The wingers are in town for CPAC this week and in the midst of all that crazy (joking about Chicago being nuked, for instance) they’re having their Rick Santelli inspired tea parties – which is just the latest version of the Joe The Plumber (who called for journalists to be shot today) brand of stupidity that the right substitutes for actual thinking. This moron here with a sign saying “Your Mortgage Is Not My Problem” does a brilliant job of summing up just why the conservative movement is now in the extreme minority in America.
Your neighbor’s mortgage is your problem. America is not a Katrina-style you’re on your own nation. That abandoned house down the street and the millions like it will become an incubator for crime and ruin, and then your house will lose value and our society will be the worse off for it.
It’s still amazing to me that these people who claim to be Christians conveniently skip over some relevant text:
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
– Genesis 4:9
(By the way, remember when conservatives said liberals were stupid to protest things?)
I don’t think that’s true.
I guess we know who reads Hal Turner’s site, now though.
You know the Reich wing doesn’t understand scripture, let alone read it.
There’s no “brother” or “sister” with them just “them” and “us”.
They’re brains belong in a jar, a very small jar.
It should amaze you that “these people” understand the relevent text of Genesis 4:9 is not about Cain and his or your liberal view of what happened to Abel. But is about what was taken from from Abel. And could have been taken from Seth if the conservative stand had not been stood.
Glenn
Sweet! So you’ll be cool with it if I just quit my job and stop paying my mortgage, and let you and other taxpayers step in and take care of it for me, right? Don’t worry, I’ll do it in such a way that it will *look* like I hit on hard times. Wouldn’t want you to have to worry about free riding or anything like that.
Haplo, do you honestly think anyone is consciously saying “meh, the bailout’s on the way, eff it?” Because what you wrote just sounds like more welfare queen mythology to me.
So you’ll be cool with it if I just quit my job and stop paying my mortgage, and let you and other taxpayers step in and take care of it for me, right? Don’t worry, I’ll do it in such a way that it will *look* like I hit on hard times.
I haven’t been keeping up. Is this this the new conservative bogeyman? Does the Insidious Job-Quitter live in the same apartment as the Illegal Alien Crime Syndicate, or do they live next door, like the Godkilling Sodomites?
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
I’m an agnostic, but I think there’s supposed to be some kind of separation of church and state. Further, I think there’s a bit of a difference between a religious stricture and the government.
Of course, to those who think of the president as a messiah figure, these religious invocations for obedience to government dictates make all kinds of sense.
J. (The heretic)
No, I just think Oliver’s post is a good example of the basic problem with a good bit of lefty thinking – take something that sounds good when expressed as a moral precept: “Your neighbor’s mortgage is your problem.” that will utterly fail when you try to make the government act on that precept. My post was an attempt to show one reason why – the set of people that can use help with their mortgages runs the gamut of good people who have hit a bit of hard luck, to deadbeats (the type I impersonated) who are trying to abuse the system, and everything in between. Having a government program that can successfully tell the difference between these sets of people is wishful thinking. Such a program, regardless of how successfully it can tell these people apart, will only encourage people in general to be less responsible with thier mortgages since there is a program as backup.
In short, “Your neighbor’s mortgage is your problem.” is fine as a moral precept, but its terrible government policy. (Which really describes a lot of lefty prescriptions for how to govern, IMO.)
Translated Jay: Let me completely ignore the point being made so I can instead reiterate once again the false right wing talking point that Obama is viewed as a messiah figure.
So in other words, because something isn’t perfect, we shouldn’t do it? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Shut down the moon mission, boys, because nobody’s ever done it before.
Perfect? How about functional? With something like welfare, the government has a fairly easy to access (but not perfect) indicator of whether someone should qualify – how much they make in a year. Here though, what measure would you use here to determine whether someone deserves a bailout or not? I can’t think of any measure that wouldn’t a. pick up a lot of people that probably don’t deserve bailouts b. present a target for people that want bailouts to adjust their situation to match. How will you avoid these problems?
I also have to laugh at this:
>That abandoned house down the street and the millions like it will become an incubator for crime and ruin, and then your house will lose value and our society will be the worse off for it.
