I agree with you that we as a global society have lost the run of ourselves when it comes to buying things on credit and borrowing above and beyond our means but laying no blame whatsoever at the doors of the irresponsible lenders is like saying someone who sells heroin is not doing anything wrong.lowing wrote:
The key to your post is....."I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game", now you just charge it, fuck actually affording it. So now you see who is really responsibible for all the bad debt. The ones who buried themselves in it.Braddock wrote:
I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game...lowing wrote:
I have already shown in the other thread Americans mentality with poverty and "tough times". It includes not being able to afford your food gas or home, but computer shit is flying off the shelves, on credit mostly.
...and they came on cassette tapes and took about half an hour to load and if you accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard during the loading process you would usually have to load it again! Bring back the good old days!
Sorry, the banks got money because people took out loans and paid it back with interest. Until the mid 90's. Now pwoplw are so irresponsible they figure than take out loans and not pay it back, this is called fraud and theft. This problem is not my problem, it is between the borrower and the lender. If they both go down then so be it. I do not want or need the govt. in my life or my money. In short I am not for the bailout.JahManRed wrote:
It might be un-American to you, but deregulation and government not watching over your money is why more of your money is being handed to bankers. You seamed to be more concerned about Wilma and her two kids living on welfare of a few thousand a year than you are about banks/bankers effectively living on well fare of billions.lowing wrote:
Braddock, everything you just posted is exactly what I am against, regulation, big govt. watching over me and my money. If you want it, you can have it, it is however, un-American.
Your government is handing your money out to banks at the minute because loose regulation let them run rampant. And you defend this and call a different approach to a failed approach Un-American. Its time for change Lowing, you have to adapt to problems to overcome them. That is very "American".
I can see how you have issues with the Big Government looking over you thing. But in times of depression, they have to. Its either them or Bankers and CEO's more concerned with profit than the good of the economy.
As far as your "change" statement. I have no problem with change. You seem to think changing from the frying pan into the fire is change, I do not. If you want "change" how about supporting "change" that actually holds people responsible for their actions, money, debts, behavior, criminals for their crimes, parents for their children etc.....
There was also a time when, if you fucked up bad enough on your responsibilities, you just declared bankruptcy and lived without credit for 7 years. Somebody, not naming any names, did away with that system. The credit card companies boned their own dobermans on this one.lowing wrote:
The key to your post is....."I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game", now you just charge it, fuck actually affording it. So now you see who is really responsibible for all the bad debt. The ones who buried themselves in it.Braddock wrote:
I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game...lowing wrote:
I have already shown in the other thread Americans mentality with poverty and "tough times". It includes not being able to afford your food gas or home, but computer shit is flying off the shelves, on credit mostly.
...and they came on cassette tapes and took about half an hour to load and if you accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard during the loading process you would usually have to load it again! Bring back the good old days!
It used to be that you could pay off your student loans working the actual job you went to school for, but now if you can't pay, they take away your license so you need to work minimum wage shit job despite being a trained whatever to pay back your loan.
Take a look at all the jacked up laws they changed, added, and took away in the last few years to do with credit. Basically, you need to start your life in a heap of debt and they make sure you stay that way. It has nothing to do with "living within your means" in most cases.
The more rabid ones certainly will, but they were unhinged years ago
I'm actually hoping that Obama will win a landslide victory to send a message to the Republicans, so they can rearrange into a party I can support.
I'm actually hoping that Obama will win a landslide victory to send a message to the Republicans, so they can rearrange into a party I can support.
Well I used this analogy before :Braddock wrote:
I agree with you that we as a global society have lost the run of ourselves when it comes to buying things on credit and borrowing above and beyond our means but laying no blame whatsoever at the doors of the irresponsible lenders is like saying someone who sells heroin is not doing anything wrong.lowing wrote:
The key to your post is....."I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game", now you just charge it, fuck actually affording it. So now you see who is really responsibible for all the bad debt. The ones who buried themselves in it.Braddock wrote:
I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game...
...and they came on cassette tapes and took about half an hour to load and if you accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard during the loading process you would usually have to load it again! Bring back the good old days!
If I borrowed your lawnmower and broke it, I guess I could blame you since I would not have broken it, if you had not let me borrow it.
Another typical example where you choose to blame anyone and everyone for your problems, except you.
see above, if you can not afford the debt, then do not take it onGorillaTicTacs wrote:
There was also a time when, if you fucked up bad enough on your responsibilities, you just declared bankruptcy and lived without credit for 7 years. Somebody, not naming any names, did away with that system. The credit card companies boned their own dobermans on this one.lowing wrote:
The key to your post is....."I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game", now you just charge it, fuck actually affording it. So now you see who is really responsibible for all the bad debt. The ones who buried themselves in it.Braddock wrote:
I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game...
