NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mtgfoundation.com/2007/03/senator-urges-bailout-of-bad-credit-mortgage-borrowers.html

Mortgage fraud is punishable by five years in prison, or a million dollar fine or whatever. Nearly all of these subprimes that dodd is talking about are fraudulent NINJA loans.

As I have pointed out here for a long time, mortgage fraud is a systemic problem with the US economy which would eventually cause great amounts of grief.

And what is the democrats answer? Reward the criminal.

Now, you might say that 'well, these people didn't know what they were signing', but that has never been a defense in respect of tax returns, so I don't buy it as a defense against predatory lending. It's plain criminal greed. And it is greed that has kept honest hardworking people - a few of them on this forum - out of being able to buy their own homes.

Why should these criminals be bailed out now? And where is the outrage from honest democrats about this abuse of the rule of law?

Now, you might say that 'well, these people didn't know what they were signing', but that has never been a defense in respect of tax returns, so I don't buy it as a defense against predatory lending.

In a crime or civil action with a knowledge or intent mens rea, a defense that the defendant did not know, and did not intend to do what they did is a perfectly permissable defense.

See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

And since mortgage fraud, the crime you are discussing is a type of fraud, and fraud is a "knowing misrepresentation of material fact" then knowledge is a crucial element.

“The impact of losing 2.2 million homes, I suspect, will be in a lot of areas of our cities and towns that are already pretty hard hit, so we clearly want to look at that and legislate,”

That's why.

In a crime or civil action with a knowledge or intent mens rea, a defense that the defendant did not know, and did not intend to do what they did is a perfectly permissable defense.

See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

And since mortgage fraud, the crime you are discussing is a type of fraud, and fraud is a "knowing misrepresentation of material fact" then knowledge is a crucial element.

Rubbish, mens rea can be imputed from actions. Willful ignorance for example.

Damn, what the hell is with these alarmist thread titles. I am going to find an article and make a thread called 'Republicans try to force morality down people's throats'.

In a crime or civil action with a knowledge or intent mens rea, a defense that the defendant did not know, and did not intend to do what they did is a perfectly permissable defense.

See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

And since mortgage fraud, the crime you are discussing is a type of fraud, and fraud is a "knowing misrepresentation of material fact" then knowledge is a crucial element.

Also, I don't how what a misunderstanding of the niceties of structured transactions bears upon the federal requirement to warrant that all statements made upon a particular application must be true or else penalties both civil and criminal will ensue.

Aren't the real criminals in this the lenders? Perhaps not so much a crime as it is a bad business practice. I don't think it's a crime to be unable to pay one's mortgage. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but then again I didn't read the whole thing because my eyes gloss over quickly as I try to understand what the hell the article is talking about. Hey, at least I tried! :p

In other words: how is it criminal to put yourself in deep debt and end up with bad credit and no home?

http://www.mtgfoundation.com/2007/03/senator-urges-bailout-of-bad-credit-mortgage-borrowers.html

Mortgage fraud is punishable by five years in prison, or a million dollar fine or whatever. Nearly all of these subprimes that dodd is talking about are fraudulent NINJA loans.

As I have pointed out here for a long time, mortgage fraud is a systemic problem with the US economy which would eventually cause great amounts of grief.

And what is the democrats answer? Reward the criminal.

Now, you might say that 'well, these people didn't know what they were signing', but that has never been a defense in respect of tax returns, so I don't buy it as a defense against predatory lending. It's plain criminal greed. And it is greed that has kept honest hardworking people - a few of them on this forum - out of being able to buy their own homes.

Why should these criminals be bailed out now? And where is the outrage from honest democrats about this abuse of the rule of law?

It isn't a defense in tax law?

If your accountant commits tax fraud with your return he stands a good chance of going to jail. You don't. You have to pay the money back, but that's not a penalty. It's just a debt.

Aren't the real criminals in this the lenders? Perhaps not so much a crime as it is a bad business practice. I don't think it's a crime to be unable to pay one's mortgage. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but then again I didn't read the whole thing because my eyes gloss over quickly as I try to understand what the hell the article is talking about. Hey, at least I tried! :p

It goes both ways Mr Buwhan.

You can say the real criminals are the lenders, but by bailing out the borrowers you bail out the lenders too.

Either way there are criminals being bailed out here, and everyone who is not a criminal should be outraged by mr dodd.

(Mind you, his pro-terrorism stance never affected him, so why should pissing on the rule of law do it now?).

