New Jobless numbers and more BLAME

[O Really]

So, Colonel - let's address the "deadbeats." Are there legal processes for bankruptcy? And under a bankruptcy, do people (including corporation/people) get out of paying debts? And are there legal processes for foreclosures? And under a forclosure, are there residual effects on the former debtor? Now if you own a property that is worth $100,000 but you owe the bank $200,000, and you have no way of recovering the difference, is it not a rational decision to default, if it is legal to do so and you're willing to accept the consequences? Corporation/people do it all the time. Bain has done it many times. Hostess is doing it today. Why is it a rational choice for corporation/people and not for human people? How many of your friends on the hill or elsewhere do you know about that did anything illegal?

[O Really]

One thing that Colonel Taylor does not understand is that the mortgage system is deliberately structured to make one's liability solely be the equity and nothing more in order to promote home ownership, which everyone agrees is good for America and the economy. Without that liability limit far fewer people, most of whom do not default, would risk purchase. His Rx, like so many of his ideas, would be a disaster.

You're right -I never thought about it exactly that way, but actually the "homeowner" owns nothing until it's paid for. In the meantime, he's living in the bank's house. The bank has bought it, owns it, and has willingly assumed the risks of letting the "owner" go along on what - practically speaking - is a "rent-to-own" arrangement.

[Colonel Taylor]

[We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief.

Says the one who absolutely insists on laying blame where he personally wants to lay it, regardless of all facts and sources, including the ones he himself posts.
No it's called laying the blame on those who took a mortgage and refuse to pay it back. It's called responsibility something most libs here lack as proved by them Blaming everyone else for their problems and lack of paying their bills.

It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out.

Absolutely it's partially their fault for gambling that housing prices would keep going up. But the banks who encouraged them to take out liar loans for their own share of the profits, share the blame.

I am still waiting for one example of a banker putting a gun to anyone's head and making them take out a loan. Everyone I knew as well as I dumped their excess property before the bubble burst, remember when Bush was warning everyone and the lib congress laughed at him. Anyone with a pea for a brain knew the prices couldn't keep going up! I was one of the earlier of my friends who sold property back in 04.

But that's just the mortgages that actually existed. Just who do you attribute the blame to for all those mortgages that existed only on paper, with no actual homebuyer or borrower, if not the banks?

Show us a mortgage where money changed hands that didn't exist?

I won't hold my breath for a rational answer.

[Supsalemgr]

The whole mess began when the banks got away from the 20% down equity requirement. This allowed for even a downturn in values which has always occurred from time to time as the purchaser still had some equity. The idea of lending people who had a proven record of not paying their bills created a false market. Then the bubble burst.

It is interesting from an insurance stanpoint. Many of us remember another downturn in the 1970's. During that period we had what is called "friction fires" in the industry. This was caused by the mortgage rubbing against the purchaser's ability to pay. This downturn is different in that arson has not been an issue. Why? Back in the 1970's the purchser still had some equity and if they got away with the arson they received enough to pay off the mortgage and still possibly have some cash. In this downturn folks just walked away and there was no equity.

[Stinger]

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

If I loan you a hundred grand, tell you that you will be able to pay it back but knowing that you can't possibly pay it back, take my commission and run, leaving you and the bank holding the bag, it's your fault?

If I bundle a bunch of bad loans, rate them as secure investments, knowing that they aren't, and people lose trillions when the housing bubbles burst, I don't deserve civil penalties or jail time?

What an enabler.

You're the queen of the blamers, chump. You blame Obama for things that happened before he was elected. You blame Obama for things he had nothing to do with. You attempt to foist stupid and simple answers on complex questions and dismiss mountains of facts so that you can blame Obama for everything dating back to Eva and the apple.

[Colonel Taylor]

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

I said this earlier if you don't know if you can pay back a loan you are to dumb to have a loan, house, car or anything else. Good job at keeping the Blame going though, forbid it be liberal admit someone who doesn't pay back a loan is the problem and a deadbeat.

If I loan you a hundred grand, tell you that you will be able to pay it back but knowing that you can't possibly pay it back, take my commission and run, leaving you and the bank holding the bag, it's your fault?

If I bundle a bunch of bad loans, rate them as secure investments, knowing that they aren't, and people lose trillions when the housing bubbles burst, I don't deserve civil penalties or jail time?

What an enabler.

