Dem Party

1101113151642

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
    Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
    Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.

    The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
    Whether the resident can sell the property or has to live in it forever would be entirely irrelevant to the bank. It would still be a bad loan that they could never recover or liquidate. And if the Bank paid 95% of the sale price to the builder (or previous owner) and the customer paid 5%, why does the customer come away with 100% of the benefit? It makes zero economic sense.

    And yes, if you settle for forgiveness greater than $600 you do get a 1099, but that gets paid to the gov't as taxable income. It doesn't help the bank one iota.
    It's only a bad loan because the bank didn't properly record the deed and cannot seize the collateral.
    Okay now back to how the dems lost a 1000 seats in 8 years under Obama Pelosi.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
    Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
    Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.

    The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
    Whether the resident can sell the property or has to live in it forever would be entirely irrelevant to the bank. It would still be a bad loan that they could never recover or liquidate. And if the Bank paid 95% of the sale price to the builder (or previous owner) and the customer paid 5%, why does the customer come away with 100% of the benefit? It makes zero economic sense.

    And yes, if you settle for forgiveness greater than $600 you do get a 1099, but that gets paid to the gov't as taxable income. It doesn't help the bank one iota.
    It's only a bad loan because the bank didn't properly record the deed and cannot seize the collateral.
    Okay now back to how the dems lost a 1000 seats in 8 years under Obama Pelosi.
    It's a bad loan because the home owner didn't pay for a house they purchased. We need to remember that. And EVERYONE in the supply chain was responsible for the 2008 crisis. This is true from the consumers who bought houses under stated income, balloon ARMS and other unusual vehicles that they could never pay for, all the way to the bank who bought the securities, and everyone in between. If you want to send one to jail for being stupid, send them all.

    Anyway, regarding the 1000 seats... It's not good. I'm not sure the issue is ideas or beliefs, rather that the Democrats do not put enough money and time into state and local races. They believe in the power of the federal government and that plays into their investment whether consciously or subconsciously. I know that this is a relatively simpleton analysis but that's just my guess.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,935
    edited February 2017
    riley540 said:

    End the two party system, and just have people run as individuals with ideas. I bet half the American voters would be in a frenzy because they wouldn't know who their guy/girl should be without the labels

    Good idea (this would really mean just having a bunch of different parties though - I don't think the human condition allows for just a bunch of independents without parties quickly developing), but the US system of government would have to change to a parliamentary one for that to really work. IMO a switch to such a system would be GREAT for America.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    PJ_Soul said:

    riley540 said:

    End the two party system, and just have people run as individuals with ideas. I bet half the American voters would be in a frenzy because they wouldn't know who their guy/girl should be without the labels

    Good idea (this would really mean just having a bunch of different parties though - I don't think the human condition allows for just a bunch of independents without parties quickly developing), but the US system of government would have to change to a parliamentary one for that to really work. IMO a switch to such a system would be GREAT for America.
    Agreed. However all those who are party loyalists would end up not voting because it would be too much 'work' for them to research candidates and then to think for themselves.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    PJ_Soul said:

    riley540 said:

    End the two party system, and just have people run as individuals with ideas. I bet half the American voters would be in a frenzy because they wouldn't know who their guy/girl should be without the labels

    Good idea (this would really mean just having a bunch of different parties though - I don't think the human condition allows for just a bunch of independents without parties quickly developing), but the US system of government would have to change to a parliamentary one for that to really work. IMO a switch to such a system would be GREAT for America.
    Yes, you would have to change the entire Electoral College (requiring Constitutional Amendment, or a new constitution). If we didn't, the POTUS election would be in the House every cycle.
    And I agree with your statement about the human condition.
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    defending the indefensible. even Obama got tired of that. (see Bibi/Obama relationship)
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    rssesq said:

    defending the indefensible. even Obama got tired of that. (see Bibi/Obama relationship)

    What is indefensible?
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    banksters
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    rssesq said:

    banksters

    No worse than lawyers.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    Try buying something big without your credit card, auto loan or mortgage. At least we could all just represent ourselves pro-se and let logic reign. Lawyers are both indefensible and disposable.
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    most, but a very few of us in an ever declining minority (in an era where the media is promoting "do people really need college")
    answer to a higher authority.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    rssesq said:

    most, but a very few of us in an ever declining minority (in an era where the media is promoting "do people really need college")
    answer to a higher authority.

    So you're representing God in litigation, or just the Holy Ghost?
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Posts: 10,744
    rssesq said:

    most, but a very few of us in an ever declining minority (in an era where the media is promoting "do people really need college")
    answer to a higher authority.

    Who? Your bud tender?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    So what exactly are the Dem senators going to do ensure that an incompetent and unqualified Betsey DeBos does not get it? Or are they going to laydown and take it Yet again?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    Free said:

    So what exactly are the Dem senators going to do ensure that an incompetent and unqualified Betsey DeBos does not get it? Or are they going to laydown and take it Yet again?

    Unless another republican flips they don't have a choice. Pence can break the tie. It's math.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    Toomey is supposedly the best opportunity to flip. People have been flooding his office to the point where they aren't even answering phones.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    mrussel1 said:

    Toomey is supposedly the best opportunity to flip. People have been flooding his office to the point where they aren't even answering phones.

    For sure but from what I understand he is a big supporter of school choice and that's what this battle is all about. I don't think he was taking teacher's union money like Collins and Murkowski. Follow the money?
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Free said:

    So what exactly are the Dem senators going to do ensure that an incompetent and unqualified Betsey DeBos does not get it? Or are they going to laydown and take it Yet again?

    POWERLESS!
    Dems finally actually have what they've been asking for over the past 10 years or so.
    Sometimes you can always get what you want, if you try for 10 years, you mighty finally get what you need.
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    who controls that teacher's union? lmao
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    teach = when medical and law school are out of the question
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited February 2017
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    damn strizzy JC
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    5 hours a day 179 days a year, what a life, lol
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    rssesq said:

    5 hours a day 179 days a year, what a life, lol

    dont forget "chance of snow" days off!
    (i cant criticize, they prob work more than me)
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    and all those special holidays that for some (t)reason or another ALWAYS are on a Friday or Monday, lmao
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,129
    rssesq said:

    and all those special holidays that for some (t)reason or another ALWAYS are on a Friday or Monday, lmao

    Yes, it must be a conspiracy by the lazy Jews whose holidays are set in accordance to their lunar calendar, to get out of work in a society which uses the Gregorian calendar. I'm always amazed by the lengths you will go to to reiterate the fact that every Jewish person has nefarious intent. As a lawyer do you make a point of valuing your own prejudice above logic and evidence too?
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761
    BS44325 said:

    Conservatives win because democrats have to constantly waste time dealing with the Free wing of the party. Man do I feel for you guys...

    Nailed it
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited February 2017

    BS44325 said:

    Conservatives win because democrats have to constantly waste time dealing with the Free wing of the party. Man do I feel for you guys...

    Nailed it
    So... if that theory is true, it just makes conservatives that much Smarter! :tongue:

    :lol:

    This would ultimately make BS so much smarter than Dems.

    It also says that people here thinking that attempting to insult works... is wrong. :rofl:
    Post edited by Free on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,608
    Nothing drives home a profound and influential point like an emoji.
Sign In or Register to comment.