ACORN plans mass revolts

soulsinging

gvn2fly74 wrote:

That's just nuts IMO.. I mean If I go on a car lot to buy a new car and the sales man says to me you know you should let me set you up in this new Mercedes. I know I cant afford that no matter what he says.. Isn't that the same? I think it comes down to Personal Responsibility

Its not what you think S.S. it's what you can prove.. But what about acorn harassing loan officers and banks.isn't there some truth to that?

If I see a mentally retarded person and I scam them out of giving me $10, would you say they can't complain and that they should have exercised personal responsibility?

I know you're going to say that's ridiculous, but it's not if you think about it. The knowledge gap between Joe menial worker and a bank loan officer is astounding. I have an undergrad degree from a major university and I'm one semester away from a law degree, and I am only scratching the surface of understanding of the complexity of these kinds of contracts. When a young couple who maybe have some community college and a good job walk into a bank looking into a loan, they get the shakedown. They don't know high finance and there they have a guy in a suit and tie with a dozen degrees showing them what they can afford (often based on the BANKER'S estimate of what they COULD be earning in the next few years), so they look in that price range.

It's a sick sad world when we all say "well, the should have known the bank would try to screw them and hired an attorney." Why is that ok? When did we decide there was nothing wrong at all with banks hiding between mountains of legalese and using it to destroy people's lives for their own profit? When did it become ok to take advantage of those without the means or education to defend themselves? If these people aren't sophisticated or wealthy enough to understand the ramifications of the housing contract, why would we assume they have the money and knowledge to run the whole thing by a lawyer?

Yes, they bear ultimate responsibility for signing, but that does not absolve the banks of shitty, cynical practices that prey upon unsophisticated buyers for personal profit.

And now we've got a mess because the banks did this to so many people that they are going down with them. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the banks. Why do you say "the people should have known not to sign?" Where is the comment that "the bank should have looked at this person's income and realized there's no way they could pay it and shouldn't have given the loan?" The banks have the expertise to realize that, the buyers didn't... so why is the buyers' sole responsibility? But the banks didn't do that, they gave the loan anyway, figuring if they couldn't pay it, they'd repossess the house and sell it again. Lots of money to be made by destroying people's finances and flat out lying to your customers.

So what do we have now? Bail outs. The proposal being suggested is that yes, these people fucked up. So did the banks. How can you be ok with the banks being given boatloads of taxpayer money and then scream bloody murder about paying off mortgages? What happened to personal responsibility for the banks and their shitty business practices?

It seems like a foregone conclusion that bailouts are happening because the only other option is catastrophe. When you bail out the bank, it does nothing for economy. People aren't going to open new business in an economy like this where nobody's buying. Banks aren't going to give loans to businesses when they're already in over their heads in bad loans. You can't invent demand by trying to increase the supply. That's absurd. We've got way more supply than demand already, that's the problem. All a bank bailout does it insure the bank's profit. We could give a bailout to home owners right now and the problem would be over. The banks would have those bad loans paid off and erased from their books with only minimal damage, freeing them up from dead weight and making them better able to lend again. In addition, the consumers become free from debt they will never be able to pay off can start spending again. This is good for everyone, even those who say they "did all the right things" but still might lose their job.

The ONLY reason banks don't want to do this is because they're STILL focused only on profit, which is what got us here. If the mortgages are paid off, the banks break even and become solvent and disaster is averted... but that's not good enough for them. They want to keep the consumers strapped in order to ensure that they still get high interest on their loans and have the profits to buy more jets and CEO/shareholder bonuses. They're basically asking the government to underwrite their hard times to keep them paying out bonuses while they hopes that somehow these mortgages will all miraculously get paid. It won't happen.

Bank bailouts do nothing. We have two choices:

1. Do nothing, let them crash, and hope we survive after the dead weight has been cleared away.

2. Try to fix the problem through some form of bail out.

I'm ok with number #1, but my only point is that if you're going to go with #2, bank bailouts do nothing to solve this problem and the only way to fix things is to bail out the homeowners.

WaveCameCrashin

soulsinging wrote:

gvn2fly74 wrote:

That's just nuts IMO.. I mean If I go on a car lot to buy a new car and the sales man says to me you know you should let me set you up in this new Mercedes. I know I cant afford that no matter what he says.. Isn't that the same? I think it comes down to Personal Responsibility

Its not what you think S.S. it's what you can prove.. But what about acorn harassing loan officers and banks.isn't there some truth to that?

If I see a mentally retarded person and I scam them out of giving me $10, would you say they can't complain and that they should have exercised personal responsibility?

