P.S. This is what your thinking encourages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Unfair Mortgage plan
- Thread starter millionaire7
- Start date
Exactly. Dogs that threaten people should be put down. There should be zero tolerance for violent crime, and the penalty for perpetrating it should be corporal punishment, including death. At the same time there should be no laws against victimless crimes like the current drug prohibition.
Good quote.
Quote from Mav88:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
-Benjamin Franklin
Exactly.Quote from OldTrader:
It's unfair to banks that ran their business responsibly by giving to the ones that didn't. Give billions to AIG would be unfair to the responsible insurance companies. Give billions to GM and Chrysler would be unfair to other auto companies and other corporations in general.
Quote from Trader666:
Oh please... it's not realism, it's cowardly appeasement that will only lead to more and more.
OK, I'm admitting the "cowardly" part--guilty as charged.
As for the "lead to more and more" part--no, this does not compute. In my professional life, I have taken care of many, many people who live off the rest of us.
A few are in these desperate circumstances through a series of strokes of bad luck, and these few usually quickly find their way back to productive work, so what I am about to say does not apply to them.
However, the larger cohort are career freeloaders. They will always find a way to freeload. If you take their food stamps away, they will get "hurt" and collect disability. If you take that away, they will get PI lawyers, get "hurt" and sue you. A minority are actual criminals, but those cost us money indirectly as well. For this group of people, "lead to more and more" does not apply, because the way they think is completely foreign to people like you and me. They have absolutely no sense of responsibility for their actions. There is no cause-and-effect, no action-and-consequence with them. They have no concept of planning one's family, career goals, educational goals, or anything else. As far as they are concerned, everything that occurs is someone else's fault; they have no personal role in events, but are merely victims of circumstances. Some of them think the "system" is rigged and is full of people who are out to get them. So it won't matter whether you throw them steak at them or starve them. They will keep right on doing what they do. To me, the only question is whether they will injure me and mine in the process.
As a coward, I highly value my personal safety, and I am willing to pay for it. I think of the steak-throwing as banding together with my neighbors to put up a fence or guard shack. This way, the freeloaders can stay in their own hood and kill each other instead of killing me.
People like you are every bit as much a part of the problem as the deadbeats and freeloaders.
I wouldn't expect it to compute because you're too self absorbed to think outside yourself.
Think of what/where this country would be if everyone in its history had been as selfish and cowardly as you.
I wouldn't expect it to compute because you're too self absorbed to think outside yourself.
Think of what/where this country would be if everyone in its history had been as selfish and cowardly as you.
Quote from drcha:
OK, I'm admitting the "cowardly" part--guilty as charged.
As for the "lead to more and more" part--no, this does not compute. In my professional life, I have taken care of many, many people who live off the rest of us.
A few are in these desperate circumstances through a series of strokes of bad luck, and these few usually quickly find their way back to productive work, so what I am about to say does not apply to them.
However, the larger cohort are career freeloaders. They will always find a way to freeload. If you take their food stamps away, they will get "hurt" and collect disability. If you take that away, they will get PI lawyers, get "hurt" and sue you. A minority are actual criminals, but those cost us money indirectly as well. For this group of people, "lead to more and more" does not apply, because the way they think is completely foreign to people like you and me. They have absolutely no sense of responsibility for their actions. There is no cause-and-effect, no action-and-consequence with them. They have no concept of planning one's family, career goals, educational goals, or anything else. As far as they are concerned, everything that occurs is someone else's fault; they have no personal role in events, but are merely victims of circumstances. Some of them think the "system" is rigged and is full of people who are out to get them. So it won't matter whether you throw them steak at them or starve them. They will keep right on doing what they do. To me, the only question is whether they will injure me and mine in the process.
As a coward, I highly value my personal safety, and I am willing to pay for it. I think of the steak-throwing as banding together with my neighbors to put up a fence or guard shack. This way, the freeloaders can stay in their own hood and kill each other instead of killing me.
Quote from drcha:
As a coward, I highly value my personal safety, and I am willing to pay for it.
I would not call that cowardly - I'd call it intelligent.
I think the heart of the matter is that as a society, the intelligent/responsible have to "pay" for the shortcomings of others. That's the way its always been.
It does more harm to both parties involved when a neighbor gets foreclosed upon. Suppose the house becomes - worst case scenario - a drug house. This is now a potentially dangerous situation that has a serious impact on you and your family (crime, your son now starts doing crack - whatever). The better scenario would've been to let that neighbor stay in the house - at an expense to you of course - rather than let that house be a detriment to the community, both financially and morally.
Of course the above scenario is unfair, but, that's what it means to participate in society. All of you that oppose this kind of idea on moralistic grounds need to rethink the purpose of communities. I'd venture to say that track homes, shopping malls and SUVs have done quite a bit in further isolating individuals from their communities.
At its heart, this is a community issue that is based on utility. Where is the greater harm? Even though its unfair, I think the greater harm results from not helping your neighbor out.
