Anyone heard about HR 1728

[Anonymous]

[quote=socrattt]I pick my nose in public![/quote]

Can we also agree that fabricating quotes from other posters is really bad style?

[bob2007]

Wow socratt, your attitude in your posts has completely destroyed any point you are trying to make. I don’t like obama, so in some ways I might want to agree there something bad is going on. Like an earlier post, I can’t get past your words. I have a lot of business experience, and one thing I have learned is that when someone is acting the way you are of of two things is going on:

1. The amount of money involved is small. It can’t support doing business with other options. The most vocal complainers are usually in the low end.

2. Your comments do not project the experience or intelligence of someone I would trust form any type of financial deals they want.

So even though I do not agree with the current government, if they have done something to rile up someone like you, I now have to consider the possibility it could be a good thing.

[bob2007]

Wow socratt, your attitude in your posts has completely destroyed any point you are trying to make. I don’t like obama, so in some ways I might want to agree there something bad is going on. Like an earlier post, I can’t get past your words. I have a lot of business experience, and one thing I have learned is that when someone is acting the way you are of of two things is going on:

1. The amount of money involved is small. It can’t support doing business with other options. The most vocal complainers are usually in the low end.

2. Your comments do not project the experience or intelligence of someone I would trust form any type of financial deals they want.

So even though I do not agree with the current government, if they have done something to rile up someone like you, I now have to consider the possibility it could be a good thing.

[bob2007]

Wow socratt, your attitude in your posts has completely destroyed any point you are trying to make. I don’t like obama, so in some ways I might want to agree there something bad is going on. Like an earlier post, I can’t get past your words. I have a lot of business experience, and one thing I have learned is that when someone is acting the way you are of of two things is going on:

1. The amount of money involved is small. It can’t support doing business with other options. The most vocal complainers are usually in the low end.

2. Your comments do not project the experience or intelligence of someone I would trust form any type of financial deals they want.

So even though I do not agree with the current government, if they have done something to rile up someone like you, I now have to consider the possibility it could be a good thing.

[bob2007]

Wow socratt, your attitude in your posts has completely destroyed any point you are trying to make. I don’t like obama, so in some ways I might want to agree there something bad is going on. Like an earlier post, I can’t get past your words. I have a lot of business experience, and one thing I have learned is that when someone is acting the way you are of of two things is going on:

1. The amount of money involved is small. It can’t support doing business with other options. The most vocal complainers are usually in the low end.

2. Your comments do not project the experience or intelligence of someone I would trust form any type of financial deals they want.

So even though I do not agree with the current government, if they have done something to rile up someone like you, I now have to consider the possibility it could be a good thing.

[bob2007]

Wow socratt, your attitude in your posts has completely destroyed any point you are trying to make. I don’t like obama, so in some ways I might want to agree there something bad is going on. Like an earlier post, I can’t get past your words. I have a lot of business experience, and one thing I have learned is that when someone is acting the way you are of of two things is going on:

1. The amount of money involved is small. It can’t support doing business with other options. The most vocal complainers are usually in the low end.

2. Your comments do not project the experience or intelligence of someone I would trust form any type of financial deals they want.

So even though I do not agree with the current government, if they have done something to rile up someone like you, I now have to consider the possibility it could be a good thing.

[socrattt]

PRI, my fabrication of quotes was actually started by SK and was more of a joke than anything else, but I guess it would take someone like you, without a sense of humor, to make that sort of comment.

Bob, my comments probably reflect more frustration than the type of money involved. Just so you understand, I run a small operation and I would be at a much different level of venting if I was larger, so in essence your comments are true. My deals are 7+ figure deals. As far as my experience, I am still in my 30’s and I will be the first to admit I still have plenty of learning to do, but you can ask the hundreds of people I have done business with in the past and they will all tell you that I am one of the most trustworthy, honest and ethical businessmen they have ever dealt with. Your assumptions are simply that!! I am not looking for business on Piggington, I am looking for people have opinions that we can base our conversations off of. I learn something new everyday on this site as there is plenty of knowledge passed around.

Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!!

[socrattt]

PRI, my fabrication of quotes was actually started by SK and was more of a joke than anything else, but I guess it would take someone like you, without a sense of humor, to make that sort of comment.

Bob, my comments probably reflect more frustration than the type of money involved. Just so you understand, I run a small operation and I would be at a much different level of venting if I was larger, so in essence your comments are true. My deals are 7+ figure deals. As far as my experience, I am still in my 30’s and I will be the first to admit I still have plenty of learning to do, but you can ask the hundreds of people I have done business with in the past and they will all tell you that I am one of the most trustworthy, honest and ethical businessmen they have ever dealt with. Your assumptions are simply that!! I am not looking for business on Piggington, I am looking for people have opinions that we can base our conversations off of. I learn something new everyday on this site as there is plenty of knowledge passed around.

Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!!

[socrattt]

PRI, my fabrication of quotes was actually started by SK and was more of a joke than anything else, but I guess it would take someone like you, without a sense of humor, to make that sort of comment.

Bob, my comments probably reflect more frustration than the type of money involved. Just so you understand, I run a small operation and I would be at a much different level of venting if I was larger, so in essence your comments are true. My deals are 7+ figure deals. As far as my experience, I am still in my 30’s and I will be the first to admit I still have plenty of learning to do, but you can ask the hundreds of people I have done business with in the past and they will all tell you that I am one of the most trustworthy, honest and ethical businessmen they have ever dealt with. Your assumptions are simply that!! I am not looking for business on Piggington, I am looking for people have opinions that we can base our conversations off of. I learn something new everyday on this site as there is plenty of knowledge passed around.

Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!!

[socrattt]

PRI, my fabrication of quotes was actually started by SK and was more of a joke than anything else, but I guess it would take someone like you, without a sense of humor, to make that sort of comment.

Bob, my comments probably reflect more frustration than the type of money involved. Just so you understand, I run a small operation and I would be at a much different level of venting if I was larger, so in essence your comments are true. My deals are 7+ figure deals. As far as my experience, I am still in my 30’s and I will be the first to admit I still have plenty of learning to do, but you can ask the hundreds of people I have done business with in the past and they will all tell you that I am one of the most trustworthy, honest and ethical businessmen they have ever dealt with. Your assumptions are simply that!! I am not looking for business on Piggington, I am looking for people have opinions that we can base our conversations off of. I learn something new everyday on this site as there is plenty of knowledge passed around.

Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!!

[socrattt]

PRI, my fabrication of quotes was actually started by SK and was more of a joke than anything else, but I guess it would take someone like you, without a sense of humor, to make that sort of comment.

Bob, my comments probably reflect more frustration than the type of money involved. Just so you understand, I run a small operation and I would be at a much different level of venting if I was larger, so in essence your comments are true. My deals are 7+ figure deals. As far as my experience, I am still in my 30’s and I will be the first to admit I still have plenty of learning to do, but you can ask the hundreds of people I have done business with in the past and they will all tell you that I am one of the most trustworthy, honest and ethical businessmen they have ever dealt with. Your assumptions are simply that!! I am not looking for business on Piggington, I am looking for people have opinions that we can base our conversations off of. I learn something new everyday on this site as there is plenty of knowledge passed around.

Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!!

[SK in CV]

[quote=socrattt]
Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!![/quote]

We do have some common ground here. As I said in my previous comment, I think there is some unfairness in this bill. As I also said in my very first response was that it would be extraordinary circumstances where a seller might do financing more than once every 3 years and not be in the business of lending money.