I know you're going to say that's ridiculous, but it's not if you think about it. The knowledge gap between Joe menial worker and a bank loan officer is astounding. I have an undergrad degree from a major university and I'm one semester away from a law degree, and I am only scratching the surface of understanding of the complexity of these kinds of contracts. When a young couple who maybe have some community college and a good job walk into a bank looking into a loan, they get the shakedown. They don't know high finance and there they have a guy in a suit and tie with a dozen degrees showing them what they can afford (often based on the BANKER'S estimate of what they COULD be earning in the next few years), so they look in that price range.

It's a sick sad world when we all say "well, the should have known the bank would try to screw them and hired an attorney." Why is that ok? When did we decide there was nothing wrong at all with banks hiding between mountains of legalese and using it to destroy people's lives for their own profit? When did it become ok to take advantage of those without the means or education to defend themselves? If these people aren't sophisticated or wealthy enough to understand the ramifications of the housing contract, why would we assume they have the money and knowledge to run the whole thing by a lawyer?

Yes, they bear ultimate responsibility for signing, but that does not absolve the banks of shitty, cynical practices that prey upon unsophisticated buyers for personal profit.

And now we've got a mess because the banks did this to so many people that they are going down with them. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the banks. Why do you say "the people should have known not to sign?" Where is the comment that "the bank should have looked at this person's income and realized there's no way they could pay it and shouldn't have given the loan?" The banks have the expertise to realize that, the buyers didn't... so why is the buyers' sole responsibility? But the banks didn't do that, they gave the loan anyway, figuring if they couldn't pay it, they'd repossess the house and sell it again. Lots of money to be made by destroying people's finances and flat out lying to your customers.

So what do we have now? Bail outs. The proposal being suggested is that yes, these people fucked up. So did the banks. How can you be ok with the banks being given boatloads of taxpayer money and then scream bloody murder about paying off mortgages? What happened to personal responsibility for the banks and their shitty business practices?

It seems like a foregone conclusion that bailouts are happening because the only other option is catastrophe. When you bail out the bank, it does nothing for economy. People aren't going to open new business in an economy like this where nobody's buying. Banks aren't going to give loans to businesses when they're already in over their heads in bad loans. You can't invent demand by trying to increase the supply. That's absurd. We've got way more supply than demand already, that's the problem. All a bank bailout does it insure the bank's profit. We could give a bailout to home owners right now and the problem would be over. The banks would have those bad loans paid off and erased from their books with only minimal damage, freeing them up from dead weight and making them better able to lend again. In addition, the consumers become free from debt they will never be able to pay off can start spending again. This is good for everyone, even those who say they "did all the right things" but still might lose their job.

The ONLY reason banks don't want to do this is because they're STILL focused only on profit, which is what got us here. If the mortgages are paid off, the banks break even and become solvent and disaster is averted... but that's not good enough for them. They want to keep the consumers strapped in order to ensure that they still get high interest on their loans and have the profits to buy more jets and CEO/shareholder bonuses. They're basically asking the government to underwrite their hard times to keep them paying out bonuses while they hopes that somehow these mortgages will all miraculously get paid. It won't happen.

Bank bailouts do nothing. We have two choices:

1. Do nothing, let them crash, and hope we survive after the dead weight has been cleared away.

2. Try to fix the problem through some form of bail out.

I'm ok with number #1, but my only point is that if you're going to go with #2, bank bailouts do nothing to solve this problem and the only way to fix things is to bail out the homeowners.

I agree with you on the home owners that were taken advantage of.

what kind of law will you be practicing?

soulsinging

gvn2fly74 wrote:

I agree with you on the home owners that were taken advantage of.

what kind of law will you be practicing?

Nothing remotely tied to finance or bankruptcy if I can help it. Probably employment or maybe trademark protection. I'd like to do criminal work, but it doesn't pay very well and I've got a mountain of debt to work off!

inmytree

JB811 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

JB811 wrote:

They say to those who bit off more than they could chew to revolt and protest foreclosures. So since these people were too stupid to know they couldn't afford that huge house and now can't pay the bills are being put into foreclosure, well now that is racist!

Change indeed!

Screw those of use who actually are responsible and pay our bills. We now have to bailout the scum who want MORE handouts.

This country gets worse every day.

link....?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 68175.html

ha ha ha...I bet you're a drama major...

when I read the term "mass revolt" I picture 1000's taking to the streets and causing chaos and mayhem...I see that maybe 100 people may sit it and carry signs...

ha ha ha...mass revolt, my ass...

puremagic

It is so easy to sell the point of someone in Detroit, Cleveland buying above their means, than it is to address some of the major factors that the consumer had no control that brought this country to this point. This didn't begin in 2008.

