I like it! New financial reform bill.

[ACooper]

Yes, people were irresponsible, but that's normal enough. What changed was that the mortgage industry was perfectly happy to act as enablers, because the risk of doing so was no longer on them.

Oh I agree, that's what I meant by "it was nice when the banks used to point that out and turn down the people" and I know they did it for themselves and their own profit, not the people getting the loans, but in doing so, they protected the rest of us as well, LOL

Sooo, I disagree for the most part this being the buyers fault concerning mortgages ... those 80% of Americans and illegals were screwed by design.

JMO.

Those "80%" still signed on the line, they didn't go over what they were signing (if there was nasty fine print) and THAT is still on them.

We have an ARM.......even at it's WORST, our percentage never rose above 7, and it only stayed there for about a year.........now it's back down below 5 where it usually hangs. Yes, it sucked when it went up, that's a chance we took getting an ARM. Our property taxes went up significantly for a couple years as well, that also sucked..........but we have cushion in our budget BY OUR DESIGN to account for such things. My husband also didn't go crazy when he bought the house, he bought property he could AFFORD even if the interest and/or property taxes went up some. It's called planning and responsibility.

You can point fingers at the feds and banks all day long, and I won't disagree that they are under handed and out for profit in anyway they can get it.........but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for planning and spending YOUR income (minus what the government takes of course, LOL) and that includes accepting bad loans.

 

[Lilavati]

Those "80%" still signed on the line, they didn't go over what they were signing (if there was nasty fine print) and THAT is still on them.

Or hiring a lawyer to go over that fine print for them. A lot of the nasty fine print out there gives me a headache, and I AM a lawyer. I have to work to get through it.

And it really isn't fair to expect your average person to be able to understand a lot of that fine print on their own. The person who works here that I mentioned is a great person, but she's a food service worker and a (legal) immigrant. She works hard and is honest and speaks good English. But it would be unfair to expect her to analyze the fine print of a contract. People really need to learn that they can't trust someone who has a stake in the contract (like the relator). They need someone who is paid to look out for their interests. However, I fully understand, and fully believe, that many people were outright schookered. And a good portion of that was basically legalized fraud.

Heck the number of LAWYERS that don't read contracts before they sign them is pretty staggering (though I suspect they do read mortgage contracts, at least I hope so). I got a new credit card recently and didn't read the contract other than a quick look at the rate provisions. Its just a lot of effort to do so, and besides, its pretty much a contract of adhesion anyway. Its a bad habit. But its a worse habit when it comes to housing purchases . . . and its all too common.

 

[Puckstop31]

Or hiring a lawyer to go over that fine print for them. A lot of the nasty fine print out there gives me a headache, and I AM a lawyer. I have to work to get through it.

And it really isn't fair to expect your average person to be able to understand a lot of that fine print on their own. The person who works here that I mentioned is a great person, but she's a food service worker and a (legal) immigrant. She works hard and is honest and speaks good English. But it would be unfair to expect her to analyze the fine print of a contract. People really need to learn that they can't trust someone who has a stake in the contract (like the relator). They need someone who is paid to look out for their interests. However, I fully understand, and fully believe, that many people were outright schookered. And a good portion of that was basically legalized fraud.

Heck the number of LAWYERS that don't read contracts before they sign them is pretty staggering (though I suspect they do read mortgage contracts, at least I hope so). I got a new credit card recently and didn't read the contract other than a quick look at the rate provisions. Its just a lot of effort to do so, and besides, its pretty much a contract of adhesion anyway. Its a bad habit. But its a worse habit when it comes to housing purchases . . . and its all too common.

+1 for shameless self promotion.

Ain't capitalism grand? LOL

---

Side note: NEVER do business with friends.

We bought our house from friends who wanted to move back to NY. Easy, right? No need even putting it on the market. Nice tidy private sale.... NOT. We get to closing and 'princess' (the selling couples wife) suddenly realizes that the appraisal came back at a lower number than the price we agreed upon. Using a VA loan, I could not get more than the hosue appraised at. Anyway, princess FREAKED out. "F--- it. We will just keep our house. We put x dollars into that house nad we need to recover it."

Never mind they put 5 figures into it and were only in it a YEAR.

Uhhh, no. There is this little contract thingy you signed. But her hubby bailed them out. They went and had a little talk. Hubby calmed her down and reason prevailed.

It was THAT close to getting really ugly in there. LOL

 

[ACooper]

Oh I definitely agree on that one Lil. You should never expect others to have your best interest, especially when there's profit in it for them, LOL

I don't care if that has been your bank since you were born, your parents and grandparents have done business with them for 50 years, you're on a first name basis with every employee of the branch, and maybe even related to one or two.........a mortgage (for most people) is the largest and longest lasting purchase they will ever make. Get it checked over by someone who understands what you are signing the next 30 years of your life to.......preferably a real estate attorney!