...and they came on cassette tapes and took about half an hour to load and if you accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard during the loading process you would usually have to load it again! Bring back the good old days!
It used to be that you could pay off your student loans working the actual job you went to school for, but now if you can't pay, they take away your license so you need to work minimum wage shit job despite being a trained whatever to pay back your loan.
Take a look at all the jacked up laws they changed, added, and took away in the last few years to do with credit. Basically, you need to start your life in a heap of debt and they make sure you stay that way. It has nothing to do with "living within your means" in most cases.
The problem with that logic is this:lowing wrote:
see above, if you can not afford the debt, then do not take it onGorillaTicTacs wrote:
There was also a time when, if you fucked up bad enough on your responsibilities, you just declared bankruptcy and lived without credit for 7 years. Somebody, not naming any names, did away with that system. The credit card companies boned their own dobermans on this one.lowing wrote:
The key to your post is....."I remember a time when you had to save up all your pocket money to buy a video game", now you just charge it, fuck actually affording it. So now you see who is really responsibible for all the bad debt. The ones who buried themselves in it.
It used to be that you could pay off your student loans working the actual job you went to school for, but now if you can't pay, they take away your license so you need to work minimum wage shit job despite being a trained whatever to pay back your loan.
Take a look at all the jacked up laws they changed, added, and took away in the last few years to do with credit. Basically, you need to start your life in a heap of debt and they make sure you stay that way. It has nothing to do with "living within your means" in most cases.
People often take out loans with the intent of using the equity in their houses to repay it. usually, this works out well, and once the house is sold, the loan is repaid in full. The problem that currently exists is due to a rapid deflation of home values, many people's homes are now worth less than what they owe on the building, due largely to housing speculators and "flippers" running wild for the past decade or so, greatly inflating the values in the housing market. The homeowners themselves are not always at fault.
I see so what you are telling me is this:S.Lythberg wrote:
The problem with that logic is this:lowing wrote:
see above, if you can not afford the debt, then do not take it onGorillaTicTacs wrote:
There was also a time when, if you fucked up bad enough on your responsibilities, you just declared bankruptcy and lived without credit for 7 years. Somebody, not naming any names, did away with that system. The credit card companies boned their own dobermans on this one.
It used to be that you could pay off your student loans working the actual job you went to school for, but now if you can't pay, they take away your license so you need to work minimum wage shit job despite being a trained whatever to pay back your loan.
Take a look at all the jacked up laws they changed, added, and took away in the last few years to do with credit. Basically, you need to start your life in a heap of debt and they make sure you stay that way. It has nothing to do with "living within your means" in most cases.
People often take out loans with the intent of using the equity in their houses to repay it. usually, this works out well, and once the house is sold, the loan is repaid in full. The problem that currently exists is due to a rapid deflation of home values, many people's homes are now worth less than what they owe on the building, due largely to housing speculators and "flippers" running wild for the past decade or so, greatly inflating the values in the housing market. The homeowners themselves are not always at fault.
People can gamble their homes all they want as long as they win and the money and equity is theirs to keep, but if they loose, it all of a sudden "is not fair", Bush's fault, society's fault, big businesses fault etc.....When people make money from the banks it is good but when people have to pay the banks, it is foul and the evil rich and Bush need to die.
Generally speaking the only time a person actually buys a house is when they pay CASH for it. Else the bank is the one buying the house - and you can only obtain clean-title to the banks property when the mortgage contract is satisified. You can sell it to another to satisfy the contract; or you can pay it off - either way it IS NOT YOURS until the contract is satisified. If you owe 80% and have 20% equity and fail to pay it's the banks property. If you owe one-dollar and don't pay that off - it's the banks property. If you owe $500,000 and it's really worth $300,000 and you default; it's the banks property. The bank has to know the risk; be an expert in risk management; understand market price-points; because ultimately - they are the entity with first-rights in the ownership chain. They ulimately are (or can be; end up being) the owner in every non-cash deal.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-13 16:20:01)
I'm not sure about the legal aspects of this matter in the US, but generally the mortgage is seen as a security, not a title of ownership. The person who buys the house is the legal owner, and if he needs a loan a separate contract with the bank is drafted just before the actual purchase of the house.topal63 wrote:
Generally speaking the only time a person actually buys a house is when they pay CASH for it. Else the bank is the one buying the house - and you can only obtain clean-title to the banks property when the mortgage contract is satisified. You can sell it to another to satisfy the contract; or you can pay it off - either way it IS NOT YOURS until the contract is satisified. If you 80% and have 20% equity and fail to pay it's the banks property. If you owe one-dollar and don't pay that off - it's the banks property. If you owe $500,000 and it's really worth $300,000 and you default; it's the banks property. The bank has to know the risk; be an expert in risk management; because ultimately - they are the entity with first-rights in the ownership chain. They ulimately are the owner in every non-cash deal.