1) Lost of income due to Outsourcing of jobs.
2) Lost of income due to Closing of plants and factories to move to Mexico or offshore
3) Lost of income due to Cosing of military bases
4) The lost of small family businesses to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Cosco
5) Lost of health care and benefit packages to workers when plants/factories closed.
6) Layoffs due to period during the height of the raising gas prices
7) Raising property taxes and state taxes to offset the lost of plants, factories.
8) Wall street
9) All the Blank checks given the Bush Administration that sent us into a 9 trillion dollar deficit.

yoke

I guess I am in the minority here, I actually read my Mortgage before I signed it. Sorry, I don't sign anything without reading it first, I think I was at my closing table for about 3.5 hours. Hell, it pisses the auto dealers off when I sit there for a while and read all the paperwork. I don't care, I won't be pressured into anything especially a house and if there is something in the contract I don't understand then I ask my lawyer(thats why I pay them) questions and if they don't have answers I won't sign until they do. Hell I am a simple garbage man and I can figure it out. How come these people can't?

Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign these mortgage papers. Nobody was forced to get into these mortgages. No sympathy from me.


okay going out to dinner now, cuz I saved up some extra cash for tonight.. I mean, Obama sent me some stimulus so I can go out and eat and drink on the taxpayers dime.

Commy

yoke wrote:

I guess I am in the minority here, I actually read my Mortgage before I signed it. Sorry, I don't sign anything without reading it first, I think I was at my closing table for about 3.5 hours. Hell, it pisses the auto dealers off when I sit there for a while and read all the paperwork. I don't care, I won't be pressured into anything especially a house and if there is something in the contract I don't understand then I ask my lawyer(thats why I pay them) questions and if they don't have answers I won't sign until they do. Hell I am a simple garbage man and I can figure it out. How come these people can't?

Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign these mortgage papers. Nobody was forced to get into these mortgages. No sympathy from me.


okay going out to dinner now, cuz I saved up some extra cash for tonight.. I mean, Obama sent me some stimulus so I can go out and eat and drink on the taxpayers dime.

what about the banks that gave these risky loans in the first place? some of these banks were handing out money, its no surprise that many of these people can't pay them back. why should banks be bailed out for bad lending practices? its bad business.

yoke

[/quote]
what about the banks that gave these risky loans in the first place? some of these banks were handing out money, its no surprise that many of these people can't pay them back. why should banks be bailed out for bad lending practices? its bad business.[/quote]



these banks should not be bailed out, I don't think we should have bailed out the Autos either

Anon

puremagic wrote:

It is so easy to sell the point of someone in Detroit, Cleveland buying above their means, than it is to address some of the major factors that the consumer had no control that brought this country to this point. This didn't begin in 2008.

1) Lost of income due to Outsourcing of jobs.
2) Lost of income due to Closing of plants and factories to move to Mexico or offshore
3) Lost of income due to Cosing of military bases
4) The lost of small family businesses to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Cosco
5) Lost of health care and benefit packages to workers when plants/factories closed.
6) Layoffs due to period during the height of the raising gas prices
7) Raising property taxes and state taxes to offset the lost of plants, factories.
8) Wall street
9) All the Blank checks given the Bush Administration that sent us into a 9 trillion dollar deficit.

Most of which happened on Clinton's watch. NAFTA is an evil thing.

Commy

commy wrote:

what about the banks that gave these risky loans in the first place? some of these banks were handing out money, its no surprise that many of these people can't pay them back. why should banks be bailed out for bad lending practices? its bad business.

yoke wrote:

these banks should not be bailed out, I don't think we should have bailed out the Autos either

so...do nothing is your answer to the economic crisis? we should just sit back and watch it crumble?

Anon

Yes, the banks found every stupid person in the country and forced them to sign loans for houses they couldn't afford. The banks forced them to also go out and finance Escalades and new plasma TV's.

The fact of the matter is some of you are right and that the banks should not have given these loans in the first place. They should have had much stricter standards, and stuck to them.

The thing is about that is ACORN would be protesting the banks for not lending to the poor high credit risk derelicts in the first place.

So blame the banks, not the people who won't pay their bills. That makes a lot of sense.

yoke

Commy wrote:

commy wrote:

what about the banks that gave these risky loans in the first place? some of these banks were handing out money, its no surprise that many of these people can't pay them back. why should banks be bailed out for bad lending practices? its bad business.

yoke wrote:

these banks should not be bailed out, I don't think we should have bailed out the Autos either

so...do nothing is your answer to the economic crisis? we should just sit back and watch it crumble?

Stop with the bullshit gov intervention that only props these companies and people up and prolongs the agony. They all made their beds, now go sleep in them.

So what is your solution? Give everyone money that we don't have and we have to borrow or print? Honestly, life isn't easy learn to live within your means. If banks take on these risky "clients" then they should suffer the consequences.

soulsinging

JB811 wrote:

Yes, the banks found every stupid person in the country and forced them to sign loans for houses they couldn't afford. The banks forced them to also go out and finance Escalades and new plasma TV's.

