you're paying for this schoolbus drivers $800k house

antitrust · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from Trader666:

I'm sure there are people in the banking industry who should be put in jail but let me ask you:

Which is worse, lying on a loan application or failing to verify?

If two parties (a bank and a consumer) enter into a legally binding contract and the consumer defaults, who is more at fault?

how do you know that the person lied on there loan

how do you know the lender didn't fuge the numbers to get the loan through

there were numerous cases to on both sides.You don't think lenders abused the system knowing they can dump the loan else where

you must be running out of reasoning you keep using the same line

spanish89 · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from negativetrend:

because RISK pays.

You fiscally conservative idiots are getting what you deserve.

Its the law of the jungle, take advantage of everything or YOU WILL LOSE.

NT

well said my good man..

Trader666 · Feb 24, 2009

Those are hypotheticals... why don't you just answer the questions instead of tap dancing?

P.S. You write on about the 5th grade level... looks like you didn't answer questions in school either.

Quote from antitrust:

how do you know that the person lied on there loan

how do you know the lender didn't fuge the numbers to get the loan through

there were numerous cases to on both sides.You don't think lenders abused the system knowing they can dump the loan else where

you must be running out of reasoning you keep using the same line

antitrust · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from Trader666:

Those are hypotheticals... why don't you just answer the questions instead of tap dancing?

which is worse one person getting a loan knowing they can't repay

or a bank making 10000 loans knowing non of them can repay

or an entire industry making 10000000 bad loans knowing it will eventually bring down the whole economy, but don't care about long term viability

I'll give you a hint

the person with the bad loan is at fault for his loan and should not be bailed out

But the banks are responsible for making this common practice and producing a massive credit bubble

lpchad · Feb 24, 2009

Why did CNN incorrectly identify her as a "HOMEOWNER". She doesn't own anything other than a contract to pay her debt.

lpchad · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from SWScapital:

I probably make 15X what that bitch makes and my kitchen doesnt look like that. Brand new everything. F her...out on your ass and go rent you lazy, greedy cow.

CHEERS!!

Well, from her perspective its better to have had the luxury and lost it than to have never had it.

FightTheFuture · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from gnome:

What about us dumb schmucks living in 1959? House paid off, money in the bank, no credit card debt... why, we just a bunch of dumb farkin' azzholes...

Gnome, not if but when will it happen when your paid for house and land are redistributed amongst the angry poor and disadvantaged? Under the guise of stimulating the economy, you know.

It's only fair, as the others have nothing. Never mind what it took for you to get there. They would deny your example of perseverance, hard work, rules, delayed gratification, pay for it now or go without maybe even forever,,,,, No one should have to work like that. It's not fair!

Trader666 · Feb 24, 2009

First, that's not what I asked... you had to change the subject because you can't answer my original questions.

Second, the banks and the industry didn't knowingly crash the economy... that's all in your mind.

Everyone thought they were transferring the risk. If you own stock and buy puts to protect it are you knowingly bringing down the financial system?

Quote from antitrust:

which is worse one person getting a loan knowing they can't repay

or a bank making 10000 loans knowing non of them can repay

or an entire industry making 10000000 bad loans knowing it will eventually bring down the whole economy

NazSpaz · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from antitrust:

how do you know that the person lied on there loan

how do you know the lender didn't fuge the numbers to get the loan through

there were numerous cases to on both sides.You don't think lenders abused the system knowing they can dump the loan else where

you must be running out of reasoning you keep using the same line

Doesn't matter which happened, either way they got more house than they could afford, end of story. If they didn't have the common sense to know that, does that mean we should collectively pay to keep them in that house? NO.

Doesn't matter if the lender lied, the person lied, or even NO ONE lied and the person used to have the income to afford it and now does not. That's life.

Can't make your payment, get out so someone who can will move in. That's how capitalism works. And when they are out, they will get back into an apartment and will have learned something, and their kids also. And if they choose to pick themselves up, work hard, and contribute to society they can work themselves back into an even BETTER house than they had before. And this time with the life lessons that go with the process.

But taking this essential part of capitalism away makes the general population lazy, and expect the government to have a magic unlimited checkbook to take care of everything. Which is pretty much how all the losers feel right now.

antitrust · Feb 24, 2009

Quote from Trader666:

First, that's not what I asked... you had to change the subject because you can't answer my original questions.

Second, the banks and the industry didn't knowingly crash the economy... that's all in your mind.

Everyone thought they were transferring the risk. If you own stock and buy puts to protect it are you knowingly bringing down the financial system?

so if i reply that lying on a loan is worse do you feel you've won the debate. and that it proves your position that loaners were the biggest piece of this pie.

name one institution that was transferring risk. Now to qulify the only puts or cds's you can have are for the mortgages you have on your books.I'll be waiting for your link to that.

most institutions had 10 to 30 times more exposure on their risk transfer then they had risk themselves. that's not transferring risk that's creating it.

the mortgage market is 7 billion the cds are tough to measure but we know there at least greater then all mortgages not just subprime.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/17/business/20080217_SWAP_2_GRAPHIC.html

using the privilege banks have they were able to purchase and sell many more cds's (your puts) then they could afford to repay

sound familiarly close to your argument about loanees, don't you agree