I love this sentence and think it would read even better:
"Once people are allowed to KEEP more of THEIR own property, the collective has stolen LESS from them."
Signs that a collapse is under way.
- Thread starter hunt4genetics
- Start date
- Status
I love this sentence and think it would read even better:
"Once people are allowed to KEEP more of THEIR own property, the collective has stolen LESS from them."
This line from what you quoted tells us everything we need to know.
"To mark the ten-year anniversary of the tax cuts, extended last year for both upper- and middle-class Americans in a deal to reauthorize unemployment insurance"
This deal was brokered when our economy was at it's worst and unemployment was at it's highest. Millions of Americans were about to become penniless in the dead of winter because their unemployment benefits ran out. At such a time where budgets could not be agreed upon, where dept is spiraling out of control and nobody is stepping forward with innovative solutions to our problems, a raise in tax revenue was the only solution. Which is precisely why the tax cuts were supposed to end. However to extend unemployment benefits is to just add to the debt problems all the States were experiencing as Unemployment insurance is handled at the state level. Extending benefits is the same as spending money you don't have. Employers pay a certain amount for each employee to the State to cover unemployment insurance. It's collected in advance for future need. Extending it means that there will not be enough to cover the claims because previous collections were made based on the lesser time frame before the extension. Net result State governments go in the red and they have to charge businesses more to cover the extended period. This in turn lowers a company's ability to stay competitive and still turn a profit which typically leads to the need to cut payroll.
Now before the idea of the tax cuts ending was on the table the same rich people who would be harmed by the tax cuts were all against extending unemployment and rightfully recognizing that doing so just adds to our ever growing debt. So by tying it to unemployment the way they did, they held millions hostage (all the people whose benefits were about to run out in the middle of winter) for their tax cuts.
They essentially said, we will let you help out all those poor people but only if you let us keep more of our money even though we know doing so will make the nation's debt problem worse. They don't care about the nation, they don't care about the people, they don't care about any business other then their own. All they really care about is their money and how to keep and make more of it. Period.
And please, for all you spinsters, this is speaking of the rich as a whole, I know there are fine individual examples of charity and kindness amoungst the rich but it's not enough to make any difference to the problems we as a country face.
The only problem with that is the vast majority on public assistence wouldn't last 2 seconds in a war unless you spent far more then they get in public assistence to make them competent soldiers.
IMO, that's no different than investment banks writing their own rules after being de-regulated.
No denial here. Systemic risk would have been limited to Wall Street however de-regulation brought systemic risk to commercial banks. For over 6 decades Glass Stegall said no to the mixing of investment and commercial banks and their respective services. Not to mention insurance and other vehicles.
I can handle that.
I know what you mean but I probably have alternative irks.
Convenient to eschew non-partisan math as well.
I wouldn't know how to address those that don't look at revenues and the polar dynamics of. I understand the larger dynamic with the fed but we didn't get any bang for our buck giving the surplus back to the rich. Even if one suggests there was nothing to give back, the top and business as a whole has never had as much money as they do now. All the promises of tax cuts for the top... creating jobs and generating economies was anemic at best. In fact, we had just the opposite on global scale, contraction.
Graham Leach Bliley (the repeal of Glass Stegall aka de-regulation of the principal banking divisions) unleashed quick money schemes on what was once predominantly low to medium risk.
I don't just look at numbers on a piece of paper. I watched us fall apart with trickle-up. Do all these folks at the top merely assume they have more money?
I'm not suggesting that systemic risk won't collapse. However GLB unleashed it on the world. Before, one had to actually prove that the highest risk investments wouldn't completely tank their finances. I don't particular care if fat cats want to make it all yesterday. But apparently there were medium players wanting high risk but couldn't get it unless they could prove they had other means of support.
Do you accept that 20x executive compensation in the 1970s exceeds 400x today? To me that's the kind of proof that keeps us from having to wonder what it would be like with 19th century politics. If you weren't JP Getty you had a shotgun shack, a mule and potato blight growing in the garden.
