The poison barb has entered the system

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
WASHINGTON – A plan to give debt-strapped homeowners a chance to lower their mortgage payments through bankruptcy courts won House approval Thursday as a report revealed that foreclosures and past-due home loans hit a record 5.4 million last year.The House passed the bill 234-191 mostly along party lines, and the Senate could consider it within weeks.

The legislation would give bankruptcy judges — who now can modify loans for such items as cars and student loans but not for primary residences — new power to reduce the interest rate and principle on a home mortgage.
Click to expand...

Can you say price control?

Source

I hope you get what you voted for. Don't say you weren't warned.
 
judges will have the power to help some renegotiate their loans.

and that's price control, how? that will impact the market value of property how?

oh noes, here comes ACORN again!!!
 
some things make me want to embraced the amish lifestyle a little more all the time.:alienhuh:
 
debt-strapped homeowners


Somehow they always neglect to mention that they took on that debt load voluntarily. Noone forced them to sign anything.

It's truely a shame that stupidity isn't considered a crime anymore.
 
Professur said:
debt-strapped homeowners


Somehow they always neglect to mention that they took on that debt load voluntarily. Noone forced them to sign anything.

It's truely a shame that stupidity isn't considered a crime anymore.
Click to expand...

It's all just stupid people "In the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average, according to data compiled by research firm RealtyTrac Inc. in Irvine, California. As military families like the VerSteeghs signed up for the initial lower rates and easier terms of subprime mortgages, the number of people taking out Veterans Administration loans fell to the lowest in at least 12 years."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=awj2TMDLnwsU
 
Professur said:
debt-strapped homeowners


Somehow they always neglect to mention that they took on that debt load voluntarily. Noone forced them to sign anything.

It's truely a shame that stupidity isn't considered a crime anymore.
Click to expand...

Sorry Prof but even though some of us don't fall for the high pressure sales techniques used and expect to be lied to, I'm afraid we fall firmly in the minority. While they did indeed take on their debt voluntarily, they were reassured by people they thought they could trust. After all, who expects someone to loan them money they can't pay back. It's simply not as black and white as you want it to be. Yes, maybe they could have been smarter but most people don't expect to be lied to at every turn. I'll bet they're more cynical now, huh?
 
chcr said:
Sorry Prof but even though some of us don't fall for the high pressure sales techniques used and expect to be lied to, I'm afraid we fall firmly in the minority. While they did indeed take on their debt voluntarily, they were reassured by people they thought they could trust. After all, who expects someone to loan them money they can't pay back. It's simply not as black and white as you want it to be. Yes, maybe they could have been smarter but most people don't expect to be lied to at every turn. I'll bet they're more cynical now, huh?
Click to expand...

then let's not be obtuse. Let's look at it rationally, with my rose coloured glasses on. Darwin addressed evolution as the survival of not the fittest, but of those who made the right decision at the right time. If your parents chose the right (lucky?) other, you were likely born with a set of traits that helped you survive better than someone who's parents chose wrong. But those decisions weren't simply blind luck, were they? They were based on what worked. And for most of the world's history, the early bird was still eating the worm while something else started eating it. Evolution very seldom favoured those not paranoid enough. The one who could be coaxed out of the tree soon found itself lunch.

But then, a creature so diabolical came along, that changed all that. A creature that protected the stupid. That nurtured the weak. Why? Because it was saving it for it's own next meal. That creature was the human, and the act was the farm. Fast forward, and humans still have the same nature. To save the weak ... right up until dinner time. Unfortunately ... they've moved off the farm and into the city ... and the weak creature they're farming now ... is stupid humans. Unfortunate ... because they don't use all the animal. They eat the sweat and toil, but refuse to consume the meat. And now we find ourselves surrounded in the rotting carcasses of those who've been feasted upon, and the disease and stench is reaching us. Well, when a farmer allows his cattle to be preyed upon by wild animals, his neighbours have three choices ... either kill the neighbour and take his flock into their own, slay all the wild animals ... but that's impossible ... or slaughter the flock outright to leave the wild animals nothing to eat so that they leave the area or starve.

