NationStates Jolt Archive

In another vote-buying scheme (one can only hope that there's SOME logic behind the plan), our feckless leader has decided that we should help those that are less -- not fortunate -- but less inclined to repay loans. The HUD bailout of sub-prime mortgage holders can only be described as stupid.

As one or two of you might have read, there was boom in mortgage lending over the last couple years. More and more of us had a chance at home ownership through a vehicle known as the "sub-prime" loan. Turns out that a great number of those that were able to squeak by and qualify for these non-traditional loans were not able to continue making payments and their homes were taken by the lenders in foreclosure.

Now, our poor people have the new right to seize another's earnings to keep their houses. The federal government seems to think that they can "help" out again by propping up households that can't pay the bills. Even Chuck Schumer has seen the error of Bush's ways, stating (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/01/2007-09-01_president_bush_attempts_to_relieve_subpr.html?ref=rss) that Bush was "starting to sound like a Democrat." But of course, Bush should be bailing out all of the 2 million in default, not just the ones with a slim chance of paying back their debts to the lenders...

There's something to be learned here and it's how to treat poor people...

1. Never loan them money. They are not capable of handling finance. I don't pay the guy that cuts my grass in advance, why should we advance thousands of dollars to someone that can't qualify for a more secure loan? Plus, they don't respect things like debt. One would have thought a borrower would have wondered about that 1% interest rate, wouldn't one? No, the poor just decide that if you don't like the deal, you walk away.

2. Quit treating the poor as heros, while punishing the folks that earn money. Maybe Debtor's prison is too extreme, but shipping these "unfortunates" off to places where they can earn money might not be. Maybe this will induce them not to stay poor.

We don't need to bail these folks out as much as we need to encourage them to work. And to earn money.

Let's start right now by making them less dependent on the government.

Yay for small government personal responsibility Republicans!

Though I'd point out it's not really helping poor people, it's helping banks who put out cash for houses that were at vastly inflated prices over their actual value, and now that people are defaulting on their loans the banks have properties that aren't worth what the remaining balance is. Thus as more people go into foreclosure the banks end up losing ever increasing amounts of money, in part due to the pileup of these loans that weren't worth it, and in part because it's having a domino effect on the housing market driving prices to the floor.


Banks tried to screw people, and screwed a lot of 'em, problem is they fucked too many and now that double ended dildo is up to their tonsils.

Banks tried to screw people, and screwed a lot of 'em, problem is they fucked too many and now that double ended dildo is up to their tonsils.
Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.

Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person. But he thinks that it's the government's job to help him and all the other stupid people that signed the contract and obligated themselves to repay the loan.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person. But he thinks that it's the government's job to help him and all the other stupid people that signed the contract and obligated themselves to repay the loan.

Uh, most poor people are poor because they can't handle money. As I pointed out, that guy isn't actually being helped, the banks are. You can bet his $325,000 house he bought is probably only worth $150,000, means if the government doesn't "help" him, the bank is out $225,000.

Actually, debtor's prison is fine as long as they're put to productive work during the day, with the bulk of their earnings being dedicated to their debts--perhaps let them keep a small stipend so life doesn't suck too much (they don't deserve to be treated like murderers and rapists, after all) and withhold some to pay the costs of their imprisonment.

Uh, most poor people are poor because they can't handle money. As I pointed out, that guy isn't actually being helped, the banks are. You can bet his $325,000 house he bought is probably only worth $150,000, means if the government doesn't "help" him, the bank is out $225,000.

but "helping the poor" sounds so much better than "bailing out the banks".

More so since it is getting ever closer to election time and bush continues to make republicans look bad.

Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.
QFT. No-one was forcing the banks to give mortgages to ppl who clearly would be unable to repay them. They were greedy and shortsighted, thinking the housing boom would go on forever (indeed, their handing out subprimes to anyone regardless did keep it going for longer than it should have) and thus any bad debts would be recovered through mortgagee sales of houses that had rocketed in value.
Problem was/is, too many subprime repossessions has helped the inevitable housing bubble burst and now the US is faced with the same shit that happened under Reagan - that of the Fed Govt being forced to bail out S&Ls, otherwise the economy tanks.

So who do they neocons blame for all this? The banks themselves for not regulating the subprime industry and for giving out money to ppl obvious incapable of repaying?
No, of course not.
The Fed Govt for doing nothing to try and prevent/minimise the obvious housing bubble from popping?
No, of course not.
Then who?
why, the poor people of course. They're to blame for everything.
as usual.

remember kids, it's not welfare if it's helping out the rich folk.

Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.

Perhaps both parties can share in the blame a bit, but the fact remains that the lender did indeed hold up his end of the deal by lending the money, and so the borrower is obligated to hold up his end.

Uh, most poor people are poor because they can't handle money. As I pointed out, that guy isn't actually being helped, the banks are. You can bet his $325,000 house he bought is probably only worth $150,000, means if the government doesn't "help" him, the bank is out $225,000.

The problem, though, with government bailouts is that the rest of us aren't responsible for this.

Uh, most poor people are poor because they can't handle money. As I pointed out, that guy isn't actually being helped, the banks are. You can bet his $325,000 house he bought is probably only worth $150,000, means if the government doesn't "help" him, the bank is out $225,000.
But he's gonna keep the house. That doesn't benefit him? Actually, he isn't going to keep the house because he's not one of the targeted poor. But in general, if the borrower keeps the house, he's the one being bailed out. The lender would still get to sell the house at foreclosure.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person.
So why didn't it set off alarm bells at the bank that gave him the money?
Again, no-one was forcing them to give him a mortgage and they're the ones who set the qualifying standards for loans.

tbh, I think it borders on criminal banks handing out loans like this, knowing full well that there's almost no chance of repayment. Their business strategy apparently relies on forcing ppl into bankruptcy and repossessing homes as a way of making money.

QFT. No-one was forcing the banks to give mortgages to ppl who clearly would be unable to repay them. They were greedy and shortsighted, thinking the housing boom would go on forever (indeed, their handing out subprimes to anyone regardless did keep it going for longer than it should have) and thus any bad debts would be recovered through mortgagee sales of houses that had rocketed in value.
Problem was/is, too many subprime repossessions has helped the inevitable housing bubble burst and now the US is faced with the same shit that happened under Reagan - that of the Fed Govt being forced to bail out S&Ls, otherwise the economy tanks.

So who do they neocons blame for all this? The banks themselves for not regulating the subprime industry and for giving out money to ppl obvious incapable of repaying?
No, of course not.
The Fed Govt for doing nothing to try and prevent/minimise the obvious housing bubble from popping?
No, of course not.
Then who?
why, the poor people of course. They're to blame for everything.
as usual.

remember kids, it's not welfare if it's helping out the rich folk.

So if I have checks in my checkbook, I should be able to write and write without regard to what my actual balance is?

No. Contracts work both ways. If you agree to borrow money, you should be smart enough to know that you must pay it back under the terms of the contract. If it sounds too good to be true, i.e. a loan to a borrower without income, it is...

So why didn't it set off alarm bells at the bank that gave him the money?
Again, no-one was forcing them to give him a mortgage and they're the ones who set the qualifying standards for loans.

tbh, I think it borders on criminal banks handing out loans like this, knowing full well that there's almost no chance of repayment. Their business strategy apparently relies on forcing ppl into bankruptcy and repossessing homes as a way of making money.

Because the lender cheated. But that doesn't relieve the borrower from using common sense...see my example about writing checks.

The problem, though, with government bailouts is that the rest of us aren't responsible for this.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the problem being that Bush knows that if he doesn't do something the banking industry is going to have very serious problems because they've done something incredibly stupid. As a side effect of the banking business being royally screwed, the poor are screwed, not only are they out of their home, but they're out all the equity in it, and their credit rating is lower than before. Another effect is that as banks hemorrhage cash they're less willing to loan to established businesses, which adds to the economic slowdown.

The banks got greedy, they know there's cash to be made in sub-prime loans, they were counting on a goodly portion of them defaulting.

This might be a fun discussion. I've got to work now. I don't want to be one of those stupid poor people that get foreclosed on.

See you in few hours.

But he's gonna keep the house. That doesn't benefit him? Actually, he isn't going to keep the house because he's not one of the targeted poor. But in general, if the borrower keeps the house, he's the one being bailed out. The lender would still get to sell the house at foreclosure.

Yeah they'd sell it at vastly less than they "paid" for it. Which means they're fucked. I've read articles about people taking $200,000 losses on properties and being giddy that they didn't lose more.

Sure the guy keeps his house, for now. He still can't afford the thing, only a matter of time til he defaults again, and until then the banks keep making money.

Just to point out the staggeringly obvious - poor, actually poor people tend not to qualify for credits, lendings, mortgages & the likes. Particularly not when it's about owning a house.

The 'Poor' people talked about here are (Lower?) middle class people dreaming the american dream and falling flat on their noses.

If you ask a parent why, past a certain point, he stops bailing out his children when they have problems, he'll say, "Otherwise they'll never learn."

If the government bails out the banks, they'll never learn.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, ensuring and maintaining economic prosperity is not a legitimate end of government. Leave the free market alone; whatever happens, happens.

If you ask a parent why, past a certain point, he stops bailing out his children when they have problems, he'll say, "Otherwise they'll never learn."

If the government bails out the banks, they'll never learn.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, ensuring and maintaining economic prosperity is not a legitimate end of government. Leave the free market alone; whatever happens, happens.

Democracy doesn't work like that though. If the government allows the banks to collapse it'll destroy the economy for years. Any politician who lets that happen will doom their party to not be re-elected for decades. Economy goes to hell, the ones currently in power take the blame.

The cynic in me says that Bush is trying to push the inevitable collapse off til atleast 09, when there will by all indications be a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Just once I'd love for him to say something that's not about Ayn Rand. Christ you get the impression he'd be screwing her corpse if he could get away with it.

Democracy doesn't work like that though. If the government allows the banks to collapse it'll destroy the economy for years. Any politician who lets that happen will doom their party to not be re-elected for decades. Economy goes to hell, the ones currently in power take the blame.

The cynic in me says that Bush is trying to push the inevitable collapse off til atleast 09, when there will by all indications be a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Exactly. The banks fucked themselves and the Bush White House is trying to stave off an economic collapse so he can't be blamed for letting it happen right under his fucking nose. But of course no one will do a god damn thing for preventing it from happening again because that would mean telling big corps that they can't do any god damn thing they want and we can't have people doing that, now can we. Let's just blame the poor people and let the lending industry get off scott-free after putting out the fire they set themselves on.

Just once I'd love for him to say something that's not about Ayn Rand. Christ you get the impression he'd be screwing her corpse if he could get away with it.I heard they have a 'Real Doll' product line for this... purpose...

I heard they have a 'Real Doll' product line for this... purpose...

I wonder if Ayn Rand would approve or disapprove of a company making a profit off of Real Dolls of Ayn Rand.

That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person.

You mean the kind of rational person who decided it was a good idea to lend them money in the first place?

The banks and loan companies were stupid. Greedily stupid. It's them whose demanding that the government bail them out.

I won't say the poor didn't take advantage of the system. But they did. And the banks were complicit in the scheme by knowingly doing this. If an arms dealer knowingly sold machineguns and high explosives to a street gang with full knowledge that they were going to knock over a bank, he goes to jail.

How come you won't extend that kind of thinking to finance companies who rely on the government to bail them out?

Or maybe you don't have anything to say about Pakistan regarding their sale of nuclear knowledge to oh, say North Korea and Iran hmmm?

Put your blame on where it really belongs. Both sides of the fence. Not one side. You work for a bank don't you?

We have the exact same problem here, except it's tied to a petrochemical firm run by some monkey of a relative belonging to the higher ups. The government dipped into social security to pay for it. Now people can't even get their money for years on end because it just isn't there anymore. And the petrochemical firm is still in la-la land. Who do you think got blamed? I'll give you one guess.