Hey why don't we just wipe each others slates clean, we'll forgive them the trade deficet and they can forgive the debt they buy from us which by the way is less then 1 Trillion or to put another way less then 1/15th of our total debt.
Conversely they could keep the debt but start importing enough to give us the chance to earn enough to pay what we owe them.
I love this sentence and think it would read even better:
"Once people are allowed to KEEP more of THEIR own property, the collective has stolen LESS from them."
Of course you would because now instead of making my point, if it read that way it would make your point. Unfortunately our points are totally different.
T
Tripp Inmiasov
The real problem with the US economy is government and special interests. If politicians vote to spend money they don't have, they should be liable for our debt - not the citizens.
We should hold politicians and lobbyists liable for all debt incurred during their tenure, not the taxpayers. Blaming people who make money and pay taxes for the economic mess makes no sense. They didn't cause it. The top 5 percent of income earners pay over 80 percent of the taxes. The lower 50 percent of income earners pay no taxes, but they are the beneficiaries of government handouts. Is this fair?
You can work your ass off and be penalized for it, or, you can be a lazy bum and get paid for it. That's fair?
I'm tired of the class warfare and blaming successful people. Think responsibility, not entitlements.
Income taxes should be illegal. Sales taxes should be illegal. Huge, useless government should be illegal.
Say what you want, socialism sucks!
We should hold politicians and lobbyists liable for all debt incurred during their tenure, not the taxpayers. Blaming people who make money and pay taxes for the economic mess makes no sense. They didn't cause it. The top 5 percent of income earners pay over 80 percent of the taxes. The lower 50 percent of income earners pay no taxes, but they are the beneficiaries of government handouts. Is this fair?
You can work your ass off and be penalized for it, or, you can be a lazy bum and get paid for it. That's fair?
I'm tired of the class warfare and blaming successful people. Think responsibility, not entitlements.
Income taxes should be illegal. Sales taxes should be illegal. Huge, useless government should be illegal.
Say what you want, socialism sucks!
Especially when projections turned into polar revenues strategy. We didn't stay on the same course that was forecasted... we altered the revenue stream significantly. To say that math is never correct invites example to demonstrate. I wouldn't expect one to example the gambit but how about just one?
CBO projected forecasts were made, anticipating what a decade of the same revenue strategy would accumulate. The successor flipped that strategy on it's ear. Even CBO acknowledged their numbers were based on 90s revenue streams. CBO makes no assumption that said strategy won't change with new players.
The how it is bull shit is obvious, this country never saw a year where the national debt decreased during the years in question and had a 13 trillion national debt in 2010 therefore the projected surpluses of 5.7T in 2010 is and was bullshit.
That graph that goes out to 2019 is similarly bullshit.
I still think yer looking at that information up-side-down.
I love this sentence and think it would read even better:
"Once people are allowed to KEEP more of THEIR own property, the collective has stolen LESS from them."
I guess you never heard of robber-barons. So-called 19th century conservatism was a giant sucking sound toward, er uh... to the top.
Socialized losses really started with Savings and Loan Crisis. Auto companies have been bailed out before too. Now it's just one big bailout kick the can down the road fascist party. The systemic risk could have been limited to Wall Street if we hadn't been scared into bailing them out (fascism). Glass Stegall was a good idea, but it didn't stop systemic risk from being passed to the taxpayer during the S&L. Another example of fascism. What's the point of regulations when they aren't enforced because the regulators are owned by Wall Street. If bad companies never collapse, but are instead compensated with tax payer money what incentive is their to change? They should have all collapsed. Yes it would have sucked, but trust me when the day of reckoning comes for all this kicking the can down the road it is going to be exponentially more painful. The free market will win out. It always does.
True. But again, if we had just let the free market do it's thing and let these companies collapse the bad business practices would have been purged.