Your business might just fit into those extraordinary circumstances, and ultimately be victimized by otherwise well intentioned legislation. (I’m not saying there that all the motivation of this legislation is well intentioned, some lenders may, in fact, have undue influence in the process. But for the purpose of this immediate post, I’d like to assume it is well intentioned.) And that is where real politik always comes into the picture. Congress attempts to design well intentioned laws that protects consumers, but in the process creates penalties for a tiny minority who were not the targets of the legislation. In some cases they include work-arounds, sometimes not. In this case, maybe providing for a broader safe-harbor, increasing the limit to 2 in 3 years, or maybe 5 in 5 years might make that tiny minority even smaller.

One the primary purposes of this legislation is to prohibit lenders from making loans to borrowers who do not have the wherewithal to repay those loans. You have described circumstances in your own business practice which is specifically the target of this legislation. Making loans to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for financing. My libertarian leanings generally don’t like the federal government getting involved in private arms length transactions.

But there were way too many transactions like this over the last 5 years that were anything but arms length. No underwriting, no or inadequate disclosure, fraudulant loan apps often prepared by loan agents rather than borrowers, and out and out fraud on the part of borrowers. How do we separate these lending practices, which created the RE bubble, from your full disclosure, everyone informed and qualified to make intelligent decisions, with eyes wide open transactions? I don’t have an answer.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. I’m not dismissing the possibly damaging effect it may have on your business. For you, it may be huge. But I suspect you, as I said, will be in a tiny minority. So the solution would be for you to increase your creativity and find a way around the obstacles.

P.S. It wasn’t me that wanted to use the technical term “lender”. The legislation does that. The main point of my first comment was not intended to frustrate you, but rather identify the gap in your description of the bill.

[SK in CV]

[quote=socrattt]
Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!![/quote]

We do have some common ground here. As I said in my previous comment, I think there is some unfairness in this bill. As I also said in my very first response was that it would be extraordinary circumstances where a seller might do financing more than once every 3 years and not be in the business of lending money.

Your business might just fit into those extraordinary circumstances, and ultimately be victimized by otherwise well intentioned legislation. (I’m not saying there that all the motivation of this legislation is well intentioned, some lenders may, in fact, have undue influence in the process. But for the purpose of this immediate post, I’d like to assume it is well intentioned.) And that is where real politik always comes into the picture. Congress attempts to design well intentioned laws that protects consumers, but in the process creates penalties for a tiny minority who were not the targets of the legislation. In some cases they include work-arounds, sometimes not. In this case, maybe providing for a broader safe-harbor, increasing the limit to 2 in 3 years, or maybe 5 in 5 years might make that tiny minority even smaller.

One the primary purposes of this legislation is to prohibit lenders from making loans to borrowers who do not have the wherewithal to repay those loans. You have described circumstances in your own business practice which is specifically the target of this legislation. Making loans to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for financing. My libertarian leanings generally don’t like the federal government getting involved in private arms length transactions.

But there were way too many transactions like this over the last 5 years that were anything but arms length. No underwriting, no or inadequate disclosure, fraudulant loan apps often prepared by loan agents rather than borrowers, and out and out fraud on the part of borrowers. How do we separate these lending practices, which created the RE bubble, from your full disclosure, everyone informed and qualified to make intelligent decisions, with eyes wide open transactions? I don’t have an answer.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. I’m not dismissing the possibly damaging effect it may have on your business. For you, it may be huge. But I suspect you, as I said, will be in a tiny minority. So the solution would be for you to increase your creativity and find a way around the obstacles.

P.S. It wasn’t me that wanted to use the technical term “lender”. The legislation does that. The main point of my first comment was not intended to frustrate you, but rather identify the gap in your description of the bill.

[SK in CV]

[quote=socrattt]
Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!![/quote]

We do have some common ground here. As I said in my previous comment, I think there is some unfairness in this bill. As I also said in my very first response was that it would be extraordinary circumstances where a seller might do financing more than once every 3 years and not be in the business of lending money.