So if I have checks in my checkbook, I should be able to write and write without regard to what my actual balance is?

No. Contracts work both ways. If you agree to borrow money, you should be smart enough to know that you must pay it back under the terms of the contract. If it sounds too good to be true, i.e. a loan to a borrower without income, it is...


This crap of buyer beware is really starting to piss me off. If the government would protect people from preditory lending we wouldn't be having these problems.
If they would protect people from business owners that put their bottom line above all else we would still have all the better jobs here in the US where they should be instead of overseas.
I don't hear anyone doing anything about it when millions of people have large portions of there retirerment taken, & are forced to retire early so CEO's can replace them with people who will work for less which garantees they make their yearly multi million dollar bonus'.
My point is that a high percentage of the upper class has declared war on the very people who buy there products ... the working class. They cut peoples income while raising prices then complain when those same people can no longer meet the obligations they made before the fact.

Maybe they are working...and working their asses off. Why do you fucking libertarians always assume poor people are lazy? You try work two minimum wage jobs and see how far that gets you.

Perhaps both parties can share in the blame a bit, but the fact remains that the lender did indeed hold up his end of the deal by lending the money, and so the borrower is obligated to hold up his end.

Is this actually true?

I seem to recall hearing about a lot of sub-prime lenders now declaring bankruptcy because THEY, in turn, were borrowing money they couldn't really afford to repay.

It's not the poor that are getting bailed out here. Not even the sub-prime lenders. It's the corpocracy - the big business that runs the government.

If you ask a parent why, past a certain point, he stops bailing out his children when they have problems, he'll say, "Otherwise they'll never learn."

If the government bails out the banks, they'll never learn.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, ensuring and maintaining economic prosperity is not a legitimate end of government. Leave the free market alone; whatever happens, happens.

Philosophy 'proves' nothing.

And, while you're laissez-faire approach sounds good in theory, a government isn't just going to let the entire nation go tits-up because 'whatever happens, happens'.

Maybe they are working...and working their asses off. Why do you fucking libertarians always assume poor people are lazy? You try work two minimum wage jobs and see how far that gets you.
I think I used the ideas "irresponsible" and "stupid". Not lazy. If you want to add that, it's your idea and I'm not responsible...

A bailout of people who were provably misled in to loans they were unable to pay is acceptable (for example, not being informed of all the facts or lured in to "stated income" loans), but a general bailout is wrong and simply encourages the same risky lending and borrowing practices that created this situation in the first place.

When you borrow money you take on the responsibility to pay it back, and if you can't pay it back there are penalties. That's the way it is and should be; these people made this mistake, and now they have to accept the negative consequences of their actions. We should not spend money bailing out people who can't pay their debts...it's not the government's job or responsibility to shield you from the consequences of your actions. If you screw up, it's nobody's fault or responsibility but your own. These companies and borrowers need to suffer through this and learn their lesson.

The Federal Reserve has already taken the actions necessary to prevent widespread economic problems, so all a bailout will do is encourage the continued process of risky lending and borrowing and waste taxpayer money.

Maybe they are working...and working their asses off. Why do you fucking libertarians always assume poor people are lazy? You try work two minimum wage jobs and see how far that gets you.

When I was working 2 minimum wage jobs I knew better than to borrow money. I def. knew better than to try to buy a house.

When I was working 2 minimum wage jobs I knew better than to borrow money. I def. knew better than to try to buy a house.

Unfortunately there is no shortage of very short sighted people. Apparently they run banks.

I seem to recall hearing about a lot of sub-prime lenders now declaring bankruptcy because THEY, in turn, were borrowing money they couldn't really afford to repay.

I think it was more along the lines of they were borrowing against assets that were either overvalued or didn't even exist in the first place.

Now, the big financials will be able to weather this because they have a huge amount of cash, high credit ratings and good commercial paper and a strong business outside of real estate, but a lot of the banks that will go under or suffer will be the ones that focused specifically on real estate (and are guilty of the most egregious abuses).

Unfortunately there is no shortage of very short sighted people. Apparently they run banks.

It's easy to fall in to the trap of thinking the market will always go up when you're in a bubble...just look at the major companies that blew billions of dollars buying vastly overinflated internet startups during the bubble, only to have those investments plunge down to a fraction of their worth a year or two later.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person. But he thinks that it's the government's job to help him and all the other stupid people that signed the contract and obligated themselves to repay the loan.

You're so doctrinaire it's humorous. Your doctrine is that it's always the consumer's fault. Sometimes, it is. Not in this case.

You're going to blame the realistically unqualified borrower, who, on average, knows very, very little about how financial dealings work -- and not the bankers, who, as their title suggests, know quilte a lot about how financial diealings work.

Well, that's just pig-headed, obstinate foolishness.

The rank-and-file loan officer is there to make loans for the bank. Loans that make the bank money. One might assume that the more loans an officer makes, the more money for his bosses. If that's the case, and the officer's bosses then approve a lowering of the qualification bar to people who wouldn't have qualified before and the loan officer goes out and get even more loans...who's really to blame here?

The time to say no to the underqualified credit/loan consumer is when they're APPLYING, not when they're defaulting. The management at banks who made these loans should have known better. It's a defective product, plain and simple. The only difference between these sub-prime loans and buying a lemon at the used car lot is that people tend to know at least a little more about cars than they do about mortgages.

Now if someone goes out for a mortgage and gets injured and can no longer work, there are programs and supplemental insurance to help with that. If the banks do a good enough and fair enough job at selling their loans, they'll tell the prospective borrower what they can expect as monthly payments and look at what that payment will leave the borrower for the rest of the month. If banks don't do that, they reap what they sow.

THEN, and ONLY THEN, if the borrower goes ahead, knowing what percentage of their monthy income is going to the mortgage, THEN you can logically blame the borrower, and I agree, deny them governmental assistance.

If banks had done their jobs well, this would have been less of a problem.

And who was it that accepted the loans they couldn't pay? Oh, yes, the stupid people. They shouldn't be held responsible for what they do, should they?

Apparently not, you're awful willing to let the stupid people who gave them the money off the hook.

Unfortunately there is no shortage of very short sighted people. Apparently they run banks.

And who was it that accepted the loans they couldn't pay? Oh, yes, the stupid people. They shouldn't be held responsible for what they do, should they?

Apparently not, you're awful willing to let the stupid people who gave them the money off the hook.

There are already plenty of ways to get back at the lenders. We need to punish stupid borrowers, too.

And who was it that accepted the loans they couldn't pay? Oh, yes, the stupid people. They shouldn't be held responsible for what they do, should they?

Yeah. Damn those 'stupid' people. Wanting a place to live. Idiots.

Not the bonehead New Yorker in the article that took the $325K while he was unemployed, then demands that the government fix his problems. Nor people like him. Someone that stupid should be institutionalized.

One wonders why you don't think the same of the loan officer who let it through then.

The banks were counting on people defaulting on their loans. It's the same sleazy practice as Rent to Own places and Buy Here Pay Here car lots. You make some payments on something you really can't afford despite them saying that you can, when you fall behind they repo it and sell it again. They've got their merchandise back, your cash, and they sell it again to the next sucker.

It's a great scam, and some truely easy money. The problem is too many banks got in on the scam, which inflated the housing market artifically. Once that happened their scam couldn't go on without raising the stakes. They created a housing bubble all by themselves, and now it's come home to roost.

Now you can sit there nice and comfortable with your cushy job and deride those who fell for the scam, but don't let the jackasses who perpetrated it off the hook. They fell victim to their own stupidity, their own scam came back to bite them in the ass.

Yeah. Damn those 'stupid' people. Wanting a place to live. Idiots.

If you knowingly get in over your head and lose your house, that is stupid, very, very stupid. Wanting to own a house is a good thing, but you have to make sure you can always afford it before doing so. Foreclosure pretty much permanently destroys your credit rating and makes it damn hard for you to ever become a homeowner without a high interest rate and very strict terms. It's not like lenders will forgive and forget this sort of thing; the ramifications of foreclosure are going to affect every single credit-based purchase or loan you will have, and the damage may never be fully repaired.

Now, mind you, don't think I'm excusing the lenders in this situation. If they knowingly provide loans to people unable to pay, violate lending laws, or engage in misleading practices meant to deceive people in to loans, they should be severely fined and jailed as well as barred from employment in real estate or real estate lending. We need a zero-tolerance policy for business fraud to help protect against these things.

Yeah. Damn those 'stupid' people. Wanting a place to live. Idiots.

yeah, one of my clients, makes oh...about $27K a year, got approved for a loan on a house for $160K, adjustable rate, interest only for the first year.......sure they knew they could make the payment for a year, and after that, they thought maybe suddenly they would be making 3 times as much and could afford it.......yeah, that's not stupid. I was totally out of place for telling them they made an idiotic mess of their finances.

There are places to live in the US that don't require you taking out a mortgage, you know apartments and such. I lived in one for a long time, hell, you can even rent houses!

:rolleyes:

Yeah. Damn those 'stupid' people. Wanting a place to live. Idiots.
Well, they can always rent. Nothing says they have to own. But you know that...

If you knowingly get in over your head and lose your house, that is stupid, very, very stupid. Wanting to own a house is a good thing, but you have to make sure you can always afford it before doing so.

Foreclosure pretty much permanently destroys your credit rating and makes it damn hard for you to ever become a homeowner without a high interest rate and very strict terms. It's not like lenders will forgive and forget this sort of thing; the ramifications of foreclosure are going to affect every single credit-based purchase or loan you will have, and the damage may never be fully repaired.

We are talking about people who never expected to be part of home-owning America anyway. Taking the chance on losing your house, when circumstances have constantly stopped you from having one.. might not seem like a bad risk.

I'd vote for universal housing.

yeah, one of my clients, makes oh...about $27K a year, got approved for a loan on a house for $160K, adjustable rate, interest only for the first year.......sure they knew they could make the payment for a year, and after that, they thought maybe suddenly they would be making 3 times as much and could afford it.......yeah, that's not stupid. I was totally out of place for telling them they made an idiotic mess of their finances.

There are places to live in the US that don't require you taking out a mortgage, you know apartments and such. I lived in one for a long time, hell, you can even rent houses!

:rolleyes:

I don't accept it as a valid argument that - simply because you aren't one of the people with a nice job - you don't deserve to have a standard of living.

Well, they can always rent. Nothing says they have to own. But you know that...

Of course I know that.

Do you own? Are you one of the lucky ones? Is that why you can sneer at those less fortunate?

We are talking about people who never expected to be part of home-owning America anyway. Taking the chance on losing your house, when circumstances have constantly stopped you from having one.. might not seem like a bad risk.

I'd vote for universal housing.

living above your means is the reason most people in the US are poor, and I am not talking about the poverty "I can live on Ramen" poor, I am talking about the idiots who have $50K in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure and $30K in student loans who are whining about they can't afford health insurance.

people need to grow up. "I want" doesn't mean "I get" and it certainly doesn't mean "I deserve". Owning a house is a nice goal, but everyone can't do it, and everyone can't do it right now.

I rent right now, my house sucks, my neighborhood sucks, and my neighbors suck. I have a standard of life that I am currently willing and able to pay for. Everyone can't live in the 3 bedroom 2 bath rambler with a nice manicured lawn. If you want that you have to work for it, you can't just get a loan and try to juggle utilities to pay for it.

I can't believe you think that everyone deserves a house they can't pay for.

Long term rental is a poor choice, you're better off making payments on a smaller home than renting. Renting you're not building any equity, if you buy a house (say on contract) for the same payments you'll be vastly better off long run.