We have become a Banana Republic yes. But I contend that is because we do not let the free market work. We prop up bad companies with taxpayer money (fascism) and have been doing it before GLB.
Disco, We NEVER stay on the predicted course. As Gramps has said a few times in this thread the CBO plugs the spread sheet with BS that congress gives them as assumptions and what actually will happen is meaningless. Then to further cluster fuck it the politicians change course EVERY year, not just on occasion but EVERY FUCKING TIME. Therefore long term predictions from CBO are worthless.
I've heard of robber barons and the company store those institutions are inhuman, but way better than the destructive collectivism of the 20 / 21st centuries.
I've heard of robber barons and the company store those institutions are inhuman, but way better than the destructive collectivism of the 20 / 21st centuries.
Each and every one of us are special interests. Unfortunately, we have what amounts ~$74 trillion collectively. They came to us because the prime-crime player, treasury secretary and former Goldman executive-turned-disciple Paulson made sure that Goldman et all got their payout from AIG instead of the people that got ripped of. There wasn't enough money in AIG to pay off all the crap investments. Wall Street knew this and they knew that Paulson knew that not bailing the big banks posed worse calamity than letting them tank. Primarily because we stopping making products and started relying too heavily on crap investment schemes. With no laws in place to stop them, these banks made sure that 2 big 2 fail was too enormous to stop. Until, of course it broke. By then they had our collective back bent to the point that not rescuing them would break it. It wasn't chance or speculating, these fucks knew what they were doing.
The To-Big-To-Fail baby was already present however it morphed into a raging bull when GLB was signed into law. We didn't just bust the housing market. Immediately after the mild recession of 2000, Wall Street busted the tech boom with over aggressive strategies. Folks were able to borrow hundreds of billions on the assumption that virtual markets would take off like Amazon, Google, etc. The vast majority of these virtual projections opened up the opportunity for lenders to middle-man innovation and progress where none existed... aka bs virtual projections. They didn't care if the tech sector busted, they were making too much money saying it wouldn't.
That's the same fly in the ointment with boom and bust cycles in general and to-close-together for long term stability. Overnight we went from only the filthy rich booming and busting to everybody busting. Forget "boom" for the bottom 98% of investors, we only get bust. That's how the top walks away with boom even though they broke the machine.
TBO, I think you're undulating. We can't hold those you suggest liable w/o them having the stuff to back up their busts. What we can do is re-regulate the division between commercial and investment banks the way we had for ~65 years. None of this level of fraud ever occurred with the firewall in place. At least outside the top on-tenth-of-one-percent.
Only problem, we're no longer a manufacturing force. All that's left is ripping each other off.
Hello, 19th century.
IMO, you oversimplify the progressive tax structure. You say the bottom 50% pay no taxes. I'm in that category and I'm here to inform you that the taxes I pay have to be paid before I get a refund. I don't net 0 loss paying taxes. The vast, lions share of my money goes back into the economy, tax refunds included.
We're not just a progressive income tax structure, we pay just as much taxes to consume as the top. Barring extravagant taxes such as buying a yacht to sail the Mediterranean.
Did you forget that 68% of US based (not necessary US manufacturing/ revenues benefiting businesses pay no tax to Uncle Sam. The rest of the top indeed pay a larger share then the folks that don't have the money to generate the economies [and] the revenues simultaneously. But they have lawyers to lower their payouts that don't reflect yur suggestions. A far greater percentage of the bottom 98%s respective income goes toward taxes in general. Narrowing that comprehensive aspect to federal income taxes alone is (sorry) spin.
This is complicated stuff folks, pontification doesn't help, it only hurts our more comprehensive understanding of what's going wrong. Even though we have history on pete-repeat to know what's happening.
Classic class-warfare is no different than hating government if you fluff civics and economics and pontificate a free market system that's eating your lunch.
I'm sorry to say you started off wobbly yet conclude firmly planted in trickle-up. The class warfare stuff you're talking about is the disparity in income levels. I don't dislike rich folks, I dislike the system that gives them every break at our expense.