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to save someone else's flock just to preserve what's mine. It's time for one or the other to go.



Is that acute enough for you?
 
Professur said:
then let's not be obtuse. Let's look at it rationally, with my rose coloured glasses on. Darwin addressed evolution as the survival of not the fittest, but of those who made the right decision at the right time. If your parents chose the right (lucky?) other, you were likely born with a set of traits that helped you survive better than someone who's parents chose wrong. But those decisions weren't simply blind luck, were they? They were based on what worked. And for most of the world's history, the early bird was still eating the worm while something else started eating it. Evolution very seldom favoured those not paranoid enough. The one who could be coaxed out of the tree soon found itself lunch.

But then, a creature so diabolical came along, that changed all that. A creature that protected the stupid. That nurtured the weak. Why? Because it was saving it for it's own next meal. That creature was the human, and the act was the farm. Fast forward, and humans still have the same nature. To save the weak ... right up until dinner time. Unfortunately ... they've moved off the farm and into the city ... and the weak creature they're farming now ... is stupid humans. Unfortunate ... because they don't use all the animal. They eat the sweat and toil, but refuse to consume the meat. And now we find ourselves surrounded in the rotting carcasses of those who've been feasted upon, and the disease and stench is reaching us. Well, when a farmer allows his cattle to be preyed upon by wild animals, his neighbours have three choices ... either kill the neighbour and take his flock into their own, slay all the wild animals ... but that's impossible ... or slaughter the flock outright to leave the wild animals nothing to eat so that they leave the area or starve.

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to save someone else's flock just to preserve what's mine. It's time for one or the other to go.



Is that acute enough for you?
Click to expand...
Where to begin?
1. Evolution has nothing to do with decisions. In fact, nothing you mention in your rant has anything at all to do with evolution. We didn't start "protecting the weak" until we advanced beyond a subsistence level existence. Some people call that "societal evolution," but it has nothing to do with what Darwin was talking about (and it's not really evolution). Have you read "Origin of Species?" May I suggest "The Blind Watchmaker?"

2. Re saving someone else's flock, nobody wants to. I'm simply not prepared for genocide as a solution.

3. What does anything you posted here have to do with being obtuse re my black and white comment?

I'm sorry you're supporting so very many deadbeats. I'm sorry I am. What, specifically, do you propose we do about it?

Edit: and from my point of view, you're still being obtuse. You're intelligent enough to see the problems with your little rant, you just choose not to.
 
OK, so which is better; A. people default on loans, lose everything and never pay, or; B. they get a reduced interest rate, pay the loan and keep their home?

Obviously they should lose the home, not pay, and the lender be left holding the bag. I mean duh, it's a no brainer!
 
chcr said:
Sorry Prof but even though some of us don't fall for the high pressure sales techniques used and expect to be lied to, I'm afraid we fall firmly in the minority. While they did indeed take on their debt voluntarily, they were reassured by people they thought they could trust. After all, who expects someone to loan them money they can't pay back. It's simply not as black and white as you want it to be. Yes, maybe they could have been smarter but most people don't expect to be lied to at every turn. I'll bet they're more cynical now, huh?
Click to expand...

Sales techniques? Can you find an example of a house, say 1800sq/ft with a yard, that's actually worth $380,000? In the unlikely event you can can you, with all the accounting tricks, find it for less than $999./mo?

Jane the baker & her significant other, the production worker, simply are over their head. They KNEW it going in. They hoped for a miracle but they KNEW they couldn't aford it. Anyone remember gas, power, water? How about insurance, (car & home).

The writers of these mortgages were complete shits. However, unless there's a gun pointed at your head, don't sign a mortgage that is more than your monthly income...especially if you've counting on crap like overtime to pay for it.

Irresponsibility on all parts.
 
Gonz said:
Jane the baker & her significant other, the production worker, simply are over their head. They KNEW it going in. They hoped for a miracle but they KNEW they couldn't aford it.
Click to expand...

No, that's not actually not what happened in a lot or maybe even most of the cases. I know you like to make weird generalizations about masses of people but it really obscures the problem when you do that.
 
Well then spike, set us all straight. What did happen? How did the entire housing market collapse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top