I don't accept it as a valid argument that - simply because you aren't one of the people with a nice job - you don't deserve to have a standard of living.

I rent right now, my house sucks, my neighborhood sucks, and my neighbors suck. I have a standard of life that I am currently willing and able to pay for. Everyone can't live in the 3 bedroom 2 bath rambler with a nice manicured lawn. If you want that you have to work for it, you can't just get a loan and try to juggle utilities to pay for it.

I can't believe you think that everyone deserves a house they can't pay for.

Long term rental is a poor choice, you're better off making payments on a smaller home than renting. Renting you're not building any equity, if you buy a house (say on contract) for the same payments you'll be vastly better off long run.

I prefer not to have debt, as such I am renting cheap right now while I am paying cash for my house to be built. There is nothing wrong with renting if you aren't in a position to buy a house, there is something wrong with buying a house if you aren't in a position to afford one.

I prefer not to have debt, as such I am renting cheap right now while I am paying cash for my house to be built. There is nothing wrong with renting if you aren't in a position to buy a house, there is something wrong with buying a house if you aren't in a position to afford one.

True, I just loathe to let go of cash when I don't have anything to show for it.

If you want that you have to work for it...


I work for it. I want it. 27,000 people place their lives (literally) in my hands, every day.

And yet - wanting it... and working for it... still hasn't given me the capacity to have it.

The implication that you can 'have it if you work for it' just strikes me as the Disney version of reality in America.


I can't believe you think that everyone deserves a house they can't pay for.

I believe that everyone deserves somewhere to rest their head. Somewhere they aren't worried can just be revoked on someone else's vicissitudes.

I find it hard to believe you don't think everyone deserves somewhere to call home.

I don't think we all need mansions. But then - I never argued that.

I prefer not to have debt, as such I am renting cheap right now while I am paying cash for my house to be built. There is nothing wrong with renting if you aren't in a position to buy a house, there is something wrong with buying a house if you aren't in a position to afford one.

What if you can't (really) afford to rent?

Being able to afford to pay cash, for a house to be built for you, hardly makes you Mrs-Joe-Average-American.

I work for it. I want it. 27,000 people place their lives (literally) in my hands, every day.

And yet - wanting it... and working for it... still hasn't given me the capacity to have it.

The implication that you can 'have it if you work for it' just strikes me as the Disney version of reality in America.
I don't know what to tell you then. As a financial planner I have seen many people be able to turn it around and get the things they want as soon as they have a plan to get them.



I believe that everyone deserves somewhere to rest their head. Somewhere they aren't worried can just be revoked on someone else's vicissitudes.

I find it hard to believe you don't think everyone deserves somewhere to call home.

I don't think we all need mansions. But then - I never argued that.
There are tons of laws protecting tenants, you can't just be kicked out of your rental for no reason, I know this, because when I owned a rental house it was a pain in the ass to even evict for non-payment of rent. You are setting up a false dilemma either you own a house or you are for all intents and purposes homeless, this is just not true.

Come on, Myrmi. I know you saw my last post.

What if you can't (really) afford to rent?
If you are unable to secure housing the government has programs to help with that.

Being able to afford to pay cash, for a house to be built for you, hardly makes you Mrs-Joe-Average-American.
it has taken a lot of self control, it means that we live on less than half of what we make so we can save money to put towards paying cash for things. I am not an average American because I don't have debt and I don't live paycheck to paycheck. it's hard, and sometimes it sucks, but I feel it's the best way. I don't want to be homeless again, I didn't like it. I do what I have to so that I can avoid that.

I don't know what to tell you then. As a financial planner I have seen many people be able to turn it around and get the things they want as soon as they have a plan to get them.

And most people in that situation have the means, but need better allocution. It has become the great american myth that if you just work hard and are dilligant, anyone can be a success.

it has taken a lot of self control, it means that we live on less than half of what we make

The fact that you have an income sufficient to survive on half of it places you at better off than a great many.

The fact that you have an income sufficient to survive on half of it places you at better off than a great many.

Ain't that the truth!

And most people in that situation have the means, but need better allocution. It has become the great american myth that if you just work hard and are dilligant, anyone can be a success.
true, people need more education about money and debt and savings. I know I didn't get any in high school and most of my high school class is still living just above the poverty level.
The fact that you have an income sufficient to survive on half of it places you at better off than a great many.
I know this. I am not rich though, in fact, even with our gross income we sit around "lower middle class", I know the way I live is not for most people, I know that most people either can't or wouldn't want to do it, and I understand that, but for someone to say it's impossible is annoying to me.

If you knowingly get in over your head and lose your house, that is stupid, very, very stupid.

Maybe.

If that's true... why do people think that making the consequences even worse will change anything?

true, people need more education about money and debt and savings. I know I didn't get any in high school and most of my high school class is still living just above the poverty level.

and we once again return to the argument of "the poor are poor because they're stupid and don't know how to handle money"

and we once again return to the argument of "the poor are poor because they're stupid and don't know how to handle money"

Actually - I like that argument.

Now we've accepted that, shouldn't we just let someone responsible take over all that stuff that the 'stupid' poor can't deal with.. like housing, and healthcare?

and we once again return to the argument of "the poor are poor because they're stupid and don't know how to handle money"

I don't think they are stupid, I think a lot of people don't know how to handle their money. If they did most of America wouldn't be in debt up to their eyeballs.

Some poor people are poor because they don't make enough money, I know this, I used to be one. Others are poor because they make enough money for a modest life but don't handle it properly.

The really poor aren't the ones I am talking about, I know if you make $12,000 a year and have a family of 4 you can't get ahead, I know that because I have lived it.

If you make $30,000 and have a family of 4 you have a lot more wiggle room, if you know what you are doing and are willing to sacrifice.

Actually - I like that argument.

Now we've accepted that, shouldn't we just let someone responsible take over all that stuff that the 'stupid' poor can't deal with.. like housing, and healthcare?

it's a great little hypocracy isn't it?

Poor people are poor because they are dumb and don't no how to make decisions.

OK, then surely you support institutions to help them out, if they're so incapable of helping themselves...

To which you usually get silence.

Frankly it's a no win argument. People will always attack the poor because they're poor and therefore obviously incapable, but balk at the idea of actually assisting those they deride as incompetant.

Because to look at the truth, that sometimes success or failure doesn't depend on you requires you to look at the truly poor and destitute and think "there, but for the grace of god go I."

And then they wouldn't get to feel good about themselves by thinking themselves superior.

So if I have checks in my checkbook, I should be able to write and write without regard to what my actual balance is?

Sure. That is why the banks stopped blocking such actions so they can attach nice little fees on everything.


No. Contracts work both ways. If you agree to borrow money, you should be smart enough to know that you must pay it back under the terms of the contract. If it sounds too good to be true, i.e. a loan to a borrower without income, it is...

And yet the banks ALWAYS get bailed out for bad practices.

I don't think they are stupid, I think a lot of people don't know how to handle their money. If they did most of America wouldn't be in debt up to their eyeballs.

Some poor people are poor because they don't make enough money, I know this, I used to be one. Others are poor because they make enough money for a modest life but don't handle it properly.

The really poor aren't the ones I am talking about, I know if you make $12,000 a year and have a family of 4 you can't get ahead, I know that because I have lived it.

If you make $30,000 and have a family of 4 you have a lot more wiggle room, if you know what you are doing and are willing to sacrifice.

well in fairness, in YOUR job you do see that, so that wasn't directed as much as you as those who actually believe it to be true universally.

As a financial planner I'm sure you know that financial planning only works if you have enough money to plan with. If your income is insufficient to meet even the basic necessities, no amount of planning in the world will do you good.

well in fairness, in YOUR job you do see that, so that wasn't directed as much as you as those who actually believe it to be true universally.

As a financial planner I'm sure you know that financial planning only works if you have enough money to plan with. If your income is insufficient to meet even the basic necessities, no amount of planning in the world will do you good.

I agree, in fact like I told someone else today, about 30% of my clients get the "we need to find you some more income" speech. Sometimes you can't live below your means, because you just can't. If you can't make rent, and food, you don't need to buy a house. If you can't make rent, food, car payments, insurance, and credit card bills, a mortgage is probably going to ruin you, that's all I am saying.

You have to know what you can afford, and someone making $27K a year can't afford a $160K house, no matter how much the banker wants to loan you money to do that.

Of course I know that.

Do you own? Are you one of the lucky ones? Is that why you can sneer at those less fortunate?

This is such a great post. It illustrates exactly what is wrong.

I've studied hard and done well in school.

I apply myself to my work and don't goof off.

I save money.

Yet, I'm lucky because I work hard.

You are an idiot if you insist on dividing people up, based on some undefined amount of "luck".

Perhaps both parties can share in the blame a bit, but the fact remains that the lender did indeed hold up his end of the deal by lending the money, and so the borrower is obligated to hold up his end.

If I bet on a horse, and the horse loses whose fault is it...espicially if I knew the horse was ill. The borrower holds up his end by moving out of the house the bank forcloses on. Don't blame the borrower for being a risky bet blame the person who bet on him who should have known better.

If I bet on a horse, and the horse loses whose fault is it...espicially if I knew the horse was ill. The borrower holds up his end by moving out of the house the bank forcloses on. Don't blame the borrower for being a risky bet blame the person who bet on him who should have known better.

That's a very flawed analogy. It was never a bet, they knew the horse would lose.

That's a very flawed analogy. It was never a bet, they knew the horse would lose.

when you bet on some guy making 12000 a year you know he is going to lose to. Only difference is people don't hold animals responsible.

when you bet on some guy making 12000 a year you know he is going to lose to.

um...that's what he meant.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person. But he thinks that it's the government's job to help him and all the other stupid people that signed the contract and obligated themselves to repay the loan.

When you are poor and un-employed and have a chance to get some money would you honestly skip it?

Starve or put the problem off for later.

Yeah we know it wont go away but I dont exactly think it was an idiodic move on his part either

Come on, Myrmi. I know you saw my last post.

Yeah, so? Did you say anything different than any of the other apologists for the stupid and irresponsible borrowers that got themselves into this mess?

But he's gonna keep the house. That doesn't benefit him? Actually, he isn't going to keep the house because he's not one of the targeted poor. But in general, if the borrower keeps the house, he's the one being bailed out. The lender would still get to sell the house at foreclosure.If people didn't get to keep their houses, then Bush's bailing out the banks would be quite obvious, now wouldn't it? This way, he can focus on helping the poor out.

When you are poor and un-employed and have a chance to get some money would you honestly skip it?

Starve or put the problem off for later.

Yeah we know it wont go away but I dont exactly think it was an idiodic move on his part either
Mortgages don't exactly put food on the table. Not for the borrower, anyway. In fact, you don't even get to touch the money -- it's all a paper drill. Used to be that you might get some money from the seller, but that doesn't even happen any more.

Thus the waste of tax revenue...Not having the poor keep their houses but still giving banks money would waste an equal amount of tax revenue.

If people didn't get to keep their houses, then Bush's bailing out the banks would be quite obvious, now wouldn't it? This way, he can focus on helping the poor out.

Thus the waste of tax revenue...

Let's face it, keeping the banks and mortgage lenders in business would do far more good for society than keeping some poor, irresponsible, and stupid person in a house that he can't afford.

Business does provide something positive to society -- jobs, income, revenue...

Mortgages don't exactly put food on the table. Not for the borrower, anyway. In fact, you don't even get to touch the money -- it's all a paper drill. Used to be that you might get some money from the seller, but that doesn't even happen any more.

If you are reasonably smart (meaning the guy) he can borrow real money against the mortgage.

Thus the waste of tax revenue...

Let's face it, keeping the banks and mortgage lenders in business would do far more good for society than keeping some poor, irresponsible, and stupid person in a house that he can't afford.