I like to say that Hemp appears to apply more than fundamental philosophy to the picture we see today. IMO, it takes a broader understanding that IMO Hemp expresses. I'm no economist but I don't forget history. We're not in new territory, we've been here before and it took almost a century of squalor for a president with the balls to distribute the pain more evenly, rescued a substantial number of poor and transformed them into the successful middle class we now see dwindling back into poverty.
We're all human beings. We all want what's best for us. My philosophy is no better than the next member on a weed forum. unless of course they have a degree in economics and the historical perspective that transcends philosophy alone. But I need no economics degree to realize we're headed in the wrong direction on multiple fronts.... revisited.
As long as the top only has to pay 15% capital gains, they'll never invest in expansion and the jobs that come along with it. The reason is the structure compared to income tax. Coupled with the uncertainty of global trade and these bust cycles that are more frequent and less boom to go along with it.
Giving the top more incentive to expand is not unlike suggesting your head imploding will do the same thing. That bird has attempted to fly several times in recent history and it has no sustainability. It can soar with thermal updraft but can't flap it's wings. As soon as the convection of steaming boom cycles flatten out, the bird hits the ground.
Last edited:
Here's the moral hazard I was talking about that is slowly killing this country. Moral hazard is really the heart of the problem. Moral hazard is the systemic rot that trickles down to the proles from the corrupt ruling class and rots the country from the inside out.
It pays to scam the system. Honest people are suckers. As more and more commoners and petty bourgeois figure this out the system collapses on itself.
Meet The Squatters: Here Are The Millions Of Americans Who Live Mortgage-Free For Up To 5 Years And Counting
It pays to scam the system. Honest people are suckers. As more and more commoners and petty bourgeois figure this out the system collapses on itself.
Meet The Squatters: Here Are The Millions Of Americans Who Live Mortgage-Free For Up To 5 Years And Counting
Anybody care to meet institutionalized fraud? It's called "forclosure limbo."
Anybody care to meet institutionalized fraud? It's called "forclosure limbo."
I get it, Reagan actually pontificated trickle-down fraud.
He also said that government is to protect us from each other.
Some of the same folks that say guns don't kill people, people kill people have unique perspective when they identify respective demographics.
Interesting report. Ever been in a foreclosure process? You can't piece-meal yourself back into the black. You have to basically pay the entire arrears and even that sometimes takes a lawyer.
Didn't see very broad perspective in the zero-hedge piece. I had to check out the links for more comprehensive data that shows institutionalized profits appear to go hand-in-hand with these "squatters".
Now here's a couple points that neither side seems to acknowledge. On one hand, these "squatters" are in foreclosure. They don't hole-up inside with their guns and threaten bankers doing their jobs. Some of these people come home and find the door bolted shut and their possessions forfeited. A foreclosure process doesn't necessarily have to advance to auction day to get foreclosed peeps out. As soon as the lender or foreclosure entity meets jurisdictional protocol, they can throw em out. The fact this isn't happening suggests that something isn't being disclosed.
Some of these folks are in the litigation over fraudulent lending practices. Paying for the home when they may be thrown out anyway is economically nonviable. Renting another crib while they're in litigation could result in losing their home, even if justice rules in their favor. Also economically nonviable.
One has to already have their mind made up to start leveling moral implications.
These banks etc in question can't move any faster whether the peeps happen to hang onto their last-chance of justice or they simply walk away from their homes. If these banks weren't suspected as fraudulent, Zero-Hedge wouldn't have a story to half report. I had to go to three outside links to find out what Zero-Hedge chooses to express as immoral dead beats.
Institutionalized fraud? I'll withhold that judgement in the interests I can't broad swarp the issue. When the fat lady sings, we'll probably discover these fundamentals:
Some folks will lose their homes, doesn't necessarily mean the were moral turds if they were in litigation against potential (and some cases, probable) mortgage fraud.
