I would argue that people who live paycheck to paycheck know nothing else.

She, the debtor also argues the rightness of the bank's claim, but so far lost all court cases she started.

I would argue that merely referring to one of those contract contingencies as an escape clause is enough to sour me on spending an ounce of my time on a buyer. 

I would argue that you should never buy something with negative cash flow just for the appreciation potential.Given that, if I find a property now that cash flows in a stable neighborhood, I am going to buy it now, not hope prices fall and I can get a "deal" later.

Some argue the tenets are paying the interest, but nonetheless, the mortgage cuts into your cash flow.

@Brandon TurnerThe ABC's of Real Estate Investing - KenMcElroy Podcasts - listen to them. a lot of them.

Stanley in his 1997 book "The Millionaire Next Door" argued persuasively that spending a lot of money on a house and living in an upscale neighborhood was one of the main things hindering ordinary people from putting money aside.

Yes, I'm fully responsible for the formula part and I never argued with them on that (violation).

To the contrary, one can argue that having the rental income is going to entice those first time buyers who may otherwise be priced out of that range but if I were a buyer I would first start to wonder how hard it is to keep the unit occupied throughout the year?

i think it's a great idea (as the downpayment has to come from somewhere and this way I would argue you have large degree of control of the terms) - as long as the numbers work and the rental cash flows nicely. this way you'll have renters building up your equity over time and chances are, also some appreciation eventually...