Business does provide something positive to society -- jobs, income, revenue...

You do work for a bank don't you?

Thus the waste of tax revenue...

Let's face it, keeping the banks and mortgage lenders in business would do far more good for society than keeping some poor, irresponsible, and stupid person in a house that he can't afford.

Business does provide something positive to society -- jobs, income, revenue...

bad loans

Thus the waste of tax revenue...

Let's face it, keeping the banks and mortgage lenders in business would do far more good for society than keeping some poor, irresponsible, and stupid person in a house that he can't afford.

Hmmmm. Sounds like bad business if they are giving a loan that can't be repaid. Couldn't be predatory now could it?

So what was that you said about playing class warfare?


Business does provide something positive to society -- jobs, income, revenue...

That they do. They also give us pollution, tainted Chinese goods, the Pinto, unemployment opps I mean outsourcing and downsizing, plundering of retirement funds, lobbiests, reward for failure(golden parachutes), etc, etc.

*snips OP*

Myrmidonsia:

I, as self-appointed agent of the underworld, Darn you to Heck for you complete failure to understand what it means to be poor, and you utter failure at being a compassionate human being.

I fine you 30 food stamps.

Myrmidonsia:

I, as self-appointed agent of the underworld, Darn you to Heck for you complete failure to understand what it means to be poor, and you utter failure at being a compassionate human being.

I fine you 30 food stamps.

:rolleyes:

Myrmidonsia:

I, as self-appointed agent of the underworld, Darn you to Heck for you complete failure to understand what it means to be poor, and you utter failure at being a compassionate human being.

I fine you 30 food stamps.
Sometimes the compassionate thing to do isn't to give in. Sometimes it's necessary to teach those in need of compassion a lesson. Being foreclosed on might be that lesson.

And I've never seen a foodstamp...I've always worked for my money.

If you are reasonably smart (meaning the guy) he can borrow real money against the mortgage.
Not if the money goes to one of those 100% financing deals...There are lenders that loan to more than 100% equity, but if a borrower takes one of those...Wait, poor people don't care about that...They just walk away.

2. Quit treating the poor as heros, while punishing the folks that earn money. Maybe Debtor's prison is too extreme, but shipping these "unfortunates" off to places where they can earn money might not be. Maybe this will induce them not to stay poor.

We don't need to bail these folks out as much as we need to encourage them to work. And to earn money.

Let's start right now by making them less dependent on the government.
That nearly made me throw up, talk about taking to someones legs with a chain-saw and then telling them 'Run you bastard!'.

You are quite possibly the living incarnation of cold heartless utilitarianism, thank God we have governments that won't let people die on the street while you drive by in your BMW.

Sometimes the compassionate thing to do isn't to give in. Sometimes it's necessary to teach those in need of compassion a lesson.What about teaching those who employ bad business practices a lesson?

I hate poor people.
Thanks for that.

That nearly made me throw up, talk about taking to someones legs with a chain-saw and then telling them 'Run you bastard!'.

You are quite possibly the living incarnation of cold heartless utilitarianism, thank God we have governments that won't let people die on the street while you drive by in your BMW.
You're wrong about me. I don't own a BMW. Making the decision to buy a BMW would have been a bad one. If these "unfortunate" poor people would make better decisions, maybe they wouldn't be so "unfortunate".

And I do have a heart, just not a bleeding one.

What about teaching those who employ bad business practices a lesson?

There are already laws that regulate lending. If a lender violates a law, he should be punished. But why should the lender be the only party responsible for the borrower's default? Only because we have been played by the poor and their advocates to feel sorry for yet another bad decision that they have made. They should also face the consequences of defaulting on a loan.

You're wrong about me. I don't own a BMW. Making the decision to buy a BMW would have been a bad one. If these "unfortunate" poor people would make better decisions, maybe they wouldn't be so "unfortunate".

And I do have a heart, just not a bleeding one.

Sorry to inform you, but America hasn't been the shining beacon of meritocracy for a very long time now, people are products of their socio-economic bracket, personal responsibility for a social problem is ludicrous in the extreme.

Sorry to inform you, but America hasn't been the shining beacon of meritocracy for a very long time now, people are products of their socio-economic bracket, personal responsibility for a social problem is ludicrous in the extreme.

That may be the dogma you subscribe to, but you are wrong.

And we're not discussing the causes of poverty, only that the poor don't understand money or responsibility. Because of that, they should never be lent money.

Sorry to inform you, but America hasn't been the shining beacon of meritocracy for a very long time now, people are products of their socio-economic bracket, personal responsibility for a social problem is ludicrous in the extreme.

You're always responsible for your actions. There may be mitigating circumstances, but those never remove responsibility for what you do.

If these "unfortunate" poor people would make better decisions, maybe they wouldn't be so "unfortunate".Maybe? So you concede that being poor might be the result of circumstances and not choices?

There are already laws that regulate lending. If a lender violates a law, he should be punished. But why should the lender be the only party responsible for the borrower's default? Only because we have been played by the poor and their advocates to feel sorry for yet another bad decision that they have made. They should also face the consequences of defaulting on a loan.Making a loan involves the possibility of consequences to both the lender and the borrower. If you're going to shield the lender from those consequences (losing money), then you need to shield the borrower as well.

Maybe? So you concede that being poor might be the result of circumstances and not choices?

How silly.

Making a loan involves the possibility of consequences to both the lender and the borrower. If you're going to shield the lender from those consequences (losing money), then you need to shield the borrower as well.
And the contract spells out everyone's responsibilities.

But, if you're going to spend tax revenues on bailing someone out, it makes far more sense, economically, to bail out the lenders.

If you'll go back to the first post, or even reread the thread title, you'll see I don't approve of any of this bailing out.

Back in the 18th century, when you couldn't pay back your loans you wrote a letter of apology and then cleared the family name through suicide.

Not so much en vogue anymore these days, but at least it reinforced the fact that your word's gotta count for something.

But, if you're going to spend tax revenues on bailing someone out, it makes far more sense, economically, to bail out the lenders.Which is what Bush is doing.

If you'll go back to the first post, or even reread the thread title, you'll see I don't approve of any of this bailing out.But you're focusing your anger on the symptom of the bailing out (the poor people getting to keep their houses) instead of the cause of the bailing out (the banks losing money).

And we're not discussing the causes of poverty, only that the poor don't understand money or responsibility. Because of that, they should never be lent money.
Then perhaps you should give up your tax money to pay for economics degrees for them, then they surely would understand how to act as you rich people do.

Forcing people into a situation in which they have to borrow and then telling them it was their choice and this is the consequence is ridiculous and lacks any sense of social responsibility.

Maybe you would prefer to live in a free-for-all society, but I would not.

Which is what Bush is doing.
I don't see that in the article that I linked.


But you're focusing your anger on the symptom of the bailing out (the poor people getting to keep their houses) instead of the cause of the bailing out (the banks losing money).
I think your confused with the S&L fiasco. I want to enforce personal responsibility. If a borrower can't make the payments and can't work with the lender to get some relief -- that is an option, you know -- the borrower should face foreclosure. It's a misuse of tax revenue to prop up a sub-prime borrower with sub-prime ability to make payments.

Sometimes the compassionate thing to do isn't to give in. Sometimes it's necessary to teach those in need of compassion a lesson. Being foreclosed on might be that lesson.

And I've never seen a foodstamp...I've always worked for my money.

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."-- Martin Luther King Jr.

I fined you 30 food stamps for the irony factor.

Why is everyone still indulging Myrmi's asshattery?

Then perhaps you should give up your tax money to pay for economics degrees for them, then they surely would understand how to act as you rich people do.

Forcing people into a situation in which they have to borrow and then telling them it was their choice and this is the consequence is ridiculous and lacks any sense of social responsibility.

Maybe you would prefer to live in a free-for-all society, but I would not.

What planet are you on? Do you even understand what we're discussing when we say "lending" and "borrowing" and "mortgage"?

"Forcing people into a situation..." isn't a phrase I would apply to mortgage lending or borrowing. No one forces anyone to get a home loan.

Why is everyone still indulging Myrmi's asshattery?
Because they can't bear to see one of their hallowed poor attacked.

There are already laws that regulate lending. If a lender violates a law, he should be punished. But why should the lender be the only party responsible for the borrower's default? Only because we have been played by the poor and their advocates to feel sorry for yet another bad decision that they have made. They should also face the consequences of defaulting on a loan.


So... poor people are too stupid to handle money..... but are smart enough to "play" everyone?

Make your damned mind up!

What planet are you on? Do you even understand what we're discussing when we say "lending" and "borrowing" and "mortgage"?

"Forcing people into a situation..." isn't a phrase I would apply to mortgage lending or borrowing. No one forces anyone to get a home loan.
Oh forgive them for wanting a house then, I guess your suggestion would that they recognize their limits and live on the street?

Because they can't bear to see one of their hallowed poor attacked.

Yep. That's it exactly.

Couldn't have anything to do with the stellar relations with those glorious benevolent banks that we've all had to endure for our entire lives...

Oh forgive them for wanting a house then, I guess your suggestion would that they recognize their limits and live on the street?

Familiar with the words "rent" and "apartment"? It goes along with the concept of living within one's means.

But the hallowed poor didn't have to blindly accept the loans. Look at the article I linked in. A guy in Brooklyn, NY, out of work, was qualified for a $325,000 loan. That would set off alarms in any rational thinking person. But he thinks that it's the government's job to help him and all the other stupid people that signed the contract and obligated themselves to repay the loan.

A waste of money. And it's all for the benefit of the banks that lent them the money, in the end. It's their fault (the debtors) for getting themselves into this mess, they ought to be able to get themselves out...

I don't see that in the article that I linked.The article that you linked doesn't refer to people with sub-prime credit. As someone in the article says: "The President's help isn't for people with subprime credit,".
The article also says "Bush ordered the Federal Housing Administration to help insure homeowners with good credit who would otherwise face foreclosure."
Good credit, not sub-prime.

I think your confused with the S&L fiasco. I want to enforce personal responsibility. If a borrower can't make the payments and can't work with the lender to get some relief -- that is an option, you know -- the borrower should face foreclosure. It's a misuse of tax revenue to prop up a sub-prime borrower with sub-prime ability to make payments.Does personal responsibility not also apply to the bankers?

Because they can't bear to see one of their hallowed poor attacked.

I AM poor, you bastard.

I AM poor, you bastard.

At least you're not making excuses for it...How poor can someone be and still have a computer?

"Forcing people into a situation..." isn't a phrase I would apply to mortgage lending or borrowing. No one forces anyone to get a home loan.

Nope.

And no-one has EVER received spam by the thousands from lending institutions promising that we've been pre-approved for a zillion dollars if we'll please, please, please, pretty please just come in and talk to them so that they can tell us why they think we're such a spiffy individual who should borrow money from them before anyone else horns in on their chance to make a buck or two in interest charges and handling fees.

Nahhhh - it's all the poor folks running begging to the banks, and the poor dumb banks just can't figure out which ones would be good risks, and how much to lend them.

Poor, poor banks. They mean so well. But they just keep getting taken advantage of by all those smart poor folks who are too stupid to understand... banks.

The article that you linked doesn't refer to people with sub-prime credit. As someone in the article says: "The President's help isn't for people with subprime credit,".
The article also says "Bush ordered the Federal Housing Administration to help insure homeowners with good credit who would otherwise face foreclosure."
Good credit, not sub-prime.

Does personal responsibility not also apply to the bankers?
The ones with good credit, but a bad situation, should be able to work things out with the lender for some temporary relief. Foreclosures are a last resort and normally are done when all else fails. Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they are forced into it.

Personal responsibility works both ways. Laws already govern what a lender can and cannot do. If they violate the law, they can be prosecuted.

Borrowers can always turn down a loan that looks too good to be true.