It isn't a defense in tax law?

If your accountant commits tax fraud with your return he stands a good chance of going to jail. You don't. You have to pay the money back, but that's not a penalty. It's just a debt.

Ask willie nelson.

You are always personally responsible for your tax return.

http://www.mtgfoundation.com/2007/03/senator-urges-bailout-of-bad-credit-mortgage-borrowers.html

Mortgage fraud is punishable by five years in prison, or a million dollar fine or whatever. Nearly all of these subprimes that dodd is talking about are fraudulent NINJA loans.

As I have pointed out here for a long time, mortgage fraud is a systemic problem with the US economy which would eventually cause great amounts of grief.

And what is the democrats answer? Reward the criminal.

Now, you might say that 'well, these people didn't know what they were signing', but that has never been a defense in respect of tax returns, so I don't buy it as a defense against predatory lending. It's plain criminal greed. And it is greed that has kept honest hardworking people - a few of them on this forum - out of being able to buy their own homes.

Why should these criminals be bailed out now? And where is the outrage from honest democrats about this abuse of the rule of law?

Duh! They're democrats! They are known for redeeming and rewarding the criminals from what I see but then again my opinion and eyewitness doesn't count here. I knew things like this would happen, we need a moderate party to vote for.

Damn, what the hell is with these alarmist thread titles. I am going to find an article and make a thread called 'Republicans try to force morality down people's throats'.
You'll be a sinner if you do that.

It goes both ways Mr Buwhan.

<.<
>.>
omg I've been outed.

You can say the real criminals are the lenders, but by bailing out the borrowers you bail out the lenders too.

Either way there are criminals being bailed out here, and everyone who is not a criminal should be outraged by mr dodd.

I don't think anyone shoudl jsut be bailed out, but predatory lending should surely be hampered and the economically ignorant should be given a chance to somehow make it up before being considered criminals because they were unable to pay their mortgage.

For example: my wife was diagnosed with cancer last year. We've been barely making it as our bills are higher than our income since she started workign only part time and the hospital bills have been pouring in. I am not sure if we will be able to make the next mortgage payment and if Chase doesn't allow for perhaps at least one skipped payment because of a medical or other financial emergency then that will make me a criminal in yrou eyes too?

(Mind you, his pro-terrorism stance never affected him, so why should pissing on the rule of law do it now?).

Mind cluing me in on how he is pro-terrorism?

Ask willie nelson.

You are always personally responsible for your tax return.

I work at the IRS. I speak to dozens of people every day whose accountants are likely to face legal action (though they don't all know it) but those tax payers are facing nothing more than penalties which can be waived if they, for all intents and purposes, call up and promise to be good.

I work at the IRS.


*throws plate against wall*

Get bent tax mannnnn!



(sorry I saw that in a movie trailer and it seemed like a fun thing to say)

Damn, what the hell is with these alarmist thread titles. I am going to find an article and make a thread called 'Republicans try to force morality down people's throats'.

But that would be an accurate title, unlike this one.

For example: my wife was diagnosed with cancer last year. We've been barely making it as our bills are higher than our income since she started workign only part time and the hospital bills have been pouring in. I am not sure if we will be able to make the next mortgage payment and if Chase doesn't allow for perhaps at least one skipped payment because of a medical or other financial emergency then that will make me a criminal in yrou eyes too?


And that is a terrible story, and I believe that people in your situation should have some type of debt relief. The curious thing is, however, is that it wasn't available earlier.

Not until systemic mortgage fraud became a problem, in other words. Which had nothing to do with you.

As for the terrorism thing, check out his blocking of the US/UK extradition treaty. The man's a terrorist.

I work at the IRS. I speak to dozens of people every day whose accountants are likely to face legal action (though they don't all know it) but those tax payers are facing nothing more than penalties which can be waived if they, for all intents and purposes, call up and promise to be good.

And that's the rub, isn't:

for all intents and purposes, call up and promise to be good.

They still have to pay their taxes, don't they? If they don't they go to jail.

So saying I didn't understand my mortgage, so I am not going to pay it is no defense.

Also, you know damn well if they really try that defense in court for non-payment, they are going to jail anyway.

In a crime or civil action with a knowledge or intent mens rea, a defense that the defendant did not know, and did not intend to do what they did is a perfectly permissable defense.

See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

And since mortgage fraud, the crime you are discussing is a type of fraud, and fraud is a "knowing misrepresentation of material fact" then knowledge is a crucial element.