You're the queen of the blamers, chump. You blame Obama for things that happened before he was elected. You blame Obama for things he had nothing to do with. You attempt to foist stupid and simple answers on complex questions and dismiss mountains of facts so that you can blame Obama for everything dating back to Eva and the apple.

[Stinger]

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

I said this earlier if you don't know if you can pay back a loan you are to dumb to have a loan, house, car or anything else. Good job at keeping the Blame going though, forbid it be liberal admit someone who doesn't pay back a loan is the problem and a deadbeat.

Yeah, you said it earlier, and I read it earlier. I didn't disagree with it.

Nice dodge to avoid the questions, but no one said that people who don't pay back loans are problems.

I simply asked you some questions which

A) you are too chicken to answer.

B) are not smart enough to understand.

C) are simply queen of the blamers and only want to blame certain groups and are more than completely willing to forgive those who are also guilty but not part of your blame game.

D) are a hypocrite.

E) all of the above.

Here. I'll post them again.

If I loan you a hundred grand, tell you that an eternally-rising housing bubble will enable you to pay it back when I know that you can't possibly pay it back, take my commission and run, leaving you and the bank holding the bag, it's your fault?

If I bundle a bunch of bad loans, rate them as secure investments, knowing that they aren't, and people lose trillions when the housing bubbles burst, and the entire world's economy collapses because of my unethical and immoral greed, I don't deserve civil penalties or jail time?

It's all the borrowers fault?

Here's another question.

If I secure a mortgage for a home based on my job that I've had for fifteen years, and some Wall Street leeches collapse the economy, costing me my job, I'm the entire problem? It's all my fault? I did something wrong?

Get back to us when you grow a brain and a pair and are better equipped to answer the questions.

[Leo Lyons]

..... so that you can blame Obama for everything dating back to Eva and the apple.

Would that be Eva Peron, Eva Longoria, or maybe Eva Marie Saint? Inquiring minds want to know, since the
most knowledgeable ones don't seem to know. Opps!

[Stinger]

..... so that you can blame Obama for everything dating back to Eva and the apple.

Would that be Eva Peron, Eva Longoria, or maybe Eva Marie Saint? Inquiring minds want to know, since the
most knowledgeable ones don't seem to know. Opps!

Actually, it was the late, great Eva Cassidy who was serenading me from my iTunes library when I typed that. Don't know if that was just a regular typo or some sort of Freudian typo.

[Stinger]

Might have been a typo, but I think you just walked right into a Stinger trap, Leo Lyons.

...In the Bible, Eve (Hebrew: חַוָּה, Ḥawwāh; Arabic: حواء‎, Hawwa'; Ge'ez: Hiywan; "living one" or "source of life", related to ḥāyâ, "to live"; ultimately from the Semitic root ḥyw; Greek: Εὕα, heúā) is Adam's wife. Her name occurs only four times; the first being Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife's name Ḥawwāh; because she was the mother of all living" (a title previously held by the Babylonian creatrix Tiamat). In Vulgate she appears as "Hava" in the Old Testament, but "Eva" in the New Testament. The name may actually be derived from that of the Hurrian Goddess Kheba, who was shown in the Amarna Letters to be worshipped in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age. It has been suggested that the name Kheba may derive from Kubau, a woman who reigned as the first king of the Third Dynasty of Kish Another name of Asherah in the first millennium BCE was Chawat, Hawwah in Aramaic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Name_and_origin

Opps.

Nah, I was aware of Eva as an original name (but not Kheba -- interesting. Thanks), but I really would have typed "Eve."

I still wonder if it was just a typo or if it was influenced by my background music ... in which case I should now be making a typo that involves Patrick Watson http://www.npr.org/event/music/16521527 ... in-concert

[Leo Lyons]

I just figured it to be a typo. My bad. I wasn't aware that the All-Knowing One would be present to set me straight with a
Bible history lesson. Thanks for the update; I'll know better next time to consult you before I attempt to poke fun at someone.

[O Really]

Colonel, you're saying something accurate and true, and you intend to hold on to it no matter what the rest of us are talking about. Of course, one shouldn't take out a loan if they can't repay it. Of course one should repay a loan they do take. No question. We all agree. Nobody is saying that's wrong.