Wonderful things called federal student aid.

Oh hell, you're a student... You aren't poor, your just a student.

Just don't become a perpetual student and end up as a post-doc making a pittance just to stay on campus.

At least you're not making excuses for it...How poor can someone be and still have a computer?

Wonderful things called federal student aid.

Nope.

And no-one has EVER received spam by the thousands from lending institutions promising that we've been pre-approved for a zillion dollars if we'll please, please, please, pretty please just come in and talk to them so that they can tell us why they think we're such a spiffy individual who should borrow money from them before anyone else horns in on their chance to make a buck or two in interest charges and handling fees.

Nahhhh - it's all the poor folks running begging to the banks, and the poor dumb banks just can't figure out which ones would be good risks, and how much to lend them.

Poor, poor banks. They mean so well. But they just keep getting taken advantage of by all those smart poor folks who are too stupid to understand... banks.
There's a piece of email I used to get regularly that really flattered me. A guy in Nigeria had chosen me, out of all the people in the USA, he chose me. He chose me to help him get some money out of the country. All I had to do was give him my bank account number and he would take care of the rest.

What a deal, huh?

Do you think I gave him my bank account number?

Do you think I would sign up for an over-hyped loan with terms that I knew I couldn't satisfy?

Why should I expect less than that from others? There's a little thing called common sense and we all possess it. Sometimes we just don't listen.

At least you're not making excuses for it...How poor can someone be and still have a computer?

Wonderful things called federal student aid.Or public libraries.

The ones with good credit, but a bad situation, should be able to work things out with the lender for some temporary relief. Foreclosures are a last resort and normally are done when all else fails. Lenders don't want to foreclose unless they are forced into it.The article doesn't detail why the people with good credit need Bush to help them. Perhaps they don't, and he just wants to give money to banks?

Personal responsibility works both ways. Laws already govern what a lender can and cannot do. If they violate the law, they can be prosecuted.And the law says that if a bank lends out more money than the collateral is worth, they lose the difference. If they do this a bunch of times, they lose a bunch of money.

Borrowers can always turn down a loan that looks too good to be true.Banks can always refuse to lend to people who aren't likely to pay them back. Is that not what sub-prime credit indicates?
But instead, they jack up the interest rates and surcharges, because they know that if (when) the person can't pay the loan off, the bank will be SOL.

Myrmidonisia you seem to be laboring under the misconception that all poor people were once quite well off, and all made stupid decisions and that's why they are poor, ignoring of course that people are born into poverty. Blaming someone when they have such poor opportunity in so many areas is terrible form indeed. You seem to be blaming the victims and not the criminals, those dodgy shark lenders who lure these people into these loans.

[One wonders why you don't think the same of the loan officer who let it through then.
.

That would be underwriting that let the loans through. The loan officers collect the information.


The banks were counting on people defaulting on their loans. It's the same sleazy practice as Rent to Own places and Buy Here Pay Here car lots. You make some payments on something you really can't afford despite them saying that you can, when you fall behind they repo it and sell it again. They've got their merchandise back, your cash, and they sell it again to the next sucker. .

True this does happen but you cannot build a bank of this type of practice. In this regard I doubt if this was on bankers minds.


It's a great scam, and some truely easy money. The problem is too many banks got in on the scam, which inflated the housing market artifically. Once that happened their scam couldn't go on without raising the stakes. They created a housing bubble all by themselves, and now it's come home to roost.
.

This is the creation of Alan Greenspan. Read on and see what I mean in this link.
http://www.newstarget.com/021437.html


Now you can sit there nice and comfortable with your cushy job and deride those who fell for the scam, but don't let the jackasses who perpetrated it off the hook. They fell victim to their own stupidity, their own scam came back to bite them in the ass.


There is plenty of blame to go around. First start at Greenspan and work down from there. If it were up to me there would be no bailout of anyone in this situation.

Oh hell, you're a student... You aren't poor, your just a student.

Just don't become a perpetual student and end up as a post-doc making a pittance just to stay on campus.

That doesn't change the fact that I am here solely because of academic merit and federal student aid. For all my life, poverty hasn't been something that I hear on the evening news, feel bad about, and then forget. It has been an integral part of my life since I was born, and for my parents before that.

Banks can always refuse to lend to people who aren't likely to pay them back. Is that not what sub-prime credit indicates?

But instead, they jack up the interest rates and surcharges, because they know that if (when) the person can't pay the loan off, the bank will be SOL.

Yes, that's the basic idea behind risk, and interest rates serve as compensation for the risk a lender is taking when they issue a loan. The lender decides to take a risk by making subprime loans, and they charge a higher interest rate to cover the risk. Without those higher interest rates and charges, there would be no credit for subprime borrowers. I think that's a lot worse than the risk of default and foreclosure.

Ultimately, however, it's the borrower that decides to apply for the loan. Barring predatory lending or outright deception, the lender is doing nothing wrong by lending to subprime borrowers. They might be doing something foolish if they are taking a lot of risk with nothing to back it up, but there's nothing ethically wrong with subprime lending.

There's a piece of email I used to get regularly that really flattered me. A guy in Nigeria had chosen me, out of all the people in the USA, he chose me. He chose me to help him get some money out of the country. All I had to do was give him my bank account number and he would take care of the rest.

What a deal, huh?

Do you think I gave him my bank account number?

Do you think I would sign up for an over-hyped loan with terms that I knew I couldn't satisfy?

Why should I expect less than that from others? There's a little thing called common sense and we all possess it. Sometimes we just don't listen.

So, you claim that:
a) poor people are too dumb to handle finances
b) poor people are bad credit risks
c) banks (and people in banking such as yourself) know this
d) banks troll for business and market to poor people
e) banks offer loans that obviously will not get repaid


but that the poor people (who you already claim are stupid), are to be doubly blamed for people pandering to that stupidity by not being smart enough to know that they are getting screwed.

They're stupid, we know their stupid, but it's their fault we took advantage of their stupidity that we knew all about in the first place.



Just curious, but do you blame women for getting raped too because they should have been aware that wearing a miniskirt made them too great a temptation for the rapist?

Does personal responsibility not also apply to the bankers?

Of course not. In a corporatist neo-liberal regime, being a banker means you can reap all the rewards, have little risk, and when people attack you, you get to call them goddamn commies who hate freedom and the free market.

Thanks for the sig, BTW.

That doesn't change the fact that I am here solely because of academic merit and federal student aid. For all my life, poverty hasn't been something that I hear on the evening news, feel bad about, and then forget. It has been an integral part of my life since I was born, and for my parents before that.
You still don't understand. You made good choices that took you to the University. You wouldn't have a merit scholarship, otherwise.

If more people made better choices, there would be fewer poor people.

So, you claim that:
a) poor people are too dumb to handle finances
b) poor people are bad credit risks
c) banks (and people in banking such as yourself) know this
d) banks troll for business and market to poor people
e) banks offer loans that obviously will not get repaid


but that the poor people (who you already claim are stupid), are to be doubly blamed for people pandering to that stupidity by not being smart enough to know that they are getting screwed.

They're stupid, we know their stupid, but it's their fault we took advantage of their stupidity that we knew all about in the first place.


Just curious, but do you blame women for getting raped too because they should have been aware that wearing a miniskirt made them too great a temptation for the rapist?
I choose a & b.

You lose for adding a complete non-sequitar regarding the miniskirt.

Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.

And say nothing of people with "good credit" who were still trapped into adjustable rate mortgages because banks thought they might as well have the chance to screw them in the future. The banks are being bailed out here, not really the people. He's also instituting policies to go after predatory lenders who take advantage of people who do not understand the 800 pages of the loan document they sign. They are usually represented by an attorney whose not making a hell of a lot off them so doesn't really care to review the contract thoroughly. They take his advice that it's a good deal and there you go. It's not like everyone understands an amortization chart. Hell, supposedly 1/5 of the Fing US population can't find the damn country on a map. Now you want to explain negative amortization to them? So pardon me if I don't subscribe to the "wah for the multibillion dollar corporation who got their sick caught in the mouse trap they set up" theory.

If more people made better choices, there would be fewer poor people.

QFT

Uh, most poor people are poor because they can't handle money. As I pointed out, that guy isn't actually being helped, the banks are. You can bet his $325,000 house he bought is probably only worth $150,000, means if the government doesn't "help" him, the bank is out $225,000.

Anybody care to venture what 325k gets you in Brooklyn? Can you say 600 sq feet maybe.

Exactly, it's the banks and lending industry playing fucking games and we have people like Myrmidonisia jumping exclusively all over poor people. You know what? Lenders didn't have to fucking give them loans. They were playing a game and they got sent to jail without passing Go.

If banks don't lend to people with bad credit, how do people with bad credit ever repair their credit rating or buy things on credit? There is absolutely no other way for poor people to buy a house, decent car, or anything major without credit.

And here's another fact: not every poor person is defaulting.

Yes, that's the basic idea behind risk, and interest rates serve as compensation for the risk a lender is taking when they issue a loan. The lender decides to take a risk by making subprime loans, and they charge a higher interest rate to cover the risk. Without those higher interest rates and charges, there would be no credit for subprime borrowers. I think that's a lot worse than the risk of default and foreclosure.In this system, I agree that subprime borrowers having credit is better than not.

Ultimately, however, it's the borrower that decides to apply for the loan. Barring predatory lending or outright deception, the lender is doing nothing wrong by lending to subprime borrowers. They might be doing something foolish if they are taking a lot of risk with nothing to back it up, but there's nothing ethically wrong with subprime lending.If defaults are occurring on a grand scale, then doesn't this indicate that lenders are taking a lot of risk with nothing to back it up?

Of course not. In a corporatist neo-liberal regime, being a banker means you can reap all the rewards, have little risk, and when people attack you, you get to call them goddamn commies who hate freedom and the free market."When public funds go to public purposes, that's called a subsidy. It's not called a subsidy when [public funds] go to private wealth, that's reform." - Noam Chomsky

Thanks for the sig, BTW.You're welcome. I enjoy a good analogy.

The obvious solution to this is to tax rich people much more.

If banks don't lend to people with bad credit, how do people with bad credit ever repair their credit rating or buy things on credit? There is absolutely no other way for poor people to buy a house, decent car, or anything major without credit.
I mean, the lending industry knew everything was tenuous and could collapse if the wrong jenga block was pulled out of the tower, and yet they kept playing.

QFT
If less people were self-righteous asses, this shit would happen less because the poor might actually be viewed as human beings.

You still don't understand. You made good choices that took you to the University. You wouldn't have a merit scholarship, otherwise.

If more people made better choices, there would be fewer poor people.

Not to any significant degree. There are a finite number of opportunities in this country. The amount of financial aid and scholarships available are never enough. There were half a dozen people in my graduating class who all deserved this scholarship. They all worked a whole lot harder for it then I did. I didn't expend much effort, but I still came out one top. Tell me, is that just? They all probably deserved that aid more than I did. A couple of them will have an extremely hard time paying for college. One or two might have to put off that aspiration. Still others deserved the chance to go to college, but finances simply wouldn't allow it.

The economics of poverty are not so simple as to be reduced to one of "being smart" or being dedicated. Every year accross America, thousands of people, mostly inner city youth, don't get a chance to go to college simply because the money isn't there. Even though they excelled, they are still trapped in a cycle of poverty. For millions more, the entire educational system failed them from day one. With the pittance of money spent on inner city schools, and the assinine neo-Taylorist theories of education, no wonder millions of children are being left behind.

What it all boils down to is that those who are not fortunate enough to be born in an affluent family or to have greatly above average intelligence have little chance of moving out of their birth class, regardless of how hard they work. These people constitute the "working poor" of this country. However, no one who works as hard as they do should be poor. Ultimately, genetic chance aside, what this creates is a secular sins of father rationale for renunciation and toil. The poor child will be doomed to be poor because his parents were poor.