So here’s a hypothetical – the house down *your* street really does go into forclosure, and yourself and a group of neighbors could stop it today if you all ponied up an extra 10% of your income this year. Would you do it?
So here’s a hypothetical – the house down *your* street really does go into forclosure, and yourself and a group of neighbors could stop it today if you all ponied up an extra 10% of your income this year. Would you do it?
Not the point. We can all pony up .0001% and prevent it.
You don’t live in a bubble, Haplo.
>Not the point. We can all pony up .0001% and prevent it.
Actually, according to Obama, not true. Only wealthy poeple will have to pony up some % to prevent it. But according to Oliver, this is a moral precept so who pays how much should be irrelevant, right? He should be quite willing to part with some of his own money to prevent a foreclosure on his street, right? Rhetorical questions, of course. If Oliver were to have to put some not-inconsequential amount of money where his mouth is, I suspect his morals would suddenly become quite malleable.
So the bank is struggling, and we give them free cash, but a family is struggling, and we should let ‘em?
I’d rather some guy gets his 50 grand dishonestly than the bank uses the same amount for new chairs with their bailout cash.
Jon Stewart said as a joke that we should bail out the mortgage holders, not the banks, that way the mortgages are paid and the banks get the money. Maybe he’s right.
You don’t live in a bubble, Haplo.
Prove it.
HONK if you’re paying my mortgage bumper stickers.
I can get a good deal if I buy in bulk, so if people want to give me orders and PayPal me, let me know.
I guess Dennis is upset they were sold out of CDs.
(Man, anyone else amused at how Dennis being a patron of the Tennessee GOP seems like one of the least surprising things ever?)
Wow! That just might be the worst application of a Bible verse ever. Cain only said that because he was trying to deflect attention away from the fact that he had just become the world’s first MURDERER. If Liberals really want to adopt Cain as their own, more power to you.
I guess Dennis is upset they were sold out of CDs. August J. Pollack
Well , what do you know, the Ted Rall patron is back. I was wondering why you didn’t weigh in on the NYPost fake outrage cartoon. Really didn’t know whose side you might take.
Damn, and a few of us had some good stuff on your mentor, too. Would’ve been nice get your objective viewpoint on the matter.
Wow! That just might be the worst application of a Bible verse ever. SaveFarris
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek”
Save Farris, in this chapter Cain is asking a rhetorical question attempting to say that he ISN’T his brother’s keeper. Oliver is pointing out that Republicans are behaving like Cain and are saying “Am I supposed to help my neighbors?” The answer to both questions is obviously YES, we are our brother’s keepers.
SaveFarris: Wow! That just might be the worst application of a Bible verse ever.
Dennis: The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
Generally speaking, using bible verse to support your case is a pretty weak way to go, and not just for the reason Dennis notes. The book is just to contradictory, to open to interpretation and just plain out of date to provide any real support. Quoting scripture to support your case has got to be some corollary to Godwin.
Mike, the problem with yours and Olivers analogy is that Obama & Co. arent ASKING us to help our neighbor. They’re DEMANDING it. Theres a big difference. And to help pay for it, they’re going to start taxing charitable contributions, so the people who do decide to help others will be punished for it. Brilliant…
I’m guessing you’re talking to me SaveFarris. Do you admit that your understanding of this rather essential bible verse was completely wrong? Seems like your changing the subject from me pointing out that your reading comprehension is incredibly poor.
The right-wing arguments show their small mindedness – people who are hurting in these bad economic times (thanks in large part to bad management of money by the wealthy, eg Greenspan) are lazy, good-for-nothings. During the Bush 8 years, there was a massive movement of wealth from the poor to the rich. That is OK – let the peons work three jobs (typically American as stated by Bush) for a pittance – while the wealthy rip everyone off. But those ripped off can just go starve and die – and don’t deserve any help. And they had absolutely no say in the fact that the money was being taken away from them. So Mr DEMANDING – go jump in a lake.
Hey, Jesus hates poor people. Always has, always will, that’s why he’s eternal. Deal with it.
HONK if you’re paying my mortgage bumper stickers.
I guess I don’t understand that. So if you have one of these stickers then are you the alleged deadbeat?