Consider the number of lenders who vote.
Now consider the number of people who got such loans who vote.

Bailing out the lenders gets you less money than bailing out the people who got the loans.

Simple math.

http://www.mtgfoundation.com/2007/03/senator-urges-bailout-of-bad-credit-mortgage-borrowers.html

Mortgage fraud is punishable by five years in prison, or a million dollar fine or whatever. Nearly all of these subprimes that dodd is talking about are fraudulent NINJA loans.

As I have pointed out here for a long time, mortgage fraud is a systemic problem with the US economy which would eventually cause great amounts of grief.

And what is the democrats answer? Reward the criminal.

Now, you might say that 'well, these people didn't know what they were signing', but that has never been a defense in respect of tax returns, so I don't buy it as a defense against predatory lending. It's plain criminal greed. And it is greed that has kept honest hardworking people - a few of them on this forum - out of being able to buy their own homes.

Why should these criminals be bailed out now? And where is the outrage from honest democrats about this abuse of the rule of law?

Here's some outrage. The last thing I want to see come out of this crash is another S&L bailout. I want to see some companies go out of business. If the Congress wants to help out some of the working people who made bad choices in making loans, I can live with that--allow them to refinance at fixed rates, etc. But I don't want to see a single mortgage company get tax dollars because they made loans they knew were bad bets from the beginning.

It goes both ways Mr Buwhan.

You can say the real criminals are the lenders, but by bailing out the borrowers you bail out the lenders too.

How?

How?

I'm trying hard to figure that out too, unless Lacadaemon is assuming that everyone who got a subprime loan did so under false pretenses. Some did, no doubt, and I would be all for not allowing anyone who lied about their income over, say 10%, to get a loan to be bailed out, but not all who got subprime loans lied about their income.

I'm trying hard to figure that out too, unless Lacadaemon is assuming that everyone who got a subprime loan did so under false pretenses. Some did, no doubt, and I would be all for not allowing anyone who lied about their income over, say 10%, to get a loan to be bailed out, but not all who got subprime loans lied about their income.

I figure that any stated income loan stinks. So it's not actually a subprime problem anyway.

It's fraud in any case. Why would you pay extra for a stated income, if you could prove your actual income? Hells man, you and your girlfriend are victims of this scam.

And as I said before, if there is actually a medical problem &c., then that should be looked at. But those things are a constant. Where was the outrage ten years ago about them.

It's basically an attempt to bail out criminals.

I figure that any stated income loan stinks. So it's not actually a subprime problem anyway.

It's fraud in any case. Why would you pay extra for a stated income, if you could prove your actual income? Hells man, you and your girlfriend are victims of this scam.

And as I said before, if there is actually a medical problem &c., then that should be looked at. But those things are a constant. Where was the outrage ten years ago about them.

It's basically an attempt to bail out criminals.

I'm of two minds about this, but I lean toward favoring the borrowers largely because my ex-wife is a real-estate agent and I know how agents and especially mortgage brokers work. They'll say anything to close a deal. So yeah, there's some fraud from the buyers in there, and like I said, I'd certainly make sure that any bailout doesn't cover those people. But in a lot of cases, people got into ARMs based on bad advice--from no less than Alan Greenspan. About 3 years ago, he recommended getting into ARMs as a way to save money, even when it was clear that interest rates were about as low as they'd ever get.

My girlfriend and I haven't been able to buy, true, largely because the market's been overheated and overpriced, and I've got a good case of "there but for the grace of god and my shitty credit rating go I." But if I'm going to go handing blame out, it's going to be largely headed toward the banks who should have known better. Individuals often have unrealistic ideas of what they can afford. Banks ought to know what a bad risk is--it's their job to do so.

These lenders knew exactly what they were getting in to when they made these loans; it was nothing more than their own greed that led them to get involved in these risky schemes, and now they fully deserve to pay the price for what they did. If you screw up, you're accountable for it; the government shouldn't be bailing out companies and effectively give them a free pass to do it again and return to the government trough when things get tough.

We've done it before with the auto industry and the banking industry, and both of them are interestingly enough in the exact same position they were back then. Face it, this does nothing but encourage the incompetent and the crooks to continue what they're doing and screw over their workers and the American people until the hammer falls again and they have to try and weasel some more money from taxpayers.

