I know of would have ever done that; there's a big difference between doing something nice for someone in the hope that they will move forward and doing something bad for someone in the hope of making a bonus.
In my mostest humble opinion, of course. ;)
Yes but what if you gave the homeless guy $10,000 instead of a $5? Would he make good choices? Would he know how to invest it and make permanent changes in his life?
We give little kids BB guns and pellet guns until we are satisfied that they can handle real firearms. You started off K on a small ATV, not a Predator 500.
*MY* $0.02
Jesus, knowing ahead of time that only one would return to Him, healed all 10 lepers.
Just sayin'. :p
Post a Comment