I choose a & b.

You lose for adding a complete non-sequitar regarding the miniskirt.

Ah there you are again, refusing to even address the analogy that clearly is a salient point. Banks knew what they were doing, they fucked the consumer, and now they're blaming the consumer. Banks made a bet that the housing market would continue to balloon and they lost. Now they're being bailed out and you're blaming the person who, as I stated before, doesn't understand an amortization table, and was probably counseled by a shitty lawyer. So yeah, screw the poor people for not making "better choices." Like having a 75 IQ is going to give you a lot of options in life. Hell, you can always live with your parents until you're 50 right?

I mean, the lending industry knew everything was tenuous and could collapse if the wrong jenga block was pulled out of the tower, and yet they kept playing.

Well, the problem was that they couldn't stop playing; interest rates were driven so stupidly low in the early 2000's and liquidity so high that the real estate bubble took off and any attempt lenders might have had to deflate the situation before it went out of control. Like any bubble, the lenders kept playing the greater fool until eventually the market reached its limit and it burst. The fool, in this case, was the subprime borrower...there was money to be made for as long as rates were low and home prices rising, but once that dried up it was all over.

That's not to say there weren't manipulations of the market or shoddy practices, it's just that so many people were drawn in to the bubble that it fed upon itself and it became impossible for many lenders to get out of it, even if they wanted to. For every giant private equity fund or major financial corporation driving the bubble, there were hundreds of small lenders tied up it that had no real choice in the matter.

I choose a & b.

You lose for adding a complete non-sequitar regarding the miniskirt.

A secondary question regarding your propensity for blaming a victim is hardly a non-sequitur, although in retrospect I confess that in truth you manage an incredible double-standard where you acknowledge the stupidity of some people whilst simultaneously blaming them for not making smart decisions.

Newsflash: expecting stupid people to make smart decisions seems.... stupid.

(disclaimer: not to imply that all poor people are stupid. Uneducated does not equate to stupid. And not every poor person got sucked into the sub-prime market, despite the best attempts by some lending institutions.)

However, in that regard you clearly do not see stupid people offered loans by banks as victims, so I withdraw the followup question.



Nope, it's the poor banks that keep getting taken advantage of by stupid people who are clearly the victims here....

(where are those sarcasm tags when I need them....)

Oh, and I should point out that any attempt to bail out the financial sector - even when being painted as being to "help the poor" - is really done for one reason only: to stabilize the financial markets.

Now, who benefits from a stable market? Poor people? nahhhhhh.

In that respect, the government is using the tax dollars of rich people to protect the investments of the rich, because far more people with money will benefit from a stable Wall Street than any number of poor people helped out by this program.

So stop bitching.

They aren't taking your hard-earned tax dollars to help poor people. They're taking it to help rich people with portfolios. The fact that you also want to complain about it because a few poor people might get some small benefit seems awfully petty of you.

A secondary question regarding your propensity for blaming a victim is hardly a non-sequitur, although in retrospect I confess that in truth you manage an incredible double-standard where you acknowledge the stupidity of some people whilst simultaneously blaming them for not making smart decisions.

Newsflash: expecting stupid people to make smart decisions seems.... stupid.

(disclaimer: not to imply that all poor people are stupid. Uneducated does not equate to stupid. And not every poor person got sucked into the sub-prime market, despite the best attempts by some lending institutions.)

However, in that regard you clearly do not see stupid people offered loans by banks as victims, so I withdraw the followup question.



Nope, it's the poor banks that keep getting taken advantage of by stupid people who are clearly the victims here....

(where are those sarcasm tags when I need them....)

Oh, and I should point out that any attempt to bail out the financial sector - even when being painted as being to "help the poor" - is really done for one reason only: to stabilize the financial markets.

Now, who benefits from a stable market? Poor people? nahhhhhh.

In that respect, the government is using the tax dollars of rich people to protect the investments of the rich, because far more people with money will benefit from a stable Wall Street than any number of poor people helped out by this program.

So stop bitching.

They aren't taking your hard-earned tax dollars to help poor people. They're taking it to help rich people with portfolios. The fact that you also want to complain about it because a few poor people might get some small benefit seems awfully petty of you.
Very wrong. The fund shares that I own in sub-prime loans isn't ever going to be worth what I paid for it. I actually did a favor for the poor that had taken the loans by helping to underwrite them.

My favor was repaid with negligence.

Never again.

Not to any significant degree. There are a finite number of opportunities in this country. The amount of financial aid and scholarships available are never enough. There were half a dozen people in my graduating class who all deserved this scholarship. They all worked a whole lot harder for it then I did. I didn't expend much effort, but I still came out one top. Tell me, is that just? They all probably deserved that aid more than I did. A couple of them will have an extremely hard time paying for college. One or two might have to put off that aspiration. Still others deserved the chance to go to college, but finances simply wouldn't allow it.

The economics of poverty are not so simple as to be reduced to one of "being smart" or being dedicated. Every year accross America, thousands of people, mostly inner city youth, don't get a chance to go to college simply because the money isn't there. Even though they excelled, they are still trapped in a cycle of poverty. For millions more, the entire educational system failed them from day one. With the pittance of money spent on inner city schools, and the assinine neo-Taylorist theories of education, no wonder millions of children are being left behind.

What it all boils down to is that those who are not fortunate enough to be born in an affluent family or to have greatly above average intelligence have little chance of moving out of their birth class, regardless of how hard they work. These people constitute the "working poor" of this country. However, no one who works as hard as they do should be poor. Ultimately, genetic chance aside, what this creates is a secular sins of father rationale for renunciation and toil. The poor child will be doomed to be poor because his parents were poor.
If this doesn't take the cake. You are apologizing for your own success. One day, I suppose you'll realize that others had similar opportunity and squandered it, but for now just be comfortable in your victimized status.

Thus the waste of tax revenue...

Let's face it, keeping the banks and mortgage lenders in business would do far more good for society than keeping some poor, irresponsible, and stupid person in a house that he can't afford.


Not if they keep doing the same stupid shit over and over again. You want to complain about welfare? How's corporate welfare strike you? Paying businesses like these to screw over the economy over and over again while YOUR tax dollars go to propping up their messed up business plans.

You're complaining about the symptoms Myrmi. Not the cause. But go ahead, ignore me, like you'd like to ignore the cause. Because your world would crumble if you didn't.

But, if you're going to spend tax revenues on bailing someone out, it makes far more sense, economically, to bail out the lenders.

So they can make more mistakes, costing even more money to the system, and making taxpayers take even heavier burdens.

I was wrong about you. You don't hate paying taxes. You LOVE paying taxes. Why, you want the system to suck every single cent you have. All to prop up self-destructive business practices so that they can start propping up future debt for you.

But, if you're going to spend tax revenues on bailing someone out, it makes far more sense, economically, to bail out the lenders.

Which is, of course, highly dubious at best...which in turn shows why bailouts are a bad idea in the first place.

Very wrong. The fund shares that I own in sub-prime loans isn't ever going to be worth what I paid for it. I actually did a favor for the poor that had taken the loans by helping to underwrite them.

My favor was repaid with negligence.

Never again.

lmfao!!! And the truth finally comes out! You had your PERSONAL money tied up in the predatory mortgage market and are pissed that it didn't work out for you!

Well, I can certainly understand your anger now.

Although I'm hard-pressed to feel sorry for you.

Newsflash: "doing a favour" for someone implies making a sacrifice for them, you are not doing people favours by trying to make money off of them. Especially by trying to make money off of those with the least of it to give.

If less people were self-righteous asses, this shit would happen less because the poor might actually be viewed as human beings.

They are humans, that make bad decisions. No one is saying they are not human.

Very wrong. The fund shares that I own in sub-prime loans isn't ever going to be worth what I paid for it. I actually did a favor for the poor that had taken the loans by helping to underwrite them.

My favor was repaid with negligence.

Never again.

Translation:

I funded finance firms to screw over a lot of people. They went bust. It's all the poor people's fault! Damn them for being so easy to screw over that the economy went bust!

That would be underwriting that let the loans through. The loan officers collect the information.



True this does happen but you cannot build a bank of this type of practice. In this regard I doubt if this was on bankers minds.



This is the creation of Alan Greenspan. Read on and see what I mean in this link.
http://www.newstarget.com/021437.html




There is plenty of blame to go around. First start at Greenspan and work down from there. If it were up to me there would be no bailout of anyone in this situation.

What gets me is the entire scam is based upon the unfounded belief that poor people have money, if they had money they wouldn't be poor. It's bottom feeding of the worst kind. God knows how many people the banks shook down for money before the cash ran out, now that it's gone they're begging the feds to save them from their own misdeeds.

Oh so this is the reason for Myrmidonisia's diatribe, he lost money in the subprime sector and now he wants a scapegoat, I dare say Myrmidonisia you would have made a better decision if you were richer.

Sometimes the compassionate thing to do isn't to give in. Sometimes it's necessary to teach those in need of compassion a lesson. Being foreclosed on might be that lesson.


People wonder why 'compassionate conservatism' doesn't get taken seriously.

Then they encounter the kind of 'logic' that spawns: 'starving to death will teach you a lesson', and it all becomes clear.


And I've never seen a foodstamp...I've always worked for my money.

Even on NSG, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Then perhaps you should give up your tax money to pay for economics degrees for them, then they surely would understand how to act as you rich people do.


It's funny that those that complain loudest about the common 'lack of education' also seem to be those least willing to invest in mass education.

Very wrong. The fund shares that I own in sub-prime loans isn't ever going to be worth what I paid for it. I actually did a favor for the poor that had taken the loans by helping to underwrite them.

My favor was repaid with negligence.

Never again.

Ah.

I'm done debating here, I think.

This isn't debate, this is you venting because you tried to get rich off people less fortunate than yourself, and ended up short.

I doubt I'll be crying myself to sleep over your terrible misfortune.

An interesting fact that is coming out: Apparently 1/3 of the people facing foreclosures lost them because they werespeculators that lost their bet on real estate.

I'll leave it to Vetalia to explain why investing is important, but I certainly don't expect sympathy for buying into hedge funds. I have money to risk and money that's safe. Assuming the risk of underwriting loans for poor people that can't qualify for conventional financing does do them the favor of having access to those loans. If the borrowers can't figure out that they need to be able to repay the loan, then the products are going to disappear.

And if it had panned out, buying that acre at the lake would have been a lot closer to possible.

So my new investing policy is to never again invest in poor people, where more money is involved. They can't handle finance. I'll stick to to investing in cigarettes and breweries -- if I could only invest in lotteries or illegal drugs, I'd have the hat trick of poverty investing.

It's funny that those that complain loudest about the common 'lack of education' also seem to be those least willing to invest in mass education.

The masses are educated for the most part. It is small group that is not and seems to not care if they are uneducated. It is this group that tends to make one mistake after another.

An interesting fact that is coming out: Apparently 1/3 of the people facing foreclosures lost them because they werespeculators that lost their bet on real estate.

Those particular people should never be bailed out no matter what. It is a risk and they should shoulder that risk.

Hmmmm, I seem to be torn on this issue.


I do believe in social government programs aimed at helping the less fortunate in our society.

And I am currently employed in a career that puts me right in the middle of this sunken subprime issue. I deal with these kind of people on a daily basis, and I'm able to see firsthand their situations, their side of the story, and worst of all, their own fiscal irresponsibility.


So, I can see the argument that these people were not fully aware of all the mortgage facts, such as market values, fluctuating interest rates, hidden fees, etc.

They could claim ignorance, and they would most likely have a good case for doing so.