Some folks will get their mortgages restructured in efforts to return to loan solvency.
Some of these folks will remain in litigation indefinitely. Until then, staying in their homes doesn't slow the foreclosure process any more than renting another crib would speed up said process.
more from the same piece:
One has to watch the video to see the support of the statement, Lavish gifts......
I'm starting to hedge on Zero-Hedge's veracity of reporting whole perspectives. Anybody can point to their side of the issue and say, "Tadaa! Corrupt buyers."
This is why our electorate is so polarized. We pick a side that best matches our fears and possibly less than full understandings.
Gramps, you recently demonstrated the difference in Rand/Greenspan philosophies. While I didn't immediately acquiesce, I did check out aynrand.org and it basically corroborates what you said.
Complicated situations are no different than the simple ones. We just have to know what a spade is to call it as such.
I'm not just defending fair lending practices (notice I didn't just call em immoral.) Dumping 4.5 million on their as would start a whole new wave of CDO defaults, not to mention no credit-default-swaps (aka AIG figured out they had a dick in their ass) to back the wave of foreclosure.
There's may be far worse economic implications than these "immoral squatters" are responsible for.
Anybody care to meet institutionalized fraud? It's called "forclosure limbo."
I get it, Reagan actually pontificated trickle-down fraud.
He also said that government is to protect us from each other.Some of the same folks that say guns don't kill people, people kill people have unique perspective when they identify respective demographics.
Interesting report. Ever been in a foreclosure process? You can't piece-meal yourself back into the black. You have to basically pay the entire arrears and even that sometimes takes a lawyer.
Didn't see very broad perspective in the zero-hedge piece. I had to check out the links for more comprehensive data that shows institutionalized profits appear to go hand-in-hand with these "squatters".
Looks like two sides of the coin pointing the finger at each other.
Now here's a couple points that neither side seems to acknowledge. On one hand, these "squatters" are in foreclosure. They don't hole-up inside with their guns and threaten bankers doing their jobs. Some of these people come home and find the door bolted shut and their possessions forfeited. A foreclosure process doesn't necessarily have to advance to auction day to get foreclosed peeps out. As soon as the lender or foreclosure entity meets jurisdictional protocol, they can throw em out. The fact this isn't happening suggests that something isn't being disclosed.
Some of these folks are in the litigation over fraudulent lending practices. Paying for the home when they may be thrown out anyway is economically nonviable. Renting another crib while they're in litigation could result in losing their home, even if justice rules in their favor. Also economically nonviable.
One has to already have their mind made up to start leveling moral implications.
These banks etc in question can't move any faster whether the peeps happen to hang onto their last-chance of justice or they simply walk away from their homes. If these banks weren't suspected as fraudulent, Zero-Hedge wouldn't have a story to half report. I had to go to three outside links to find out what Zero-Hedge chooses to express as immoral dead beats.
Who in their right mind would pay the monthly bubble when the whole thing stinks to the tune 4.5 million homeowners?
Institutionalized fraud? I'll withhold that judgement in the interests I can't broad swarp the issue. When the fat lady sings, we'll probably discover these fundamentals:
Some folks will lose their homes, doesn't necessarily mean the were moral turds if they were in litigation against potential (and some cases, probable) mortgage fraud.
Some folks will get their mortgages restructured in efforts to return to loan solvency.
Some of these folks will remain in litigation indefinitely. Until then, staying in their homes doesn't slow the foreclosure process any more than renting another crib would speed up said process.
more from the same piece:
follow the yellow dick toad...
One has to watch the video to see the support of the statement, Lavish gifts......
I'm starting to hedge on Zero-Hedge's veracity of reporting whole perspectives. Anybody can point to their side of the issue and say, "Tadaa! Corrupt buyers."
This is why our electorate is so polarized. We pick a side that best matches our fears and possibly less than full understandings.