If anyone deserves help, it's the borrowers with low credit who got in to these things not knowing what to expect. I would vote out any politician who gives away my money to a bunch of greedy corporations who got in over their heads and are now whining for the government to save them.

If anyone deserves help, it's the borrowers with low credit who got in to these things not knowing what to expect.

See the title: "Senator Urges Bailout of Bad Credit Mortgage Borrowers"

I'm of two minds about this, but I lean toward favoring the borrowers largely because my ex-wife is a real-estate agent and I know how agents and especially mortgage brokers work. They'll say anything to close a deal. So yeah, there's some fraud from the buyers in there, and like I said, I'd certainly make sure that any bailout doesn't cover those people. But in a lot of cases, people got into ARMs based on bad advice--from no less than Alan Greenspan. About 3 years ago, he recommended getting into ARMs as a way to save money, even when it was clear that interest rates were about as low as they'd ever get.

My girlfriend and I haven't been able to buy, true, largely because the market's been overheated and overpriced, and I've got a good case of "there but for the grace of god and my shitty credit rating go I." But if I'm going to go handing blame out, it's going to be largely headed toward the banks who should have known better. Individuals often have unrealistic ideas of what they can afford. Banks ought to know what a bad risk is--it's their job to do so.

There may be a tranche of borrowers who are actual victims, but the vast majority were fucked by greed and market forces. I don't think the majority of people who signed ninja loans can be classed as complete innocents. In fact, under federal law, they are criminals and should be in prison, not objects of pity. No?

Anyway, a bail out only really helps the banks, not the borrowers. They are still bag holders, while those who hold the MBS and CDOs are covered.

See the title: "Senator Urges Bailout of Bad Credit Mortgage Borrowers"

Oh, you're right. I mixed them up when I read it. Even so, I've heard some people talking about bailing out the lenders and that would be total BS.

There may be a tranche of borrowers who are actual victims, but the vast majority were fucked by greed and market forces. I don't think the majority of people who signed ninja loans can be classed as complete innocents. In fact, under federal law, they are criminals and should be in prison, not objects of pity. No?

Anyway, a bail out only really helps the banks, not the borrowers. They are still bag holders, while those who hold the MBS and CDOs are covered.

Yeah, the ninja loan holders can go fuck themselves as far as I care, as can the companies that made the loans. I should clarify something--if the fed allows people who got suckered to refi their homes with fixed rate mortgages, for instance, I don't want the companies who made the original loans to have anything to do with it. I want those companies to die and their owners to go under with them.

Aren't the real criminals in this the lenders? Perhaps not so much a crime as it is a bad business practice. :p
In other words: how is it criminal to put yourself in deep debt and end up with bad credit and no home?


Lenders are the real criminals, they sign contracts will people then break them whenever they feel like it. I'm paying off a credit card bill right now because they raised the minimum payment above what I could afford. By doing so they broke our contract, but are still supported by the legal community. Bad business practices like these should be criminal, but no now they want to make it criminal to be poor and victimized by these sharks.

Hm. I thought this thread was about Pell grants.. remember the big fuss, back around '94 or '95? That was a case of the government knowingly giving actual money to actual criminals.. Democrats in general were none too pleased when Clinton stopped it.. Of course, Bush is a monster and a fascist for continuing that policy. :p

Aren't the real criminals in this the lenders? Perhaps not so much a crime as it is a bad business practice. :p
In other words: how is it criminal to put yourself in deep debt and end up with bad credit and no home?


Lenders are the real criminals, they sign contracts with people then break them whenever they feel like it. I'm paying off a credit card bill right now because they raised the minimum payment above what I could afford. By doing so they broke our contract, but were still supported by the legal community. Bad business practices like these should be criminal, but no now they want to make it criminal to be poor and victimized by these sharks.

Hm. I thought this thread was about Pell grants.. remember the big fuss, back around '94 or '95? That was a case of the government knowingly giving actual money to actual criminals.. Democrats in general were none too pleased when Clinton stopped it.. Of course, Bush is a monster and a fascist for continuing that policy. :p

So far as I know, if you're a felon these days, you don't qualify for any federal student aid, not even loans, and guess who that really screws over? People who get arrested for possession and don't have the money for a lawyer or for rehab, because that's often the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony charge.

Yeah, the ninja loan holders can go fuck themselves as far as I care, as can the companies that made the loans. I should clarify something--if the fed allows people who got suckered to refi their homes with fixed rate mortgages, for instance, I don't want the companies who made the original loans to have anything to do with it. I want those companies to die and their owners to go under with them.