That reminds me of the time a local batshit wingnut radio station handed out a bunch of ONLY FOOLS BELIEVE THE BIAS LIBERAL MEDIA bumper stickers, I seriously questioned my understanding of the word “bias” and “biased” until I stopped and remembered that a bunch of idiotic yokels produced them.
Dear God,
Now you’re just showing off.
Did Oliver “Religion, you are weird” Willis really quote the verse in Genesis where Cain tries to rationalize murder before God, as a means to shift blame from foolish borrowers onto Conservatives?
Oh that’s a good one!!
That’s too rich for words.
Maybe you could send someone to take Oliver aside and point out some of your other wisdom:
“Woe to the rebellious children, says the Lord, Who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add to sin.” Isaiah 30:1
“For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” II Thessalonians 3:10
“Do not be a man who strikes hands in pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you.” Proverbs 22:26-27
“A prudent man sees evil and hides himself, the naïve proceed and pay the penalty.” Proverbs 27:12
“It is better not to vow than to vow and not pay.” Ecclesiastes 5:5
“The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” Proverbs 22:7
“Do not lie in wait like an outlaw against a righteous man’s house, do not raid his dwelling place; for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity.” Proverbs 24:15-16
“Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.” I Timothy 5:3-6
Perhaps your will is that I be your instrument. If it be so, so be it.
But thanks again for the humor!
Amen.
My post was an attempt to show one reason why – the set of people that can use help with their mortgages runs the gamut of good people who have hit a bit of hard luck, to deadbeats (the type I impersonated) who are trying to abuse the system, and everything in between. Having a government program that can successfully tell the difference between these sets of people is wishful thinking. Such a program, regardless of how successfully it can tell these people apart, will only encourage people in general to be less responsible with thier mortgages since there is a program as backup.
Laws and regulations shouldn’t be made based off the off-chance that people might abuse them. By that logic, guns would be outlawed entirely.
HONK if you’re paying my mortgage bumper stickers.
I can get a good deal if I buy in bulk, so if people want to give me orders and PayPal me, let me know.
No thanks. Maybe you could just buy some “I <3 Usury” bumper stickers instead.
How will you avoid these problems?
Case by case basis?
I’m an agnostic, but I think there’s supposed to be some kind of separation of church and state. Further, I think there’s a bit of a difference between a religious stricture and the government.
Tell that to your ilk that want to outlaw homosexuality (and make it punishable by death).
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek”
See above.
Oliver, are you advocating that America be run according to biblical principles?
Sure seems like it.
But remember what you said – “you don’t get to pick and choose.”
Whatever you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SOCIALIST BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
That’s it! I give up on you people! You’re not even trying to meet me half way. Oliver was obviously pointing out the irony of Christian Conservatives being all fired up about helping out their neighbors! You idiots take that to either mean that he’s pro-Cain or for fundamentalist law! I’m going on vacation, fend for yourselves.
matt621 says:
Whatever you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SOCIALIST BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
Yeah. Keep repeating that stupid, non-sensical, meaningless shit and we’ll steamroll you worse next election. Oh, and keep elevating dipshits like Joe the Plumber and Oxybaugh as your spokesmen . . . please.
matt621 says:
Whatever you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE SOCIALIST BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
Yeah. Keep repeating that stupid, non-sensical, meaningless shit and we’ll steamroll you worse next election. Oh, and keep elevating dipshits like Joe the Plumber and Oxybaugh as your spokesmen . . . please.
What I’m hearing from Obama is that only those who are in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own will be helped out, and that all this is only a temporary emergency measure meant to prevent long term economic hardship for the rest of us. What I’m hearing from wingnuts is that everybody who’s in mortgage trouble, (including the banks) should be on their own.
Maybe Proverbs 28 has some wisdom, if any of these conservative fundies care to read it.
Could someone point out to me a few examples of “who are in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own?” Someone who didn’t sign repeated forms that they knew and understood the terms of their loan, that had their loans changed without their knowledge or consent, or something like that?
ACORN thought they found someone to champion and broke into and “liberated” their home from the new owner, and it turned out that she’d renegotiated it several times, and not once kept the new agreements:
michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/
So, those people who held out for mortgages they afforded, or deferred getting mortgages because they were uncertain of their ability to keep them up, get to pay their own housing bills PLUS those who didn’t show the same common sense?