Gramps, you recently demonstrated the difference in Rand/Greenspan philosophies. While I didn't immediately acquiesce, I did check out aynrand.org and it basically corroborates what you said.
Complicated situations are no different than the simple ones. We just have to know what a spade is to call it as such.
I'm not just defending fair lending practices (notice I didn't just call em immoral.) Dumping 4.5 million on their as would start a whole new wave of CDO defaults, not to mention no credit-default-swaps (aka AIG figured out they had a dick in their ass) to back the wave of foreclosure.
There's may be far worse economic implications than these "immoral squatters" are responsible for.
Last edited:
Hydro, if that's a joke I'll chuckle. If you're serious, I don't want anybody to get thrown out of their home through no fault of their own.
Pre-subprime, defaulting on a loan was as good as saying get the fuck out. Foreclosed homes had to be repossessed and resold in the name of commerce and stability.
If you made it through my post, you'd notice I didn't take any side. There are too many aspects that allow me to do that.
However, I'm as against what is purported to be institutional fraud and I guess ideology has a way of tinting the view we all see in politicized events. I'm not saying you and I are politicizing, we're getting it from the interests that make up mine and your preferences.
For the sake of directly answering your question, the short answer is no. "Foreclosure limbo" might be at-best temporary consolation to folks that didn't do anything wrong, other than getting sucked into adjustable rate mortgages they weren't aware because they qualified for conventional or FHA loans.
But the foreclosure limbo might be the catalyst that keeps another wave of national or even global economic doom from repeating itself.
IMO, you really need to understand what ideology does to practical application before determining which way the bottom line should be drawn.
In this case there are differences and similarities. Both solutions have potential, devastating economic consequences. Of the 4.5 million I question, how can you possibly make a black or white judgement when any of us could be in this same situation, especially when there's systemic, lender fraud?
Pre-subprime, defaulting on a loan was as good as saying get the fuck out. Foreclosed homes had to be repossessed and resold in the name of commerce and stability.
If you made it through my post, you'd notice I didn't take any side. There are too many aspects that allow me to do that.
However, I'm as against what is purported to be institutional fraud and I guess ideology has a way of tinting the view we all see in politicized events. I'm not saying you and I are politicizing, we're getting it from the interests that make up mine and your preferences.
For the sake of directly answering your question, the short answer is no. "Foreclosure limbo" might be at-best temporary consolation to folks that didn't do anything wrong, other than getting sucked into adjustable rate mortgages they weren't aware because they qualified for conventional or FHA loans.
But the foreclosure limbo might be the catalyst that keeps another wave of national or even global economic doom from repeating itself.
IMO, you really need to understand what ideology does to practical application before determining which way the bottom line should be drawn.
In this case there are differences and similarities. Both solutions have potential, devastating economic consequences. Of the 4.5 million I question, how can you possibly make a black or white judgement when any of us could be in this same situation, especially when there's systemic, lender fraud?
I'm not saying a lot of people didn't get screwed. They were sold a deal to good too be true by some shyster mofo's. The robo-signging mess fraud is getting swept under the table because it basically states that nobody knows who owns what mortgage. It's a big pile of worthless crap ponzi paper. Conveniently quickly off the radar with a few meaningless slaps on the wrist fines. The entire securtization process is a fraud.
People are still getting sold the same shit too. See it advertised on tv for Quicken Loans. 7/1 ARM LOW INTEREST!!
You cannot deny however there is a very very large number of people who are strategically defaulting because they are under water. The banks don't want this bad debt on their already insolvent books so they are leaving the houses on the market. People get to stay. That is effectively removing the consequence of default. That is a real market phenomenon and that is incredibly dangerous.
I feel bad for the poor sods who got raped by banks. I do. It's this very institutional fraud that is perpetuated by the banks and allowed to continue unabated by the complicit governments that bleeds down to the general population. The immorality of it is that no one who has committed these crimes against humanity has gone to jail. This is the same cancer that killed Rome.