Well we agree then. And dodd does in fact want to bail out criminals, as does hillary.


I think this puts the democrat field down to:

Obama

Biden (I think the winner).

Gore (not declared)

Kucinich (my favorite).

So far as I know, if you're a felon these days, you don't qualify for any federal student aid, not even loans, and guess who that really screws over? People who get arrested for possession and don't have the money for a lawyer or for rehab, because that's often the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony charge.

The issue at hand back in '94 was that the loans were being paid to current inmates, not ex-cons looking to go straight. Giving preference to an inmate over a low-income "at-risk" applicant was the problem. We generally don't want to reward people for being sent to prison.. educated prisoners are less likely to re-offend, but so are educated "at-risk" and low-income kids, etc.

So far as I know, if you're a felon these days, you don't qualify for any federal student aid, not even loans, and guess who that really screws over? People who get arrested for possession and don't have the money for a lawyer or for rehab, because that's often the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony charge.

Yeah, that's bollocks too. (as I have said in the past).

Who gives a crap about people who smoke dope, yet there we are ignoring major felonies.

Well we agree then. And dodd does in fact want to bail out criminals, as does hillary.


I think this puts the democrat field down to:

Obama

Biden (I think the winner).

Gore (not declared)

Kucinich (my favorite).
Well, Dodd was never on my list to begin with, and if I'm not mistaken, he gets a lot of money from that industry, so I can't say I'm surprised. But before you embrace Biden, know that he's not much better than Dodd--he's in the pocket of the credit card industry. Some go so far as to call him the Senator from MBNA instead of Maryland--he was one of the major proponents of that abomination of a bankruptcy bill a couple of years ago.

And I've no love for Hillary either, though I'll vote for her over any Republican. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

instead of Maryland

He is a member of the Democratic Party and the incumbent senior U.S. Senator from Delaware.

WE certainly didn't elect him.

Well, Dodd was never on my list to begin with, and if I'm not mistaken, he gets a lot of money from that industry, so I can't say I'm surprised. But before you embrace Biden, know that he's not much better than Dodd--he's in the pocket of the credit card industry. Some go so far as to call him the Senator from MBNA instead of Maryland--he was one of the major proponents of that abomination of a bankruptcy bill a couple of years ago.

And I've no love for Hillary either, though I'll vote for her over any Republican. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

I hate biden too.

I just think he's the guy right now. Unless Gore comes in, and that would muddy the game.

As I said, I would vote for Kucinich. But since he won't get chosen, I won't vote.

WE certainly didn't elect him.

Dammit! Sorry about that. :headbang:

Lenders are the real criminals, they sign contracts with people then break them whenever they feel like it. I'm paying off a credit card bill right now because they raised the minimum payment above what I could afford. By doing so they broke our contract, but were still supported by the legal community. Bad business practices like these should be criminal, but no now they want to make it criminal to be poor and victimized by these sharks.

I missed this. Ooops.

Well, sunshine take it up with FDR.

Damn, what the hell is with these alarmist thread titles. I am going to find an article and make a thread called 'Republicans try to force morality down people's throats'.

Morals are what separates us from the beasts. If they do not have morals already they are not even people. The problem with the Republicans is that they are aligned with a horrible minority known as the Moral Majority or the Christian Right. One of the problems with a two party system is that both parties have too take in wierdos and wackos inorder to get the majority. This problem also occurs in multi-party systems and often with even worse effects (ie more power to the goofballs).

I am sure that the Democrats would love to lose the feminists and the gays just like the Republicans would love to lose the Fundies. It just isnt going to happen. I am a Republican and I learned that 73% of us share my belief that abortions should be available whenever to whomever. Yet this 27% minority tyranizes us at the caucusses.

This minority tries to enact laws that restrict peoples' actions that are not in conformity with their own perverted liberal morals. I wish that we had a two party system but we had two third parties: the pro-gay subversive radical progressive party and the Christian Insanity party. Nobody would vote for these goofballs except for the goofballs. The rest of us moderates could have good productive debates leading to sound policy.

I like Moderate Democrats and agree with them. No one party platform suits any one person.

Republicans want to give things insane spin.

Considering the fact that the mortgage companies made these deals with people who had bad credit in the first place, and the fact that the housing market is weaker now than at the time these deals were made, isn't it the mortgage companies who are being bailed out?