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.
you're paying for this schoolbus drivers $800k house
- Thread starter empee
- Start date
Look jackass, I asked you the same questions over and over again and you evaded answering them because you had no answers and then you lied and said you did when you had not. No wonder you don't get the concept of personal responsibility. Good luck loser.
Quote from antitrust:
another well detailed analysis and thought out post
you win
If you really believe this you need to be protected from yourself.
Quote from 4444CJones4444:
The only reason these people are getting help is because the banks will drop if the don't. If the banks, with some of the most experienced and highly compensated employees in the world, would have kept their financial house in order, help for those unable to pay their mortgage would have NEVER came. It wouldn't even be considered.
But, since greedy executives were using huge publicly traded companies as ATMs, the rest of us have to jump in the quicksand and try to pull them out.
Quote from Trader666:
Look jackass, I asked you the same questions over and over again and you evaded answering them and then lied and said you did when you didn't. No wonder you don't get the concept of personal responsibility. Good luck loser.
no need to lose your head
take a moment to relax, anxiety gets in the way of clear thinking
just so you don't have to go back and review i said the lair was worse if i didn't make it clear i'm sorry
and gun makers aren't liable
so could you please answer mine without the insults
is personal responsibility exclusive to home owners and not institutions
the co. that made the loan that knew it was bad, but they had no responsibility because they "transferred" risk. i'm i hearing you correctly
what about people who bought houses with no risk because they didn't have any net worth aren't they just as smart as the bank for having no risk and only reward
the argument that they didn't obligating there contract is a fine one. then they should default and go bk I've said this enough you should know were i stand
But to say one group was smart and transferred risk and the other was dumb because they no risk and only reward boggles me
First don't insult me and then whine when you get it back.
Second, you still haven't answered my question about contracts:
If two parties (a bank and a consumer) enter into a legally binding contract and the consumer defaults, who is more at fault?
Finally, please boil your questions down to one or two and rephrase them clearly. I have no idea what you mean by things like: "the argument that they didn't obligating there contract is a fine one."
Second, you still haven't answered my question about contracts:
If two parties (a bank and a consumer) enter into a legally binding contract and the consumer defaults, who is more at fault?
Finally, please boil your questions down to one or two and rephrase them clearly. I have no idea what you mean by things like: "the argument that they didn't obligating there contract is a fine one."
Quote from antitrust:
no need to lose your head
take a moment to relax, anxiety gets in the way of clear thinking
just so you don't have to go back and review i said the lair was worse if i didn't make it clear i'm sorry
and gun makers aren't liable
so could you please answer mine without the insults
is personal responsibility exclusive to home owners and not institutions
the co. that made the loan that knew it was bad, but they had no responsibility because they "transferred" risk. i'm i hearing you correctly
what about people who bought houses with no risk because they didn't have any net worth aren't they just as smart as the bank for having no risk and only reward
the argument that they didn't obligating there contract is a fine one. then they should default and go bk I've said this enough you should know were i stand
But to say one group was smart and transferred risk and the other was dumb because they no risk and only reward boggles me
the lady in the video isn't all that truthful when she said Obama must stop foreclosures. She's just doing it b/c her equity has gone negative. most people who foreclose do it by choice, and not because they are unable to pay the mortgage.
Quote from Trader666:
First don't insult me and then whine when you get it back.
Second, you still haven't answered my question about contracts:
If two parties (a bank and a consumer) enter into a legally binding contract and the consumer defaults, who is more at fault?
Finally, please boil your questions down to one or two and rephrase them clearly. I have no idea what you mean by things like: "the argument that they didn't obligating there contract is a fine one."
lets keep it simple
question #1
who is worse the loan liar or verifier
my answer liar
question #2
should a gun maker be liable for killing with gun
my answer is no
question 3#
who's more at fault the lender or borrower
my ansewer
the borrower is responsible for his own loan and should go bk( he is at fault for making his own problems)
the bank and institutions are at fault for their own problems and since they can use seemingly endless leverage
and created easily 10 times the money in cds i would have to say the banks are more at fault for the whole mess.
Now my questions
since theirs at least 40 trillion worth of cds and only 7 trillion of mortgages (that's total sub prime represents only 10% of the 7T)
Are cds creating or protecting risk?
Why is the person that takes a mortgage knowing his chance of default are high but doesn't have any net worth so he doesn't care
Any worse then the originator who sells and also knows of high chance of default but has nothing to lose either?
who owns more fault
borrowers 1 trillion in bad loans or bankers that created 40 trillion of cds off of 1 trillion of bad mortgages?