People are still getting sold the same shit too. See it advertised on tv for Quicken Loans. 7/1 ARM LOW INTEREST!!
You cannot deny however there is a very very large number of people who are strategically defaulting because they are under water. The banks don't want this bad debt on their already insolvent books so they are leaving the houses on the market. People get to stay. That is effectively removing the consequence of default. That is a real market phenomenon and that is incredibly dangerous.
I feel bad for the poor sods who got raped by banks. I do. It's this very institutional fraud that is perpetuated by the banks and allowed to continue unabated by the complicit governments that bleeds down to the general population. The immorality of it is that no one who has committed these crimes against humanity has gone to jail. This is the same cancer that killed Rome.
now there was a real collapse - will we see something like Rome's collapse?
that doesn't seem likely, more recent examples of breakdowns in political economies don't parallel Rome too closely
though parallels can always be drawn
You are correct, I can't deny what I don't understand. There's no way I could quantify the supposition that some of these homeowners were screwed. With 4+ million loans, I can certainly agree that some of these loans are transgressed by the mortgagee.
I also agree the sheer numbers of mortgages in limbo messes up the system as well. It takes a bit of speculation on my part to suggest that some of these loans will succeed if they're modified in order to allow the mortgagee to stay in the home and make consistent payments.
One place I might have to check into before I could endorse is that government is complicit in the real institutional fraud that has been uncovered by investigations. However, I know what a morass this situation sustained and can't quantify my speculation that this is a combination of systematic fraud, real fraudulent mortgagees and the folks that got up in the mess through ignorance or outright loan deception.
I hate to see peeps get tossed as well. I also know that some of these real deceptions will equate to foreclosures. I don't blame the market for this scenario because I feel it's unrealistic for me to assume everybody that plays by the rules will win the game. I realize it's a game of winners and losers and I hope for the best, overall outcome.
I guess an example where I'd side with the mortgage company in the event of ARM default is where the mortgagee was given the risk assessments up front yet still defaulted. IN that case, they shouldn't be riding the pine in hopes they get rescued with folks that were ripped off. In addition some of these folks who were duped didn't read before they signed the note. IMO, it's a matter whether the details were disclosed or whether they were hidden from the mortgagee.
IMO, it takes the opportunity to re list foreclosed homes relatively quickly in order to support the markets. But the way CDOs are set up, a subsequent mortgage for the same property doesn't apply to the respective investment tied to the default.
There I go speculating again. In addition, if the banks are foreclosing to back and sell additional CDOs with no relation to the default investment aspect, they're getting away with what amounts to potential economic peril if their loans continue to over complicate one's sound investment decision.
The foreclosure process might be the only bad part of the pic right now, whatever the circumstance (it's bad for somebody or more.) I hold out the hope that banks are no longer loaning to folks that can't prove their viability. But those damn contracts that have unsustainable clauses will just fool more peeps and this mess will at least somewhat continue.
I hate to sound cold but I don't even think the bad economy should influence in favor of limbo mortgagees. That's part of the free market gamble and some of those players lost. It's sad but it's reality
Plant Early
Member
who was forced into signing a sub prime loan with no money down?
those folks sat down at a closing. they saw a T.I.L. statement. they initialed next to the spot on the T.I.L. that showed possible maximum A.P.R.
they should have NEVER signed those documents!
anyone who signs an arm has all the info in front of them at closing(i've been through hundreds of closings FL,MS,LA,TN,IL,MI,IN and KY)and chose to ignore the worst case scenario.
the fault does not lie with the agent,loan officer,bank,closing agent,title company or government.
it lies squarely with those who signed on the dotted lines and initialed on the solid ones.
now back to the topic
signs the collapse is underway?
when the current admin stops spending money to persecute MMJ users?
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Prima esperienza foglie rosse mi devo preoccupare?
- Latest: Dissennatore
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
Prima esperienza foglie rosse mi devo preoccupare?
- Latest: Dissennatore
-
-
-