Mike
Quote from Mike805:
At its heart, this is a community issue that is based on utility. Where is the greater harm? Even though its unfair, I think the greater harm results from not helping your neighbor out.
Mike
Appreciate your support, Mike, but I'm not cut from the same cloth. Since I worked for everything I have, I feel no moral obligation to help. My motivation is purely selfish--once again, guilty as charged.
Quote from drcha:
Since I worked for everything I have, I feel no moral obligation to help. My motivation is purely selfish--once again, guilty as charged.
I don't think this is a moral issue. Morally, there are likely a lot of things we could be doing to help others, but, I too am selfish and could care less about maintaining most social programs... I grew up in relative poverty and have *zero* sympathy for those who, in many cases choose the freeloading/social program path. Granted, some need these programs, but, I unfortunately feel little sympathy.
Back to the point though - I think the amount of foreclosures in a given area will soon be directly proportional to the amount of crime and drug use in those areas. To me that is a safety issue, which I am willing to pay for.
Mike
Former Marine facing foreclosure, but do you really want to bail him out?
Jeff Gray is a nice guy. Heâs a 45 year old father of three, a husband to a school teacher and a former Marine. He is also self-admittedly financially inept and very-near being kicked out of his suburban Maryland home. He is literally begging for help not to be foreclosed on. But when you hear his short financial history, you may come to the same conclusion that J.P. Morgan Chase has come to: Jeff Gray can not keep his home.
I sat in his living room a few weeks back and went through his mortgage papers and could not believe what I was reading. In 2005, Jeff Gray filed a tax return indicating he and his wife had a combined income of $7,900 a year. In December of that same year the couple refinanced their three bedroom home for $347,000. It would take four months of his salary to pay for just one month of his mortgage.
When I asked him how anyone ever approved this loan, he told me to look at the loan papers that he says were filled out by a fast talking mortgage broker. The loan form indicated Jeff and his wife were making more than $13,000 a month!
âWait a minuteâ, I said âYour income was $7-thousand-900 a year and they inflated it on the paperwork to $13,000-a-month, and somehow they loaned you $347,000?â
âYep.â
âJeff, I have to ask you did that make sense to you at the time?â
âWell Drew, when I went back and looked at it, like I said we were signing deeds we were getting them real fast, and we didnât know. We didnât pay any attention to it.â
Jeff Gray has not made a mortgage payment, he says, in four years. He has been living rent free, unable to pay that $2,700-a-month for even one month. Now he wants help.
There are a lot of reasons we have gotten into this housing mess. Whoever it was who wrote this loan, approved this loan and sold this loan should, in my view, be held responsible for it. But that also includes the person who applied for the loan, signed for the loan and then couldnât pay the loan.
Jeff Gray told me he feels he was swindled, caught up in a swirl of paper work flying at him at closing. And it is true he is being kicked out while the banks are being bailed out. But there is no fine print about the loan papers I saw. They clearly stated his first mortgage payment would be $2,700 dollars and he knew he couldnât afford it.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/...osure-but-do-you-really-want-to-bail-him-out/
Jeff Gray is a nice guy. Heâs a 45 year old father of three, a husband to a school teacher and a former Marine. He is also self-admittedly financially inept and very-near being kicked out of his suburban Maryland home. He is literally begging for help not to be foreclosed on. But when you hear his short financial history, you may come to the same conclusion that J.P. Morgan Chase has come to: Jeff Gray can not keep his home.
I sat in his living room a few weeks back and went through his mortgage papers and could not believe what I was reading. In 2005, Jeff Gray filed a tax return indicating he and his wife had a combined income of $7,900 a year. In December of that same year the couple refinanced their three bedroom home for $347,000. It would take four months of his salary to pay for just one month of his mortgage.
When I asked him how anyone ever approved this loan, he told me to look at the loan papers that he says were filled out by a fast talking mortgage broker. The loan form indicated Jeff and his wife were making more than $13,000 a month!
âWait a minuteâ, I said âYour income was $7-thousand-900 a year and they inflated it on the paperwork to $13,000-a-month, and somehow they loaned you $347,000?â
âYep.â
âJeff, I have to ask you did that make sense to you at the time?â
âWell Drew, when I went back and looked at it, like I said we were signing deeds we were getting them real fast, and we didnât know. We didnât pay any attention to it.â
Jeff Gray has not made a mortgage payment, he says, in four years. He has been living rent free, unable to pay that $2,700-a-month for even one month. Now he wants help.
There are a lot of reasons we have gotten into this housing mess. Whoever it was who wrote this loan, approved this loan and sold this loan should, in my view, be held responsible for it. But that also includes the person who applied for the loan, signed for the loan and then couldnât pay the loan.
Jeff Gray told me he feels he was swindled, caught up in a swirl of paper work flying at him at closing. And it is true he is being kicked out while the banks are being bailed out. But there is no fine print about the loan papers I saw. They clearly stated his first mortgage payment would be $2,700 dollars and he knew he couldnât afford it.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/...osure-but-do-you-really-want-to-bail-him-out/