The fact of the matter is some of you are right and that the banks should not have given these loans in the first place. They should have had much stricter standards, and stuck to them.

The thing is about that is ACORN would be protesting the banks for not lending to the poor high credit risk derelicts in the first place.

So blame the banks, not the people who won't pay their bills. That makes a lot of sense.

I blame both of them. My point is only that we should either do nothing about this and give no bailouts, or if we're going to do a bailout, it should go to the homeowners because that might actually work and fix things. Either you stand on principle or you say we should do something about this. But you can't have both... you can't say "we shouldn't bail out the homeowners because they were irresponsible, but we have to do something so let's give money to the banks that were irresponsible." That's fucking stupid. It fixes no problems, it still rewards people for being irresponsible (the banks), and it's a huge waste of tax dollars.

I'm opposed to all bail outs. But if you're going to do a bailout anyway, I believe it should be done so that it might actually work, not just piss our money down the drain.

Anon

I'm also opposed to all bailouts and all entitlements. I'm a Ron Paul guy.

Heineken Helen

gvn2fly74 wrote:

I agree as far as the interest rates go thats just wrong,but the people who knew they couldn't afford them I dont have much sympathy for.

very few people 'knew they couldn't afford them'. Very few people knew the banks would fuck up the economy so much that they'd end up losing their job and no longer have any income. Just cos you're one of the lucky ones evidently with either a stable job or a long paid for home or a home you paid for in cash... doesn't make you better than those who don't have it.

Thorns2010

Question for you Soulsinging, since you're of the mindset that the bailout should have gone to the homeowners instead of the banks, what is your idea on how the government would get paid back, or would it not at all?

I mean can't they just offer up the bailout money to these homeowners and have them pay it back at a reduced interest rate/monthly rate they can afford.

Or hell, can't they just say 'if you agree to have the government pay off your mortgage we get X amount of money from when you sell the home'

That makes a lot more sense to me then just giving it to the banks.

Commy

yoke wrote:

Stop with the bullshit gov intervention that only props these companies and people up and prolongs the agony. They all made their beds, now go sleep in them.

So what is your solution? Give everyone money that we don't have and we have to borrow or print? Honestly, life isn't easy learn to live within your means. If banks take on these risky "clients" then they should suffer the consequences.

I'm with soulsinging on this one. I am opposed to the bank bailouts, but since the government feels like it has to do something it should start with the homeowners first.


actually if it were up to me I would scale back the massive defense budget...the US spends more on weapons and "defense" than the next 27 countries combined. more than europe, china and russia COMBINED. my solution is to shift a large portion of that into the public sector, maybe put it into programs that will shift this country back into a production based economy, get us making something again. more fuel efficient vehicles, alternative energy sources-they should look into geothermal energy, build power plants, its clean its everywhere. they could power the entire country just on geothermal energy, also there's wind, tidal and solar energy, they could expand on that. it would create jobs, put money in our pockets, and its very clean.

just a few ideas.

soulsinging

Thorns2010 wrote:

Question for you Soulsinging, since you're of the mindset that the bailout should have gone to the homeowners instead of the banks, what is your idea on how the government would get paid back, or would it not at all?

I mean can't they just offer up the bailout money to these homeowners and have them pay it back at a reduced interest rate/monthly rate they can afford.

Or hell, can't they just say 'if you agree to have the government pay off your mortgage we get X amount of money from when you sell the home'

That makes a lot more sense to me then just giving it to the banks.

Suspend any/all tax refunds until the debt is square.

But I don't believe for a second that we will ever see a penny of that money get back to the government.

WaveCameCrashin

Heineken Helen wrote:

gvn2fly74 wrote:

I agree as far as the interest rates go thats just wrong,but the people who knew they couldn't afford them I dont have much sympathy for.

very few people 'knew they couldn't afford them'. Very few people knew the banks would fuck up the economy so much that they'd end up losing their job and no longer have any income. Just cos you're one of the lucky ones evidently with either a stable job or a long paid for home or a home you paid for in cash... doesn't make you better than those who don't have it.

I have to disagree with you I just dont understand how someone could buy a house and not realize that they couldn't afford it. I cant afford a home that's why I rent and that's what these people should have been doing and why would I think Im better than any one? :roll:

Anon

Exactly. People who make $30k a year have no business buying $300k+ homes with no money down. Some of you claim they were mislead, BS. I'll say that may be the excuse for a small minority, no pun intended, but are you telling me that ALL of these people are that stupid? If so then they had no business buying a house and taking on such responsibility.

I hope their credit is ruined, and I have no issues saying that. These losers have put me through the wringer.