Oliver’s right. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” If you can afford to pay your own bills and someone else’s, then you ought to.
J.
Jay Tea, my step brother lost his job because his company closed down. His wife lost her job because the real estate company she worked for closed down. They’ve got two kids are struggling to find any job let alone something that will come close to paying the mortgage and bills. Is this their “fault”?
What were they thinking? Assuming that there would be jobs they could work so they wouldn’t have to be homeless? Fools!
Jay Tea, I think this article will help you out. Basically, they thought they could pay off the mortgage because they were approved for it in the 1st place. Despite what you may think, most people don’t have a deeply intricate knowledge of how mortgages work. They’re more concerned with just paying it and getting it out of the way.
michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/
How much home intrudion and garbage rummaging did she do this time?
It just strikes me as funny how the ultra-cons championed the bank and Wall Street bailouts, and then are horrified at the idea of helping out the people these industries hurt. If this isn’t socialized usury, then what is it?
And what some of the “wingnuts” here are arguing is how do you determine who is in trouble through no fault of their own, and who brought it upon themselves? And once you determine the how, who will do the determining? Will it be the bankruptcy courts? Some office from the FHA? Some Housing Czar? And how will they be held accountable?
There is no such thing as “temporary” with a government program. Once this beast is in place, it’s not going away. Will this “temporary emergency power” actually prevent long term economic hardship, or merely pass it down the line another decade? What will the law of unintended consequences have to say about it all? What is going to happen when the reaper comes to collect on all of the retirement programs which are now underfunded because of the recession? What’s going to happen when the people who took out student loans in the previous years begin to default because they can no longer afford to go to school since they have to work to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads?
Will students and retirees get bailed out next? If so, how will we pay for it? If not, why not? President Obama is already bailing out GM (again) and homebuyers, why are retirees not worth it?
I would have loved it if the Republicans had shown a lick of fiscal responsibility from 2001-2008, but they didn’t. However it’s better that they come to it now since the Democrats seem hellbent on making the Republican spending spree seem like a trip to QT.
Actually, Zython, the home “intrudion” (sic) was by ACORN. The woman in question reneged on repeated renegotiations, the house was foreclosed upon, resold, the new buyer started fixing it up, and THEN they “liberated” the home for the woman who lost it.
Short version:
Bought the house for 87K in 2001.
Between 2001 and 2006, refinanced for 270K.
Foreclosed in spring 2006.
Filed for bankruptcy July 2006.
Agreed to pay back arrears in September 2006.
Was 7K behind in December 2007.
Second foreclosure February 2008.
Sold to new owner June 2008 for 192K.
ACORN helps her “retake” her house (which was being fixed up by new owner) February 2009.
The new owner says he plans on suing ACORN — and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
The difference between religious and governmental compunctions are profound. If God tells me to do something, the risk of disobedience is I go to Hell when I die. And if I don’t like it, I can leave the church.
If the government tells me to do something, the risk of disobedience is jail. I don’t have the option of saying “I don’t believe in you any more.”
The defining nature of charity is the voluntary nature. If you have no choice about giving, then it ain’t charity.
I just received my seven gallon pin from the Red Cross a few weeks ago. That means I have donated blood 56 times. (Technically, a few short of that, but a few were plasma pheresis donations that count double.) Every single one of them was voluntary. If they attempted to coerce those donations, they’d be guilty of major felonies.
Why should these people get bailouts? Because they NEED them.
Why should others give them money? Because they are ABLE to.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”
Michael, I will accept your description of your relatives’ situation at face value. (There are several here I wouldn’t do that for.) But I will ask a few questions:
What, precisely, are they looking for in terms of assistance?
How, precisely, will that assistance fix the underlying problams, and not just postpone the crisis?
Let’s say Bob and Sue (with two kids) have lost their jobs and haven’t found new work. They’re six months behind on their mortgage, because they’ve been using what money they do have for electricity, food, and the like. Entirely understandable. What should be done?
Put a freeze on foreclosures? That just means the back due amount keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Renegotiate the mortgage and tack the arrears on to the back end? They still have no income. Six months later, we’re right back to where we are.
Redefine the mortgage in terms of current house value? Sure, let’s screw over the bank that made the loan in the first place. Of course, “the bank” will simply pass the costs on to its owners and other customers, but they can afford it.