I won't pretend to read EVERY word of EVERY agreement I sign.......I do not. But I ALWAYS read the parts about changing my mind, when/how I can get out of it if I choose to, what penalties will be involved for early cancellation, etc. As in credit cards, service plans like the phone, adt security, or satellite, and even our investments such as CD's and 401k. I want to know what happens if I'm not happy with the agreement before my term is up, LOL And I always read the amendments they send out periodically pertaining to the changes of the original agreement I signed.....you usually have a time period to disagree and get out of those agreements if you don't agree with the change

 

[Lilavati]

+1 for shameless self promotion.

Ain't capitalism grand? LOL

Promotion of my profession perhaps. But I am emphatically NOT a real estate lawyer. I'd be happy to look over a contract for a friend, but I wouldn't charge for it, and I'd make it clear that I was giving my personal opinion as someone with legal experience, and not my opinion as their lawyer. To do otherwise would be unethical, because its not my field and I do not have, and do not claim to have, expertise in it. On the other hand, I do know how to read a contract, and I might well spot something that would be Chinese to a layperson.

So let me amend that . . . please, before buying a house, consult a real estate lawyer (your own real estate lawyer and not the guy doing the deal). Which would not be me. I do power lines, and some antitrust . . . and a little international. If you are not a large corporation (preferably in energy or telecommunications) or a sovereign nation, I'm pretty useless.

 

[Puckstop31]

Promotion of my profession perhaps. But I am emphatically NOT a real estate lawyer. I'd be happy to look over a contract for a friend, but I wouldn't charge for it, and I'd make it clear that I was giving my personal opinion as someone with legal experience, and not my opinion as their lawyer. To do otherwise would be unethical, because its not my field and I do not have, and do not claim to have, expertise in it. On the other hand, I do know how to read a contract, and I might well spot something that would be Chinese to a layperson.

Got it. But you do realize I was just messing with ya, right?

So let me amend that . . . please, before buying a house, consult a real estate lawyer (your own real estate lawyer and not the guy doing the deal). Which would not be me. I do power lines, and some antitrust . . . and a little international. If you are not a large corporation (preferably in energy or telecommunications) or a sovereign nation, I'm pretty useless.

Sa-weet. So, when I found "The Republic of East Puckistan"... Wanna be my Attorney General? LOL

 

[Bailey08]

I think the whole process is so confusing, especially for people who don't really understand it. A lot of people signed up for ARMs and had no ability to pay the interest when the ARM expired (and now can't refi out of them because they don't have 20% in). Yes, we're all responsible for reading purchase contracts and mortgage agreements -- but, to be fair, mortgagors also have no leverage to negotiate deal points. Everyone should understand the financial terms of any deal they sign, but beyond that, to understand how few rights you have under your agreement with a bank doesn't do you much good, lol.

In any event, the bigger problem was caused by banks making loans that they had no business making -- because they could package all of the mortgages into really cool derivatives and hedge against them (again and again and again) such that essentially everyone ended up holding subprime mortgages and no one accounted for them on their balance sheets.

 

[eddieq]

Sa-weet. So, when I found "The Republic of East Puckistan"... Wanna be my Attorney General? LOL

Ooooo! Can I be Undersecretary of something? Doesn't matter much what it is. Just want nifty business cards.

 

[Lilavati]

Got it. But you do realize I was just messing with ya, right?



Sa-weet. So, when I found "The Republic of East Puckistan"... Wanna be my Attorney General? LOL

Yep. I just feel I have to clarify that at all times

I would be honored to serve as Attorney General of East Puckistan . . .

Hey, would that be the Chaz island we were all talking about a few months ago?

And Eddie . . . the Attorney General gets MUCH cooler business cards than a mere undersecretary . . .

 

[eddieq]

And Eddie . . . the Attorney General gets MUCH cooler business cards than a mere undersecretary . . .

Yeah, but I don't want to do any actual work. Just have cool cards to get me into parties and such.

 

[Puckstop31]

Yep. I just feel I have to clarify that at all times

Gotcha.

I would be honored to serve as Attorney General of East Puckistan . . .

Hey, would that be the Chaz island we were all talking about a few months ago?

I doubt it. LOL You think Chazlings would elect me to be the grand poo-bah? LOL

And Eddie . . . the Attorney General gets MUCH cooler business cards than a mere undersecretary . . .

Is it bad that the word 'undersecretary' makes me think of the Clinton administration? LOL

I got it! Eddie, you get to be Minister of Puns. Some countries have soccer. Some countries have hockey... Ours would have "Art of Pun".

 

[Buckshot]

I think all parties involved are at fault. The government needs to get out of business period. Borrowers should not have to pay a company for all the bad and bankrupted loans of other people.

Lenders do this every day. It is their profession, I expect them to know what they are doing and the individuals who set up bad loans should have to answer for them. I will not lend a bum on the street any money because I don't think he has the resources to pay it back and he most likely has a bad history of earning. I'm not even in the business and I know that much. These lenders have all kinds of information and they do anything they can to get you in that house even if they have to fudge a little. They are also well aware of the human tendency of want.