Beause of the mortgage the (legal) owner can not sell the house to a third party.
If you don't pay the monthly fees to the bank, the bank can legally claim the house according to the mortgage in order to sell it, but they never become 'owner'. At least that he way it is according our civil law system.
Those are conditions of the contract. The bank can't sell it - while you satisfy the conditions of the contract. If you don't it is not yours. It's simple.Pierre wrote:
I'm not sure about the legal aspects of this matter in the US, but generally the mortgage is seen as a security, not a title of ownership. (That's just vague isn't it - and vagueness is why there are lawyers and contracts)topal63 wrote:
Generally speaking the only time a person actually buys a house is when they pay CASH for it. Else the bank is the one buying the house - and you can only obtain clean-title to the banks property when the mortgage contract is satisfied. You can sell it to another to satisfy the contract; or you can pay it off - either way it IS NOT YOURS until the contract is satisfied. If you owe 80% and have 20% equity and fail to pay it's the banks property. If you owe one-dollar and don't pay that off - it's the banks property. If you owe $500,000 and it's really worth $300,000 and you default; it's the banks property. The bank has to know the risk; be an expert in risk management; understand market price-points; because ultimately - they are the entity with first-rights in the ownership chain. They ultimately are (or can be; end up being) the owner in every non-cash deal.
The person who buys the house is the legal owner, and if he needs a loan a separate contract with the bank is drafted just before the actual purchase of the house. (Depending on the state-Law (here in the USA); some banks are only allowed to sell a foreclosure; they cannot hold title and then rent the property. It can be on the market at a ridiculous price for a long-long time, but they can't rent it out, in some states).
Because of the mortgage the (legal) owner can not sell the house to a third party. (<-- That's a condition of the contract; or contract condition by law).
If you don't pay the monthly fees to the bank, the bank can legally claim the house according to the mortgage in order to sell it, but they never become 'owner'. (Oh, yes they are the owner; that's just a legalese word; they become sole owner (have sole legal claim) based upon the contract. But I assume certain laws apply on how they must sell - if they can rent?)
At least that he way it is according our civil law system.
(More off topic) If you buy an equity stock and creditors (lenders) are involved it's a similar situation. The creditor has first rights. They get paid first. If there is anything left over (often; usually; not) then the per-share equity owners get something; if anything.
Legally you are called "owner" on the contract (mortgage; security), but in reality the bank is the owner (in the default; first-rights; chain; condition). Your title is held in escrow, in a sense, until you satisfy the contract (mortgage; security; whatever you call it). And, you selling it to someone else; the bank getting the principal satisfied; is a condition that satisfies the contract. Another party assuming the debt can continue to satisfy the conditions if defined in the contract. Defaulting on a loan also satisfies a contractual condition - then it's the banks property (the title is now wholly owned, possibly with specific state-to-state legal conditions, by the bank).
PS: If you want to take out all the tile, copper, a/c units, major appliances - anything nailed down or not nailed down. Or run the property down... let it fall into a state of utter disrepair you can. There is nothing prohibiting you from doing so in the contract. But if you then default; that stripped down; or run-down - piece of real estate is the banks.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-13 16:23:49)
see that's what caused the problem people were given money on equity they didn't own in the first place to buy further property, to more or less rent, hence driving up the price of property and increasing the value of the equity, hence the bubble & the burst - i'm glad your starting to understand the problem Lowing, but those are greedy cunts not decent people busting their balls to pay off sub-prime mortgages Lowing on what is now negative equity..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-10-13 14:09:42)
The beauty of the mortgage contract though is something much more elegant though.IG-Calibre wrote:
see that's what caused the problem people were given money on equity they didn't own in the first place to buy further property, to more or less rent, hence driving up the price of property and increasing the value of the equity, hence the bubble & the burst - i'm glad your starting to understand the problem Lowing, but those are greedy cunts not decent people busting their balls to pay off sub-prime mortgages Lowing on what is now negative equity..
The money never existed until the contract was exercised. It was created out of thin-air based upon fractional reserve requirements. There is no way to expand the money supply through debt expansion if a portion of the reserve is used. It comes into existence (poof) on top of the reserve; a ledger entry simply indicates how much to subtract-from; the 90%(of the reserve) that is itself a ledger-entry on top of the reserve.