However, most of them, regardless of their level of education or understanding of subprime loans, are completely, 100% irresponsible when it comes to managing their money. And I really don't believe that I should have to pay for their OWN problems that THEY put themselves in.

This isn't an unfortunate turn of events within the economy, or their own circumstantial situations that turned bad. They didn't have the money to begin with going into these subprime loans, and now they're having to face the consequences of such.

It is sad, there can be no doubt about that. But the difference between this particular situation and say poverty or poor health is that these people knowingly placed themselves in this situation. They knew that with an ARM they were going to have to pay more in interest every year.

But instead of properly managing their money, they threw caution to the wind and never gave it a second thought.

So no, I don't believe that they should necessarily be bailed out of a problem that no one else got them into, not the economy, not bad circumstances, NOTHING, except for their own selves.

Those particular people should never be bailed out no matter what. It is a risk and they should shoulder that risk.

Left leaning people blame the banks for giving out loans, right leaning people blame the people for taking loans. I wonder which one makes more sense :rolleyes:

Left leaning people blame the banks for giving out loans, right leaning people blame the people for taking loans. I wonder which one makes more sense :rolleyes:

How about neither? The blame is equally divided among the overly greedy and the financially irresponsible. The loan companies and the borrowers so to speak.

Let the both of them sink. One might learn fiscal responsibility, and the other might learn not to lend to every Joe schmuck who walks in their door.

How about neither? The blame is equally divided among the overly greedy and the financially irresponsible. The loan companies and the borrowers so to speak.

Let the both of them sink. One might learn fiscal responsibility, and the other might learn not to lend to every Joe schmuck who walks in their door.

That option runs the risk of collapsing the entire economy, both domestically and abroad.

Left leaning people blame the banks for giving out loans, right leaning people blame the people for taking loans. I wonder which one makes more sense :rolleyes:

Uh, neither? Each is responsible for their own decisions and whatever consequences follow from them.

How about neither? The blame is equally divided among the overly greedy and the financially irresponsible. The loan companies and the borrowers so to speak.

Let the both of them sink. One might learn fiscal responsibility, and the other might learn not to lend to every Joe schmuck who walks in their door.

Can't do that, it'd trash the economy. Think about it, this was a brilliant scam while it lasted, and now the banks know the Feds have to bail them out, if they don't the economy is fucked.

It's got a really admirable elegance for such a sleazy venture, and there's nothing short of legislation to prevent them doing it over and over again.

Can't do that, it'd trash the economy. Think about it, this was a brilliant scam while it lasted, and now the banks know the Feds have to bail them out, if they don't the economy is fucked.

A Federal Reserve bailout is a lot different from a government bailout, which is why this problem should be handled solely by the Fed. If the Fed has to do that, it usually comes in and takes control of the company's management until the situation has been resolved. They don't screw around like the rest of the government.

It's funny that those that complain loudest about the common 'lack of education' also seem to be those least willing to invest in mass education.
Where does that accusation come from?

I'm coerced into paying for the present mess, but I would gladly write that property tax check every year if I were paying for a voucher system. Competition improves everything it touches. A little competition can't hurt the government school system.

A Federal Reserve bailout is a lot different from a government bailout, which is why this problem should be handled solely by the Fed. If the Fed has to do that, it usually comes in and takes control of the company's management until the situation has been resolved. They don't screw around like the rest of the government.

Can they make heads roll? A few suddenly empty posts in upper management might be a useful lesson for the rest of the industry.

And maybe some property seizures while they're at it.

Can they make heads roll? A few suddenly empty posts in upper management might be a useful lesson for the rest of the industry.

And maybe some property seizures while they're at it.

Last time the Fed got involved in the business of running S&Ls and disposing of their property, they proved to be very poor managers. The only people that profited (not in the financial sense) were the folks that bought the holdings at firesale prices. So the Fed gives away property like it grows on trees and we're supposed to hope for them to do it again?

No, we could live through a few subprime lenders going tits up. I wouldn't even mind seeing HFC go under. They've been borderline ethical for a long time. But the big guys like Countrywide will weather it out.

No, we could live through a few subprime lenders going tits up. I wouldn't even mind seeing HFC go under. They've been borderline ethical for a long time. But the big guys like Countrywide will weather it out.

So why did you argue for subprime lender bailouts earlier then?

And I've never seen a foodstamp...I've always worked for my money.

Wow. That's probably the most ignorant thing I have seen on the NSG ever.

Well done Myrmi.

So why did you argue for subprime lender bailouts earlier then?

I think you misunderstood. I don't particularly like any bailouts, but if anyone is going to be protected, let's protect the few that can actually contribute something beneficial to the economy. Those aren't the boneheads and speculators that defaulted.

And the main point was that poor people should never be involved with financial dealings.

So my new investing policy is to never again invest in poor people, where more money is involved. They can't handle finance. I'll stick to to investing in cigarettes and breweries -- if I could only invest in lotteries or illegal drugs, I'd have the hat trick of poverty investing.

Well I was proven wrong.

Wow. That's probably the most ignorant thing I have seen on the NSG ever.

Well done Myrmi.
Like I said earlier, I do have a heart, it just isn't a bleeding one.

If you think my lack of sympathy is the same as ignorance, too bad for you, but I'm glad to have made your day.

I think you misunderstood. I don't particularly like any bailouts, but if anyone is going to be protected, let's protect the few that can actually contribute something beneficial to the economy. And as a result of doing so, the people who defaulted on their loans also get protection.

Like I said earlier, I do have a heart, it just isn't a bleeding one.

If you think my lack of sympathy is the same as ignorance, too bad for you, but I'm glad to have made your day.

Actually your statement says you are ignorant on the matter. There is no measure of sympathy or lack there of.

Like I said earlier, I do have a heart, it just isn't a bleeding one.

If you think my lack of sympathy is the same as ignorance, too bad for you, but I'm glad to have made your day.


What I'm really digging is your attitude that all poor people are lazy slobs that drain the system. Lumping all people who have ever collected food stamps, even if temporarily, in with the small percentage of lifetime welfare collectors who have no intention of ever trying to get themselves off of it is inherently fallacious and entirely ignorant. I think that's the point he was trying to make earlier.

Besides, you have obviously never had a taste of poverty in your life, or you might feel differently. Since you have not, then how can you possibly make a statement such as that without giving yourself away as both a hypocrite and a social darwinist? I'll answer that for you: you can't. Therefore your choice to support a system of survival of the richest makes you a horrible human being and not worth any further consideration or reply arguments from me or from anyone else on this thread. Enjoy your cocktail party.

If this doesn't take the cake. You are apologizing for your own success. One day, I suppose you'll realize that others had similar opportunity and squandered it, but for now just be comfortable in your victimized status.

I'm not apologizing for my success, I am questioning the entire system that every year leaves millions without hope. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that is your problem.

Tell me, Myrmidonsia, how can an opportunity be "squandered" if the majority of those who strive for it will be left behind anyway? The way it works is that there are a small number of "prizes" to be won, and large number of people competing for them. Did someone "squander" there opportunity if they were number 11 in a group competing for 10 opportunities? Or 12, or 13, or even 100th in line? No, quite simply they got fucked by the system.

I'm am troubled by the constant badgering of the poor on this forum. I don't believe in this bailout, but not for the reasons that most of you don't.

I'm sure that many of the people who took the sub-prime loans saw them as an opportunity to pull themselves out of the gutter and place themselves firmly in the middle class i.e. owning a home. It wa a big gamble, and one that badly turned against them. Whether or not I believe this was done on purpose is beside the point. The fact remains that they made a ppor choice and stood to gain just as much as they stood to lose. Once again, bailing out the bank is not going to fix them problem.

It's the same situation as privatizing social security. Our society has taken on the responsibility to care for one another (read the Constitution. Understand it this time) If you honestly believe that we don't all have a responsibility to care for one another, then you are more than welcome to move your bigoted ass to a Fascist Aristocracy like Saudi Arabia (Carlyle Group...look it up.) There is a place where the rich have no duty to the poor. That's not the USA. Here we (are supposed to) help each other.

I think you misunderstood. I don't particularly like any bailouts, but if anyone is going to be protected, let's protect the few that can actually contribute something beneficial to the economy. Those aren't the boneheads and speculators that defaulted.

And the main point was that poor people should never be involved with financial dealings.

there is only one kind of "bailout" that i would be even remotely OK with.

if something must be done about this crisis, the sub-prime lenders should be forced to rewite these loans to a fixed rate of whatever was the going rate at the time the loan was signed.

if a family still can't pay the loan, they must default. they made a bad financial mistake. it sucks but the US government isnt in the business of supporting people's bad decisions.

no subprime lender should be kept in business through a government bailout. they knowingly wrote bad loans, they paid people to write bad loans, they suckered people into taking loans that they obviously would not be able to handle when the rates went up. they should not be rewarded for that.

Very wrong. The fund shares that I own in sub-prime loans isn't ever going to be worth what I paid for it. I actually did a favor for the poor that had taken the loans by helping to underwrite them.

My favor was repaid with negligence.

Never again.

And there's the ugly truth. Your greed got the better of you and you're taking it out on the wrong people. How dare you impugn anyone in any kind of financial hardship while trying to make hay on their misery? That kind of thing is low. You might as well have had a few homeless over and paid them to be footstools, and then blamed them for blisters on your feet. Hoping to profit off the poor with the rest of the sub-prime wolves is NOT doing ANYONE a favor, it's making a longshot bet -- AND YOU KNEW WAS A LONGSHOT BET -- otherwise, how would you know so much about the whole debacle?

You can quit your victim talk, too.

Yeah, so? Did you say anything different than any of the other apologists for the stupid and irresponsible borrowers that got themselves into this mess?

Indeed I did. I asked you how is it that the people going to the BANK are supposed to know as much about loans as the BANKERS whose JOB it is to sell loans (at any price, according to the sub-prime debacle)? That's like faulting a patient for a bad diagnosis when the doctor doesn't ask the right questions or run the right tests!

You're acting like you've read Jonathan Swift and all it produced in you was a hard-on.

Last time the Fed got involved in the business of running S&Ls and disposing of their property, they proved to be very poor managers. The only people that profited (not in the financial sense) were the folks that bought the holdings at firesale prices. So the Fed gives away property like it grows on trees and we're supposed to hope for them to do it again?

No, we could live through a few subprime lenders going tits up. I wouldn't even mind seeing HFC go under. They've been borderline ethical for a long time. But the big guys like Countrywide will weather it out.

And let's see...who was in charge of that? Oh yeah. Reagan. Republicans. The ones who are sooooooo good with money. :rolleyes:

And the main point was that poor people should never be involved with financial dealings.

the problem isnt with poor people.

poor people didint make this problem. in a normal banking situation a person who wasnt going to be able to pay the monthly mortgage payment and who didnt have a reasonable downpayment didnt get a loan.

poor people didnt change the rules.

some rich smart guy changed the rules. he did it and his financial friends went along with it. they knew that the chickens would come to roost some day but they banked on not being around when it happened. here are the chickens, whose fault is it that there is no chicken house to put them in?

I dont understand why you're complaining.

After all, all he's doing is what every ignorant democrat you support does when they gain office.

You're acting like you've read Jonathan Swift and all it produced in you was a hard-on.

A Modest Proposal FTW!

I dont understand why you're complaining.

After all, all he's doing is what every ignorant democrat you support does when they gain office.

Let me break down the political orientation of this forum for you.

20%: Right wing libertarian
20%: Conservative
10%: Moderate
15%: Liberal
35%: Socialist/Anarchist

At most, maybe 15% of this forum would support "ignorant democrats" and even then only tenatively.

Let me break down the political orientation of this forum for you.

20%: Right wing libertarian
20%: Conservative
10%: Moderate
15%: Liberal
35%: Socialist/Anarchist

At most, maybe 15% of this forum would support "ignorant democrats" and even then only tenatively.