Borrowers agree to pay X amount of money and often for one reason or another they can't pay. They lose their incomes or a large part of it, they didn't understand what they were signing or they didn't anticipate market changes. They lose the house and hit the bricks, simple. If you are one of the members of the American hive you don't keep much of your earnings and if you fail due to a small miscalculation it can mean you turn to the system that has been taking your money all these years. Just as slaves had to turn to their masters for health care it isn't because they were lazy or irresponsible, they just had little or no earnings of their own. The master has the earnings so he handles the problems. Unfortunately our master has expensive tastes.

Things need simplified which means not more ink and paper, but less. Reform does nothing but complicate a complicated process even further. Reform is such a wonderful word it hangs in front of a voters face like a shiny object in front of a domestic chicken and has the same effect. Reform means more government bulishit that doesn't work. Government doesn't work, it is an expensive middleman that provides nothing and produces nothing.

 

[Buckshot]

Gotcha.



I doubt it. LOL You think Chazlings would elect me to be the grand poo-bah? LOL.

So you would set up a place for people to go to get away from a stupid self destructive government and allow a vote? How would you insure that leeches dont vote and plunge you into a collapse? Sweeten the deal for me. How about we sit down and decide a system that we like. Something that ensures our future generations dont have to work for the good of the hive, but rather their own benefit. Leaders could be elected (I would prefer appointed)but are subject to treason charges if they present anything in the form of a new law that could be construed as violating the original doctrine. Perhaps we could tar and fiberglass them.

 

[Puckstop31]

So you would set up a place for people to go to get away from a stupid self destructive government and allow a vote? How would you insure that leeches dont vote and plunge you into a collapse? Sweeten the deal for me. How about we sit down and decide a system that we like. Something that ensures our future generations dont have to work for the good of the hive, but rather their own benefit. Leaders could be elected (I would prefer appointed)but are subject to treason charges if they present anything in the form of a new law that could be construed as violating the original doctrine. Perhaps we could tar and fiberglass them.

We could work something out.

How about...

"The Legislature shall pass no law that transfers funds from the public treasury to a private individual or group. "

 

[Lilavati]

We could work something out.

How about...

"The Legislature shall pass no law that transfers funds from the public treasury to a private individual or group. "

As your canidate for attorney general, I feel obliged to point out that the construction of that sentence would prevent many normal and vital activities of government, including those which the government of the United States engaged in from its inception. Most prominently, it would prevent your government from being able to purchase any goods for its own use, such as supplies for the military and paper for the presidential office. It would also prevent the government from being able to engage in emergency relief, for example in the case of natural disasters, which may or may not be your intended goal. Likewise, it would prevent scientific grants, for funding research that would benefit security, public health, or promote economic progress in the nation of East Puckistan. If your goal is to prevent government subsidization and a welfare state, you may want to more narrowly tailor your Constituional provision for that purpose. Considering that its 8 in the morning and I have to go to Rally with my dog, I will not propose such language.

 

[Buckshot]

^^^Puck you see where this is headed right? Do you see why I am an anarchist at heart? I will use my private money to purchase the tar and fiberglass.

 

[Puckstop31]

As your canidate for attorney general, I feel obliged to point out that the construction of that sentence would prevent many normal and vital activities of government, including those which the government of the United States engaged in from its inception. Most prominently, it would prevent your government from being able to purchase any goods for its own use, such as supplies for the military and paper for the presidential office. It would also prevent the government from being able to engage in emergency relief, for example in the case of natural disasters, which may or may not be your intended goal. Likewise, it would prevent scientific grants, for funding research that would benefit security, public health, or promote economic progress in the nation of East Puckistan. If your goal is to prevent government subsidization and a welfare state, you may want to more narrowly tailor your Constituional provision for that purpose. Considering that its 8 in the morning and I have to go to Rally with my dog, I will not propose such language.

"The public treasury shall only be used to operate the allowed functions of government."

These would be VERY limited. Scientific grants would not be part of it. I can forsee your argurement and I don't care.

 

[Puckstop31]

^^^Puck you see where this is headed right? Do you see why I am an anarchist at heart? I will use my private money to purchase the tar and fiberglass.

Yes. And yes.

But it will be a good mental exercise to see if I can get Lilavati to agree with me on something like this. LOL

----

I get why you are an anarchist at heart. That is simply not a world I want to live in. There has to be some sort of basic order. Because mankind is naturally sinful (or has selfish/evil tendencies if you prefer).

 

[ACooper]

I get why you are an anarchist at heart. That is simply not a world I want to live in. There has to be some sort of basic order. Because mankind is naturally sinful (or has selfish/evil tendencies if you prefer).

Agreed, VERY much agreed.

I would LOVE it if everyone could rule themselves, and not ever infringe on someone else in anyway. But there's always going to be jerks, bums, bullies, and the like..........I don't want to live in a world where the meanest, and/or strongest rule while every one else has to suck it up and take it, LOL

 

[ACooper]

I would also like to say while we're on this subject.........the OPPOSITE of anarchy where we are 'protecting' (what the government calls protecting anyway) every one in society is also unacceptable to me just so we are clear, LOL

I land somewhere in the middle. There must be some basic laws and order, but people should still be allowed to use their own judgment and common sense on many things.........and they should also suck it up and take responsibility when that judgment fails them instead of screaming for a law to be passed or getting a big settlement in court.