But the rest of us are talking contracts and shady financial dealings. A mortgage is a contract. For a contract to be legal, each party has to be informed and willingly agree. Any contract to which either party brings fraud will not be enforced. Now clearly lenders go to great extremes to comply with disclosure laws, and most of them would like nothing better than to have a clean loan and an easy payback.

But in the process, a purchaser gets 40 pages of legaleze, fees and charges he doesn't understand (why the hell do they have to "search" for a title, and why is it my job to pay for them losing it?") I'm fluent in legaleze, but when I buy or sell property, I get a lawyer.

OK, so far, there's nothing to argue about, is there? Everything is fact, everything fits in with your view of the world, right?

So during the housing boom, there were some - not all - lenders who, although they gave out all the correct 40 page documents, intentionally and willfully encouraged people to take out loans they knew or should have known were unable to pay. Pay attention: there were no guns to heads. Nobody said there were. There was marketing, and there was "counseling" and there was a loan approval process that by normal standards was atrocious. This is not "lib" conjecture. This is not propaganda. This is not defense of deadbeats. You can look up the court cases. It happened. These lenders took people who wanted to buy a house, and told them they could afford to pay for it. Most of the people wanted to believe them and did.

What these lenders did was deceptive. (look up the cases - it's proven) but not necessarily always illegal. But when the houses turned upside down, the buyers choices were limited: (1) keep paying to someone who had intentionally deceived them and lose a lot of money if they try to sell the property; or (2) do a voluntary foreclosure and give the property back, losing only the amount they have actually spent. This action, although some might consider it deceptive, is also not illegal.

How is it that anyone could consider the buyers who did bankruptcy or voluntary foreclosure to be the only bad guys here?

[Colonel Taylor]

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

I said this earlier if you don't know if you can pay back a loan you are to dumb to have a loan, house, car or anything else. Good job at keeping the Blame going though, forbid it be liberal admit someone who doesn't pay back a loan is the problem and a deadbeat.

Yeah, you said it earlier, and I read it earlier. I didn't disagree with it.

Nice dodge to avoid the questions, but no one said that people who don't pay back loans are problems.

I simply asked you some questions which

A) you are too chicken to answer.

B) are not smart enough to understand.

C) are simply queen of the blamers and only want to blame certain groups and are more than completely willing to forgive those who are also guilty but not part of your blame game.

D) are a hypocrite.

E) all of the above.

Here. I'll post them again.

If I loan you a hundred grand, tell you that an eternally-rising housing bubble will enable you to pay it back when I know that you can't possibly pay it back, take my commission and run, leaving you and the bank holding the bag, it's your fault?
Answered but it doesn't include Blaming the banks so you can't comprehend it!

If I bundle a bunch of bad loans, rate them as secure investments, knowing that they aren't, and people lose trillions when the housing bubbles burst, and the entire world's economy collapses because of my unethical and immoral greed, I don't deserve civil penalties or jail time? If the deadbeats didn't default on them they wouldn't be bad loans would they? There are folks out there who took loans never intending to pay them back. Yes they should be jailed it's called fraud, theft, stealing or what ever other word you can think of.

It's all the borrowers fault?

Here's another question.

If I secure a mortgage for a home based on my job that I've had for fifteen years, and some Wall Street leeches collapse the economy, costing me my job, I'm the entire problem? It's all my fault? I did something wrong?

First thing a lib does is Blame, you can't even ask a question without putting blame in it can you. But I'll answer anyway. You go out shovel crap, bale hay, work 2-3 jobs in wally world, mcd's to pay your bills. Sell one of your TV's, Stereo's cancel your cell phone. I as well as a few others I know have done it at times. But it's easier for a lib to sit and whine that their UE runs out after two years.

Get back to us when you grow a brain and a pair and are better equipped to answer the questions.

Wha Wha Wha stinger can't make a post with out ridicule when cornered like the rat she is. Have answered it the same way for years, but it's not the liberal blame everyone else so the rich can pay their way so you ignore it.

[Colonel Taylor]

Colonel, you're saying something accurate and true, and you intend to hold on to it no matter what the rest of us are talking about. Of course, one shouldn't take out a loan if they can't repay it. Of course one should repay a loan they do take. No question. We all agree. Nobody is saying that's wrong.

But the rest of us are talking contracts and shady financial dealings. A mortgage is a contract. For a contract to be legal, each party has to be informed and willingly agree. Any contract to which either party brings fraud will not be enforced. Now clearly lenders go to great extremes to comply with disclosure laws, and most of them would like nothing better than to have a clean loan and an easy payback.