I don’t have a good solution. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize bad ones.
And any of them that involve ACORN are almost guaranteed to be bad ones.
J.
I don’t have a good solution.
Jay Tea, the question you raised yourself, wasn’t, how do we help people in need. The question you raised was:
Now someone presented you with an example. It is an example of someone in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own.
So, Jay Tea, rather than ramble on how about how ACORN is eeevul, just tell us whether or not you believe there are people out there in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own. Yes or no.
SFC B,
“Wingnuts” are arguing that mortgage defaulters deserve it, and that “moonbats” simply want to reward the weak and foolish and grow ‘Islamic socialism’. Thoughtful conservatives will try to view the entire picture with all of its ramifications, as best they can (including acknowledgement of the catastrophic failure of using an unregulated credit market as ‘the next big economic thing’) to debate with like-minded liberals (who will acknowledge the need for vigilance against growing corrupt bureaucracies) for pragmatic solutions. The problem with hard and fast ideologies is that they are not adaptive, contextual, or pragmatic.
Democratic republicanism, checks and balances, and rule of law are all we’ve got. When power concentrates in any form (government, corporate, religious, cultural…) the risk of corruption increases exponentially because of the way the power game is played and who that game rewards – exactly the kind of people you do not want in power.
There is no such thing as “temporary” with a government program.
Most of FDR’s programs are gone. Nobody talks about defending against the USSR any more. Eisenhower’s highways and NASA are in decline. Reagan, Clinton and the Bush’s made large cuts in programs. The people still do have the power to vote government programs away, as they’ve done in the past.
My own theory about why red county Christians are being so anti-Christian about all this is that they simply do not have to live it. ‘Blue’ is usually urban. Most people cannot fully understand what they themselves have not directly experienced. Then, what a lack of understanding starts, echo chamber tribalism finishes. That’s how massive disastrous worldwide unregulated corporate greed engines / ponzi schemes come to be “all ACORN’s fault”.
Fafaroo, I asked for an example, was given one, and accepted it. Then I moved on to the next logical step — what to do about it. What would help Michael’s step-brother out of his predicament?
That’s the rub. That’s the sticking point. That’s the problem. Howling about banks and “predatory lending” to people who trusted loan officers to look out for the borrower’s best interests, didn’t get independent advice, didn’t understand documents that they repeatedly signed and indicated that they did, and the like doesn’t do squat for Mike’s step-brother and his family.
But it makes you feel better, I’m sure, especially when you think you can “stick it” to me in the process, and I guess that’s all that really matters here.
J.
That’s the rub. That’s the sticking point. That’s the problem. Howling about banks and “predatory lending” to people who trusted loan officers to look out for the borrower’s best interests, didn’t get independent advice, didn’t understand documents that they repeatedly signed and indicated that they did, and the like doesn’t do squat for Mike’s step-brother and his family.
“You should’ve known that the drug that the doctor told you to take would give you cancer. What are you, stupid?”
“You should’ve known that the spinach would give you cholera. Dumbass.”
Seriously, Jay Tea, you should read that article, it explains the issue better than I ever could. The video at the top also explains why the foreclosures are hurting the economy.
That’s the rub. That’s the sticking point. That’s the problem.
Really? Because I thought the rub was that there was no one was in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own.
That, at least, was your original talking point.
Now you acknowledge that there these people do actually exist, your talking point has shifted: There’s no easy way to help these people.
Well, Jay Tea, it would be fuck lot easy to figure out how to help these people if more of your conservative brethren could actually bring themselves to admit they exist in the first place.
Zython, that’s a false analogy. A doctor has sworn an oath to do the best he or she can for you. A mortgage officer, no matter what he or she says, is committed to the best interests of his employer. Before one signs paperwork for what is most likely the biggest purchase of their lives, they ought to be damned sure they know every single detail — and if they can’t understand it, they should find someone to explain it to them. And it should be someone who does not have a stake in them signing it.
That’s just plain common sense. And it’s why loan packages have page after page after page after page of places for the borrower to sign and initial attesting that they have read and understand each and every word. It’s all documented seven ways to Sunday.