_____________
Example:
$1,000,000,000.00 (one billion in reserves, could be a combination of: customer deposits, bank capital from profits, or Federal Reserve transaction deposits). 10% reserve rate = 90% from a billion = 900 million added on top of billion = 1.9 billion dollars. Of which the bank will loan from the 900 million on top.
$1,000,000,000.00 (reserves - untouched)
$900,000,000.00 (ledger entry added to banks funds increasing the total funds to $1.9 billion)
-$500,000.00 (loan subtracted & added to another banks reserves! They can loan out 90% of this on top of their reserves.)
$899,500,000.00 (left to loan from ledger entry created money)
When it gets deposited in another bank you now have money that can be re-loaned (at a 90% rate; as another ledger entry in the other bank); thus expanding the money supply through debt expansion by ledger entry (fractional reserve requirements). If the originating bank wants they can sell the debt (security); make a fee; and let Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac assume the risk (when they purchased it). This puts/adds the ledger entry value back to the bank so they can loan again. Most of the sub-prime loans originated in private banks (not subject to CRA, 80-90% were not CRA regulated loans, because only commercial banks and thrifts are subject to CRA). Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were often buyers of risky securities - not originators. Doesn't it make you think? That the private banks used the quasi-governmental status (under the auspices of the Fed. as the top-dog overseer) of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac - as a dumping ground to get rid of as much risk as possible before the shit hit the fan.
Don't you wish you could conjure money-up out of thin-air!? Oops if you did you probably end up in prison. Even a loan shark on the streets has to actually put-up and out his own real cash reserves when making a loan. But not a bank.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-14 13:33:36)
Exactly! Let the country see how fucked up a Democrat administration will/can be!! The Democrats will have everything they need to fuck things even more than they already are!Kmarion wrote:
No they will come completely unhinged if another candidate gets elected under the false proclamation of the conservative mindset. I'd rather not be betrayed again. Let the libs get hammered for the next four years. Pelosi has paved the way.
They have majorities in both houses of congress, lets just see how liberalism runs unchecked and unfettered. . . .
Granted I think Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point, but that isnt sayin much. . . .
Meh. They'll just blame the previous administration and forget how they wouldn't let anyone blame Clinton for the problems Bush inherited. While they spend so much with their own rubberstamp Congress that it makes Bush look like Scrooge.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly! Let the country see how fucked up a Democrat administration will/can be!! The Democrats will have everything they need to fuck things even more than they already are!Kmarion wrote:
No they will come completely unhinged if another candidate gets elected under the false proclamation of the conservative mindset. I'd rather not be betrayed again. Let the libs get hammered for the next four years. Pelosi has paved the way.
They have majorities in both houses of congress, lets just see how liberalism runs unchecked and unfettered. . . .
Granted I think Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point, but that isnt sayin much. . . .
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Betrayed I think is the wrong word. It is naive to think these people would have your interests in mind when people are throwing millions of dollars at them to act the way they do. I think it is insane to think that any minute a 'real conservative' or 'real liberal' will come along and rescue our country.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me...you can't fool me again.
It is up to us - the people, to decide our fate, not some chump sitting in his city on a hill making Americans look bad.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me...you can't fool me again.
It is up to us - the people, to decide our fate, not some chump sitting in his city on a hill making Americans look bad.
What I think needs to happen isn't even on the discussion table in any political party. Which means there is no way any candidate can ever represent anything I would actually support. Since I think the problem is general prosperity, liberty and socially minded monetary policy - and nothing else actually concerns me (well except prudent-fair foreign policy and IMO more appropriate National Security policies - and thus a better image in the eyes of the world). Therefor I am, for the most part, not represented in politics (on things that concern me the most; systemic flaws that have permeating broad repercussions).KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Betrayed I think is the wrong word. It is naive to think these people would have your interests in mind when people are throwing millions of dollars at them to act the way they do. I think it is insane to think that any minute a 'real conservative' or 'real liberal' will come along and rescue our country.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me...you can't fool me again.
It is up to us - the people, to decide our fate, not some chump sitting in his city on a hill making Americans look bad.
I am a constitutional liberal monetary socialist. What the hell is that!!!
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-13 19:43:49)
Will liberals come unhinged completely with McCain win? Yes.
Judging by this I'd say there is a fair amount of conservatives that aren't exactly pulling for McCain.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Never ends up working out quite as you'd 'hope.' Clinton didn't rearrange the Republicans into something I can support and Bush didn't do the same thing for the Dems.S.Lythberg wrote:
The more rabid ones certainly will, but they were unhinged years ago
I'm actually hoping that Obama will win a landslide victory to send a message to the Republicans, so they can rearrange into a party I can support.