But in the process, a purchaser gets 40 pages of legaleze, fees and charges he doesn't understand (why the hell do they have to "search" for a title, and why is it my job to pay for them losing it?") I'm fluent in legaleze, but when I buy or sell property, I get a lawyer.

I have always gotten a lawyer for every property I ever bought or sold who wouldn't and who would take the word of a lender not to get one?

OK, so far, there's nothing to argue about, is there? Everything is fact, everything fits in with your view of the world, right?

So during the housing boom, there were some - not all - lenders who, although they gave out all the correct 40 page documents, intentionally and willfully encouraged people to take out loans they knew or should have known were unable to pay. Pay attention: there were no guns to heads. Nobody said there were. There was marketing, and there was "counseling" and there was a loan approval process that by normal standards was atrocious. This is not "lib" conjecture. This is not propaganda. This is not defense of deadbeats. You can look up the court cases. It happened. These lenders took people who wanted to buy a house, and told them they could afford to pay for it. Most of the people wanted to believe them and did.
Who in the world would take another person's opinion on what you can afford to repay? If you need the lender to tell you you can repay something you shouldn't own a pet rock.
What these lenders did was deceptive. (look up the cases - it's proven) but not necessarily always illegal. But when the houses turned upside down, the buyers choices were limited: (1) keep paying to someone who had intentionally deceived them and lose a lot of money if they try to sell the property;
I have lost money on deals more then once. You don't run away you find a way to repay, if the entire country ran when they were in the red there would be no country left. or (2) do a voluntary foreclosure and give the property back, losing only the amount they have actually spent. This action, although some might consider it deceptive, is also not illegal. It should be illegal and a lot less folks would run from paying their bills.

How is it that anyone could consider the buyers who did bankruptcy or voluntary foreclosure to be the only bad guys here?

Because when you take a loan and you sign and you take possession it's yours! Just because someone put a robo signature on something doesn't forgive ones responsibility to repay a loan they took. If it can be proven the bank did something illegal press charges!

I now of two couples right here on the hill om on right now who took loans for 100% of what their property was worth and lived in the houses for nearly a year then went off and bought homes cash, one in Tenn and one in Polk County. What they did was steal, no other way to say it and they were proud of getting over on the bank. They are scum as simple as hell.

[Stinger]

We're going to rename strong the blamer in chief. It's the fault of anyone who didn't pay back the loan they took out. As a lib you don't understand that I see.

I said this earlier if you don't know if you can pay back a loan you are to dumb to have a loan, house, car or anything else. Good job at keeping the Blame going though, forbid it be liberal admit someone who doesn't pay back a loan is the problem and a deadbeat.

As has been said before . . . I said this earlier . . .Yeah, you said it earlier, and I read it earlier. I didn't disagree with it.

Nice dodge to avoid the questions, but no one said that people who don't pay back loans are problems.

I simply asked you some questions which

A) you are too chicken to answer.

B) are not smart enough to understand.

C) are simply queen of the blamers and only want to blame certain groups and are more than completely willing to forgive those who are also guilty but not part of your blame game.

D) are a hypocrite.

E) all of the above.

Here. I'll post them again.

If I loan you a hundred grand, tell you that an eternally-rising housing bubble will enable you to pay it back when I know that you can't possibly pay it back, take my commission and run, leaving you and the bank holding the bag, it's your fault?
Answered but it doesn't include Blaming the banks so you can't comprehend it!


No, you didn't answer my question. I asked that if I loaned you a hundred grand, told you that you would be able to pay it back because the value of your house would keep increasing forever, but I know you can't possibly pay it back, is it only your fault? Do I, as originator of a knowingly bad loan, completely escape blame in your Bizarro world?

If I bundle a bunch of bad loans, rate them as secure investments, knowing that they aren't, and people lose trillions when the housing bubbles burst, and the entire world's economy collapses because of my unethical and immoral greed, I don't deserve civil penalties or jail time?

If the deadbeats didn't default on them they wouldn't be bad loans would they? There are folks out there who took loans never intending to pay them back. Yes they should be jailed it's called fraud, theft, stealing or what ever other word you can think of.

Actually, they wouldn't be deadbeats if they were given a loan they couldn't possibly pay off.