35% socialist... if you say so.

So if I have checks in my checkbook, I should be able to write and write without regard to what my actual balance is?

No. Contracts work both ways. If you agree to borrow money, you should be smart enough to know that you must pay it back under the terms of the contract. If it sounds too good to be true, i.e. a loan to a borrower without income, it is...


... Can you not begin to grasp... that pretty much every financial institution offering "credit," from the credit card companies to the banks, know for a fact that people-- in general, as a statistical population-- when given money to spend (money that isn't really theirs, or doesn't really 'exist') will often tend to spend it without thinking about consequences? They know this. Especially in the case of those so poor that they're asking for credit because they desperately need it, they know it. And they give it out anyway, because they want you 'on the hook,' and they want you there as long as possible, because it maximises the interest and therefore their profits. They aren't offering credit as some humanitarian gesture of good will, they're doing it because by hook or by crook they figure even the poor can be milked somehow-- in the short- or the long-term-- to get back more than they've been given.

I mean, seriously, do you think that the credit card companies that set on university campuses during frosh week expect to profit off of teenage cardholders' financial responsibility and prudence and wisdom? HELLS no, they're specifically counting on poor impulse management and desperation and irresponsibility to run up that balance so they can squeeze out as much interest as possible, and if some cardholder can't make a payment then they know they can go after someone-- like their parents-- or something-- through repo agencies-- to get their money. That's all they care about, and consciously, deliberately exploiting the weaknesses of human nature is on their heads. Sure, the 'poor' shouldn't be spending money they don't actually have, but they aren't thinking straight about money because they are poor! The rich lenders, on the other hand, absolutely should know better and should not lend that money in the first place, unless they're prepared to take a loss.

... Can you not begin to grasp... that pretty much every financial institution offering "credit," from the credit card companies to the banks, know for a fact that people-- in general, as a statistical population-- when given money to spend (money that isn't really theirs, or doesn't really 'exist') will often tend to spend it without thinking about consequences? They know this. Especially in the case of those so poor that they're asking for credit because they desperately need it, they know it. And they give it out anyway, because they want you 'on the hook,' and they want you there as long as possible, because it maximises the interest and therefore their profits. They aren't offering credit as some humanitarian gesture of good will, they're doing it because by hook or by crook they figure even the poor can be milked somehow-- in the short- or the long-term-- to get back more than they've been given.

I mean, seriously, do you think that the credit card companies that set on university campuses during frosh week expect to profit off of teenage cardholders' financial responsibility and prudence and wisdom? HELLS no, they're specifically counting on poor impulse management and desperation and irresponsibility to run up that balance so they can squeeze out as much interest as possible, and if some cardholder can't make a payment then they know they can go after someone-- like their parents-- or something-- through repo agencies-- to get their money. That's all they care about, and consciously, deliberately exploiting the weaknesses of human nature is on their heads. Sure, the 'poor' shouldn't be spending money they don't actually have, but they aren't thinking straight about money because they are poor! The rich lenders, on the other hand, absolutely should know better and should not lend that money in the first place, unless they're prepared to take a loss.
Umm, in my experience, they demand cosigners -- the parents that are going to pay back the kids debts. If they don't, ... Well, I don't trust kids with credit, either.

Umm, in my experience, they demand cosigners -- the parents that are going to pay back the kids debts. If they don't, ... Well, I don't trust kids with credit, either.

They used to or there is a limit you can sign up. I have heard the same complaints from coworkers with kids heading off to college. One woman said her son ran up a debt with a card. She wondered how he got it since he didn't have a job.....

Let me break down the political orientation of this forum for you.

20%: Right wing libertarian
20%: Conservative
10%: Moderate
15%: Liberal
35%: Socialist/Anarchist

At most, maybe 15% of this forum would support "ignorant democrats" and even then only tenatively.

10%. The Democrats wouldn't qualify as liberal if you carved it on their skulls.

Christ you get the impression he'd be screwing her corpse if he could get away with it.

Who says he hasn't?

They used to or there is a limit you can sign up. I have heard the same complaints from coworkers with kids heading off to college. One woman said her son ran up a debt with a card. She wondered how he got it since he didn't have a job.....

You don't need a cosigner as a college student, as an 18 year old working 60 hours a week you do.

Why? Because in one instance they assume mommy and daddy will bail you out, in the other they assume you're poor AND unlikely to pay off.

You don't need a cosigner as a college student, as an 18 year old working 60 hours a week you do.

Why? Because in one instance they assume mommy and daddy will bail you out, in the other they assume you're poor AND unlikely to pay off.
Once you turn 18, credit card companies don't care. I got a credit card offer in the mail at least 3 times a week for a couple years, all from the same two companies. They hand out credit cards in America like fucking candy.

An interesting fact that is coming out: Apparently 1/3 of the people facing foreclosures lost them because they werespeculators that lost their bet on real estate.
oh, why colour me totally unsurprised: Rich ppl tried to get richer by speculating and driving up housing prices (beyond the level that the ordinary person can now afford) and when they over-extended themselves, coupled with a housing price drop, they start complaining and demanding govt bail-outs.
But - of course - it's all the poor people's fault.

Where does that accusation come from?

I'm coerced into paying for the present mess, but I would gladly write that property tax check every year if I were paying for a voucher system. Competition improves everything it touches. A little competition can't hurt the government school system.

That's funny. You don't even see it as you say it.

I say: "those least willing..." and you question it by admitting: "I'm coerced into..."

If you honestly believe 'competition improves everything it touches', you've obviously never sat down and really thought about it. What competition does - is stratify. It creates levels... an optimum level where the best value is attained, and extremes where little or no value are attained.

In terms of education, product-based-competition creates a tier of education that is of the best quality, but questionable value. It is also completely outside of the reach of most people.

Then there is a level where an optimum value AND quality is attained. Usually, this is outside the reach of the majority, also.

Then there is a level that gives a very good value, although the quality is somewhat more egalitarian. This is the base level from which a state school system operates. This is the majority education system. It is worth noting that it is the competetive market ITSELF that makes this 'egalitarian'... since the real high-quality product has already been poached by the top quartile providers.


The unfortunate thing about an entirely competitive education market, is the creation of a fourth tier in the heirarchy. A level at which people have little or no education.. maybe LITERALLY no education.

Pure competition creates a heirarchy of haves and have-nots.. where those who already 'have' are always going to be the winners.

Like I said earlier, I do have a heart, it just isn't a bleeding one.

If you think my lack of sympathy is the same as ignorance, too bad for you, but I'm glad to have made your day.

No - the ignorance is in the ridiculous statement that there is a conflict between 'working'... and having ever seen (by which, it can be assumed, you also suggest needing) some form of assistance.

I've known families working two jobs that STILL needed foodstamp assistance, because they live in the arse-end of the country and are working minimum wage.

No - the ignorance is in the ridiculous statement that there is a conflict between 'working'... and having ever seen (by which, it can be assumed, you also suggest needing) some form of assistance.

I've known families working two jobs that STILL needed foodstamp assistance, because they live in the arse-end of the country and are working minimum wage.

If you need assistance and legally qualify for it, there is nothing wrong with receiving assistance, anyone who would say otherwise is ignorant and cruel.

oh, why colour me totally unsurprised: Rich ppl tried to get richer by speculating and driving up housing prices (beyond the level that the ordinary person can now afford) and when they over-extended themselves, coupled with a housing price drop, they start complaining and demanding govt bail-outs.
But - of course - it's all the poor people's fault.

This is one of the more frustrating things about listening to any report on the economy recently. THE HOUSING CRASH! BOO!

Excuse me, but where's this sudden devaluation happening? Sure as hell not in Seattle, or Bismarck or anyplace else I've been in the last couple of years.

And why is it automatically bad? I mean, besides it being bad for the vultures who were flipping houses like some weird real-life game like Railroad Tycoon or Monopoly something. Seems to me that a return to housing prices that some people in the middle class or (perish the thought for the investor class) the poor might actually be able to afford without having to live in a ramshackle shithole IS A GOOD THING.

I ask and ask again in these economic threads the same question: how is it possible, in a world with finite resources, for ANY economy to continue to grow -- and in fact, DEPEND on continuing to grow as policy -- in perpetuity? Everything just keeps getting more and more expensive, and the value of currency (while surely not inflating, God knows that's all the Fed can think about) buys less and less.

And before any of you smug econ jackasses informs me that I haven't had any classes in Economics, I'll confirm that before you post. I haven't. I'm just asking a simple question based on observation. And yet, I've never heard an answer that makes any damn sense.

So I say LET the price of housing continue to fall. Perhaps some status-seeking twats will realize that a house that already exists is just fine, and not everyone needs to have a new place built for them, thus worsening sprawl and all that crap.

Apologies for the rant. This topic gets on my nerves sometimes.

If you need assistance and legally qualify for it, there is nothing wrong with receiving assistance, anyone who would say otherwise is ignorant and cruel.

I agree.

If you need assistance and legally qualify for it, there is nothing wrong with receiving assistance, anyone who would say otherwise is ignorant and cruel.
Agreed, but with the condition that charity is best provided by private concerns, not by the government.

The present situation where the government has the first lien on anything I produce is intolerable.

Agreed, but with the condition that charity is best provided by private concerns, not by the government.

The present situation where the government has the first lien on anything I produce is intolerable.

One assumes you choose to stay in this country... with all it's benefits and boundaries? I've seen the argument made before "If you don't like it, you can always leave". I wouldn't go that far, but it seems odd to me that people will take advantage of all that is good in a nation, whilst simultaneously pissing and moaning about asking to contribute to the society in which they live.

One assumes you choose to stay in this country... with all it's benefits and boundaries? I've seen the argument made before "If you don't like it, you can always leave". I wouldn't go that far, but it seems odd to me that people will take advantage of all that is good in a nation, whilst simultaneously pissing and moaning about asking to contribute to the society in which they live.*gives GnI big kiss with lots of tongue*

I think I remember you being a straight guy.Otherwise,just have a cookie.

next he be wasting it on going after zombies like in the youtube video i saw

Agreed, but with the condition that charity is best provided by private concerns, not by the government.

The present situation where the government has the first lien on anything I produce is intolerable.

no.

people should not be reduced to begging to survive.

one of the benefits of living in a rich country is that we can make sure that no one has to starve to death because he got hungry outside the holiday season.

no.

people should not be reduced to begging to survive.

one of the benefits of living in a rich country is that we can make sure that no one has to starve to death because he got hungry outside the holiday season.
Private charity is far from begging. I don't think the March of Dimes or the American Red Cross, nor any of the other United Fund charities can be accused of making their recipients beg.

*gives GnI big kiss with lots of tongue*

I think I remember you being a straight guy.Otherwise,just have a cookie.

I think I remember me being a straight guy, also. I'll be willing to go halves on that cookie, though. :) (Oh, and thanks, obviously....)

Private charity is far from begging. I don't think the March of Dimes or the American Red Cross, nor any of the other United Fund charities can be accused of making their recipients beg.

good for you.

I think I remember me being a straight guy, also. I'll be willing to go halves on that cookie, though. :) (Oh, and thanks, obviously....)

There is so much I could make fun of here, but I won't. *sigh* Having a conscience is a real bitch some times.

There is so much I could make fun of here, but I won't. *sigh* Having a conscience is a real bitch some times.

You said you wouldn't tell! You said I was special!

That's not the only thing I lied about! :p

Yeah, I know. I thought for a minute you'd confused Imperial with Metric. And I want my cookie back, dammit.

You said you wouldn't tell! You said I was special!

That's not the only thing I lied about! :p

Yeah, I know. I thought for a minute you'd confused Imperial with Metric. And I want my cookie back, dammit.

Ouch. Burned. :D