Instead, I vote based on personal qualities and (if applicable) 'position' history rather than party affiliation.
lol@telling me I used the wrong word to describe how I feel. There are different levels of betrayal. He could have a least made an attempt to appear be a "compassionate conservative". Bush didn't even bother to give us a reach around before pumping us full of his BS.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Betrayed I think is the wrong word. It is naive to think these people would have your interests in mind when people are throwing millions of dollars at them to act the way they do. I think it is insane to think that any minute a 'real conservative' or 'real liberal' will come along and rescue our country.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me...you can't fool me again.
It is up to us - the people, to decide our fate, not some chump sitting in his city on a hill making Americans look bad.
I guess I'm just naive .. or maybe just insane. Either way I'm sure you will let me know. I'm lost without you, sugar.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You and Steve sound like a bunch of bitter old women in this thread!FEOS wrote:
Meh. They'll just blame the previous administration and forget how they wouldn't let anyone blame Clinton for the problems Bush inherited. While they spend so much with their own rubberstamp Congress that it makes Bush look like Scrooge.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly! Let the country see how fucked up a Democrat administration will/can be!! The Democrats will have everything they need to fuck things even more than they already are!Kmarion wrote:
No they will come completely unhinged if another candidate gets elected under the false proclamation of the conservative mindset. I'd rather not be betrayed again. Let the libs get hammered for the next four years. Pelosi has paved the way.
They have majorities in both houses of congress, lets just see how liberalism runs unchecked and unfettered. . . .
Granted I think Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point, but that isnt sayin much. . . .
The Republicans had 8 straight years (minus some lame duck months) to fuck everything up royally, now it's the Democrats turn to fuck everything up... it's only fair.
I'd rather nobody fucked anything up, tbh.Braddock wrote:
You and Steve sound like a bunch of bitter old women in this thread!FEOS wrote:
Meh. They'll just blame the previous administration and forget how they wouldn't let anyone blame Clinton for the problems Bush inherited. While they spend so much with their own rubberstamp Congress that it makes Bush look like Scrooge.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly! Let the country see how fucked up a Democrat administration will/can be!! The Democrats will have everything they need to fuck things even more than they already are!
They have majorities in both houses of congress, lets just see how liberalism runs unchecked and unfettered. . . .
Granted I think Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point, but that isnt sayin much. . . .
The Republicans had 8 straight years (minus some lame duck months) to fuck everything up royally, now it's the Democrats turn to fuck everything up... it's only fair.
You call it bitter...I call it realistic.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-15 03:33:53)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Move to Imaginationland then!FEOS wrote:
I'd rather nobody fucked anything up, tbh.Braddock wrote:
You and Steve sound like a bunch of bitter old women in this thread!FEOS wrote:
Meh. They'll just blame the previous administration and forget how they wouldn't let anyone blame Clinton for the problems Bush inherited. While they spend so much with their own rubberstamp Congress that it makes Bush look like Scrooge.
The Republicans had 8 straight years (minus some lame duck months) to fuck everything up royally, now it's the Democrats turn to fuck everything up... it's only fair.
For an outsider, put simply it looks like this.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly! Let the country see how fucked up a Democrat administration will/can be!! The Democrats will have everything they need to fuck things even more than they already are!Kmarion wrote:
No they will come completely unhinged if another candidate gets elected under the false proclamation of the conservative mindset. I'd rather not be betrayed again. Let the libs get hammered for the next four years. Pelosi has paved the way.
Clinton/Democratic Years. Nation debt and defecate lowers. Economy is good. Diplomacy triumphs over war mongering (except bombing for blowjobs.) with Clinton helping to broker several peace deals. N.Ireland for one.
Bush/Republican Years. National debt spirals out of control, banks run rampant, Economy is fucked. 2 extremely expensive and futile wars over lies which cause ordinary American to die and rich CEO's to profit. Hallieburton etc.
Now how can you say looking at the above that the Democrats can fuck things up even more? They are saying this recession will be the worst for generations. Somehow its always Clinton's fault.
You seam to accept that the republicans have made a total mess and the Democrats are going to inherit it "Let the libs get hammered for the next four years." Yet your right wing mind set can not see or support the Democrats efforts to push change and do something about the current status quo. Partisan politics are really making a mess of the USA splitting the country along traditional family/state support as apposed to the party which is obviously more competent getting the vote.
Common sense should dictate that if one Party makes a total fucking mess for 8 years then the Party that guided the country through its last prosperous time is the one you should be supporting.