You imagine that there are folks who took loans never intending to pay them back. To what end? They wanted get kicked out of their homes after investing tens of thousands of dollars? They wanted to ruin the credit?

You didn't answer the question. Again. Dodge and Blame Queen.

It's all the borrowers fault?

Here's another question.

If I secure a mortgage for a home based on my job that I've had for fifteen years, and some Wall Street leeches collapse the economy, costing me my job, I'm the entire problem? It's all my fault? I did something wrong?

First thing a lib does is Blame, you can't even ask a question without putting blame in it can you. But I'll answer anyway. You go out shovel crap, bale hay, work 2-3 jobs in wally world, mcd's to pay your bills. Sell one of your TV's, Stereo's cancel your cell phone. I as well as a few others I know have done it at times. But it's easier for a lib to sit and whine that their UE runs out after two years.

Uh, blind and stupid hypocrite . . . all you've been doing is blaming borrowers and spouting bullshit. You're assuming -- since you are a complete and total ass -- that every person caught in foreclosure can get a job, has a TV to sell, has a cell phone, etc.

It's easier for you to sit and spout stupid than to think and come up with an intelligent statement.

Get back to us when you grow a brain and a pair and are better equipped to answer the questions.
[/color]

Wha Wha Wha stinger can't make a post with out ridicule when cornered like the rat she is. Have answered it the same way for years, but it's not the liberal blame everyone else so the rich can pay their way so you ignore it.

Uh, blind and stupid hypocrite . . . all you've been doing is making posts with ridicule . . . and running from answering questions like the cornered rat turd you are. Dodge and Blame Queen of 2012, Defective Colon.

Blame who you want, excuse the guilty when it doesn't suit your need, and run like a scared chicken when your stupidity is pointed out.

[Colonel Taylor]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0:-?>
I see they leave you out of the rubber room on the weekends ha? Sad person you are, I answered I just don't Blame everyone for problems like you and your lib friends. Now go back to your name calling rant and keyboard muscles.

[O Really]

OKfine, Colonel. What-everrr
Here...

[Stinger]

[
Who in the world would take another person's opinion on what you can afford to repay? If you need the lender to tell you you can repay something you shouldn't own a pet rock.

Right. And you don't listen to electricians when they recommend you do something a certain way. You don't listen to a mechanic when he recommends something for your car. You don't listen to your doctor when she tells you to take your meds. You never listen to anyone with knowledge. You just forge ahead.

I've always laughed at banks when they would tell me how much they would loan me for a car. But if a banker, a knowledgeable professional, advises you that you are making a good investment in a home that will forever increase in value, millions of hardworking Americans did believe them.

Because when you take a loan and you sign and you take possession it's yours! Just because someone put a robo signature on something doesn't forgive ones responsibility to repay a loan they took. If it can be proven the bank did something illegal press charges!

No, it's not yours. It's the banks until you pay it off. Who holds the title for your car? Who holds your mortgage?

I now of two couples right here on the hill om on right now who took loans for 100% of what their property was worth and lived in the houses for nearly a year then went off and bought homes cash, one in Tenn and one in Polk County. What they did was steal, no other way to say it and they were proud of getting over on the bank. They are scum as simple as hell.

Not surprised you know scum. Birds of a feather and all that.

What about the earlier question you keep running from? A hardworking American with fifteen years in a job, buys a home he CAN afford, but loses his job in the Great Recession, and can't make the payments?

[Stinger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0:-?>
I see they leave you out of the rubber room on the weekends ha? Sad person you are, I answered I just don't Blame everyone for problems like you and your lib friends. Now go back to your name calling rant and keyboard muscles.

Another chickenshit dodge by the queen of blamers, Defective Colon.

Rather than man up and answer the questions, she blames everyone else for her inability to say anything intelligent and then runs away.

SSDD.

[Colonel Taylor]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0:-?>
I see they leave you out of the rubber room on the weekends ha? Sad person you are, I answered I just don't Blame everyone for problems like you and your lib friends. Now go back to your name calling rant and keyboard muscles.

Another chickenshit dodge by the queen of blamers, Defective Colon.

Rather than man up and answer the questions, she blames everyone else for her inability to say anything intelligent and then runs away.

SSDD.

I did answer your questions they just weren't liberal enough and didn't blame anyone and required responsibility so you didn't like the answer and went off on a name calling rant which is typical for you.