In short, no, the lender is not the "owner" when the borrower defaults. At the very end of the foreclosure process, the security (the house and land) goes up for auction to the highest bidder, and only then does the borrower-owner lose title to the property. Often by then they are long gone, in which case the bank can often step in under the terms of the mortgage to secure and clean the property even though the borrower is still the owner.

Banks don't want to be in the real estate business or have the liability of being in the chain of title. If someone will buy the property for a reasonable price the bank will take the money and never be an owner. However the bank will often bid in the amount of the foreclosure judgment because it can get a better price by sprucing the property up and selling on the real estate market than through foreclosure when the property is underwater or heavily mortgaged.

And why not? You'd rather pay for her kid's childbirth, welfare, WIC, food stamps, free school lunches, kid's education K-12, Medicaid, special ed and/or incarceration?

You have a charming use of language but no sense at all.

What ever happened to the America where people took responsibility for themselves and their actions?

So you think it is responsible to break federal law by hiring illegal immigrants without checking work authorization or being willfully blind to obviously fraudulent documentation?

The same people who bitch about illegal immigrants and their foreign ways are the ones who are illegally employing or otherwise benefiting from their labor while denying employment opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants who can demand basic rights like a minimum wage, overtime, workers' comp and tolerable working conditions.

And sometimes the same people who decry discrimination and ill-treatment of undocumented immigrants defend not only illegal immigrants' employment fraud but the fraud and illegality of those who employ them.

You are paranoid and misinformed.

There are already DOZENS of private abortion funds, see http://www.nnaf.org/

The problem isn't that there are no funds, it is that they do not have enough funding. Typical grants by these funds are $50 to $100, a fraction of the cost of a simple first-trimester abortion. It is hard enough to get to a provider in some areas, paying for the abortion is a hardship to many patients and leads to avoidable delay and even more expensive procedures or no procedure at all, for the sole reason of financing. The cost to society of both of these outcomes is enormous. The cost to society of fully funding abortion would be tiny compared to the benefit.

USPS is on the verge of killing Saturday mail delivery, which would be devastating to thousands of city and rural mail carriers and route contractors and the many small businesses who depend on Saturday delivery for their operations.

All it would take is allowing USPS to defer contributions to employee benefits funds as every other federal agency is permitted to do.

You're being sloppy, as those are usually the largest payroll taxes for those who pay SS/Medicare (FICA) but there are others, such as the Federal unemployment tax (FUTA), not to mention state/local payroll taxes. Do you prefer "taxes that come out of your paycheck excluding federal income tax"?

Thanks for the feedback. I don't know why other nations should not be "allowed to comment."

As for your question as to how we allowed it to happen, I don't know. Our crazy people breed faster? A strong first amendment and a largely unregulated economy provides a fertile soil for really stupid notions?

It's fair to say that you can find people as or near as crazy in the UK, Europe, and the rest of the world, but for the sheer number and noisiness of our really, really crazy people, the good ol' USA beats out the rest of the developed nations.

I'm taking you at face value that you are not trolling or being intentionally stupid here, but the point is that there are any number of disputed passages in the Bible and thousands of variations in manuscripts, while the geniuses at Conservapedia, who apparently stand for the most extreme principles of literal infallible Biblical truth (but not KJV-only, apparently), want to snip out this particular passage because it is politically and philosophically inconvenient to them and therefore it must have been inserted by liberal bleeding-hearts.

Thanks,

Captain Obvious

I realize you are being snarky here, but this is a designer's work of conceptual art, not a prototype sex tox, and for what it is, I think the execution is brilliant! If you read the article closely as well as watched the G-rated video, you'd see that the "blob" has no orifices, and while robotic, has no sexual function. All it does is breathe and squirm around. The fact that it is intended to provide emotional, not sexual, comfort to combat social isolation and loneliness, as opposed to being a utilitarian jerk-off tool, makes this work a more creepy statement about society.