Bad things happen to good people. Bad things also happen to bad people. And bad things happen to dumb people.
What would you say is the fairest solution to each of those types?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “I don’t have a good solution.”
No shit.
“But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize bad ones.”
True, that doesn’t mean you can’t recognize a bad solution. Your stupidity means you can’t tell the difference between a good solution and a bad solution. Okay, that’s not true, it’s you blind allegiance to a failed political philosophy that does that.
In fact, there might not be a good solution out there. We might be left with looking for the best of a series of bad solutions. But what we do know is doing nothing will not be the best solution. Once we patch up this mess, we then have to figure a way to stop this from happening again. And that means regulations.
Jay, that only address the first one.
Did you even read the article I linked?
JT – Could someone point out to me a few examples of “who are in mortgage trouble through no fault of their own?” Someone who didn’t sign repeated forms that they knew and understood the terms of their loan, that had their loans changed without their knowledge or consent, or something like that.
Banking regulations could have protected pêople from making their mistake. During the hey day, they were selling mortgages like they were widgets. Greed has to be regulated, and yes even the less smart people need to be protected. Property appraiser were encourage to lie about property values, etc.
In Canada, banking REGULATIONS prevented this deceit from happening. Not many folks underwater here because of REGULATIONS. When Canadian banks wanted to deregulate during the crazy wall street days, the GOVERNMENT said no. The banks argued that their ability to make profit in a global economy was being hampered by to much red tape, blah blah. The GOVERNMENT said to bad and NO.
Ironically, by protecting the people the GOVERNMENT also helped the banks because Canadian banks are some of the strongest banks in the current world. You have to agree, that is quite an accomplishment in these troubled days.
The GOVERNMENT has to protect people, and not just with armies
In cases where there was deceit, then let’s get the courts involved. Let’s haul the mortgage officers who signed those documents up on fraud charges and get those mortgages thrown out on the basis of fraud, and renegotiated from scratch. Let’s go after the banks that encouraged and tolerated the deception — if a pattern emerges, then nail them on RICO and start putting bankers behind bars.
The cases I’ve heard about involved verbal assurances that the printed agreement didn’t really mean what it said, it’s just standard crap that doesn’t mean anything, so go ahead and sign it anyway. And people went ahead and signed it anyway.
If I was about to agree to pay several hundred thousand dollars over decades, I’d spend a couple of hundred dollars in addition to have an expert (like a lawyer) who’s NOT working for the other side of the deal look it over and tell me exactly what it says — because I know that a verbal promise ain’t worth the paper it ain’t printed on, and if there’s a dispute later, my memory of what the guy said don’t mean squat against the paper they have with my signature on it.
I read EVERYTHING I sign. (Comes from seeing the movie “Heathers” at an impressionable age. If you don’t get that reference, you are too uncool to talk to me and need to see that movie.) I make damned sure I understand it first. (This does not make me popular with my employer, who has killed many, many trees on signoffs and forms and the like.)
Am I that unusual?
J.
I read EVERYTHING I sign.
Jay Tea, please don’t pretend to be Mr. Super Responsible Self-Reliant. We know you’re not.
Do you want us to rehash it all for you?
Who made money artificially cheap. It is up to the banks et al to establish a potential borrower the credit worthiness of a customer. Where I live, I had three mortgages during the boom and each time I HAD to prove that I could afford them. The BANKS MADE US do it even though they new we could afford what we were getting into. It was POLICY and REGULATION that made THEM act responsibly. When some one walks into my cafe and wants to purchase a coffee, they have to show me the money or a valid card of some sort. If I simply give them the coffee and then realize that they could not pay, it is my fault, not theirs. Obviously. If I was a lawyer down there, I say class action all the way.
It is up to the lender to act properly. The reason they did not is because they were allowed to sell the mortgages to other companies. The actual lender just made a bit of money in between. When my parents bought their house, they meet with the branch bank manager and they went through the prudent steps because the bank OWNED the debt for the duration of its term. The branch managers credibility was on the line and maybe even his job. Too many bad loans and he is fired. Not any more. The system is broken and the folks who were cheated and mislead should now be helped. But of course, ideology is like blindness.
“It is up to the lender to act properly.”
We need a little more Caveat Venditor in the system.