Your business might just fit into those extraordinary circumstances, and ultimately be victimized by otherwise well intentioned legislation. (I’m not saying there that all the motivation of this legislation is well intentioned, some lenders may, in fact, have undue influence in the process. But for the purpose of this immediate post, I’d like to assume it is well intentioned.) And that is where real politik always comes into the picture. Congress attempts to design well intentioned laws that protects consumers, but in the process creates penalties for a tiny minority who were not the targets of the legislation. In some cases they include work-arounds, sometimes not. In this case, maybe providing for a broader safe-harbor, increasing the limit to 2 in 3 years, or maybe 5 in 5 years might make that tiny minority even smaller.

One the primary purposes of this legislation is to prohibit lenders from making loans to borrowers who do not have the wherewithal to repay those loans. You have described circumstances in your own business practice which is specifically the target of this legislation. Making loans to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for financing. My libertarian leanings generally don’t like the federal government getting involved in private arms length transactions.

But there were way too many transactions like this over the last 5 years that were anything but arms length. No underwriting, no or inadequate disclosure, fraudulant loan apps often prepared by loan agents rather than borrowers, and out and out fraud on the part of borrowers. How do we separate these lending practices, which created the RE bubble, from your full disclosure, everyone informed and qualified to make intelligent decisions, with eyes wide open transactions? I don’t have an answer.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. I’m not dismissing the possibly damaging effect it may have on your business. For you, it may be huge. But I suspect you, as I said, will be in a tiny minority. So the solution would be for you to increase your creativity and find a way around the obstacles.

P.S. It wasn’t me that wanted to use the technical term “lender”. The legislation does that. The main point of my first comment was not intended to frustrate you, but rather identify the gap in your description of the bill.

[SK in CV]

[quote=socrattt]
Your last sentence is bizarre! Read the entire post and then read when SK jumped into the conversation. His attitude is what frustrated me simply because he wants to use technical terms to call me a lender. His post was merely a way of starting an argument as he knew how I felt about the subject. Had he approached the situation in a different manner I probably wouldn’t have been so frustrated. No need to explain myself as I am passionate about certain things!![/quote]

We do have some common ground here. As I said in my previous comment, I think there is some unfairness in this bill. As I also said in my very first response was that it would be extraordinary circumstances where a seller might do financing more than once every 3 years and not be in the business of lending money.

Your business might just fit into those extraordinary circumstances, and ultimately be victimized by otherwise well intentioned legislation. (I’m not saying there that all the motivation of this legislation is well intentioned, some lenders may, in fact, have undue influence in the process. But for the purpose of this immediate post, I’d like to assume it is well intentioned.) And that is where real politik always comes into the picture. Congress attempts to design well intentioned laws that protects consumers, but in the process creates penalties for a tiny minority who were not the targets of the legislation. In some cases they include work-arounds, sometimes not. In this case, maybe providing for a broader safe-harbor, increasing the limit to 2 in 3 years, or maybe 5 in 5 years might make that tiny minority even smaller.

One the primary purposes of this legislation is to prohibit lenders from making loans to borrowers who do not have the wherewithal to repay those loans. You have described circumstances in your own business practice which is specifically the target of this legislation. Making loans to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for financing. My libertarian leanings generally don’t like the federal government getting involved in private arms length transactions.

But there were way too many transactions like this over the last 5 years that were anything but arms length. No underwriting, no or inadequate disclosure, fraudulant loan apps often prepared by loan agents rather than borrowers, and out and out fraud on the part of borrowers. How do we separate these lending practices, which created the RE bubble, from your full disclosure, everyone informed and qualified to make intelligent decisions, with eyes wide open transactions? I don’t have an answer.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a huge problem. I’m not dismissing the possibly damaging effect it may have on your business. For you, it may be huge. But I suspect you, as I said, will be in a tiny minority. So the solution would be for you to increase your creativity and find a way around the obstacles.

P.S. It wasn’t me that wanted to use the technical term “lender”. The legislation does that. The main point of my first comment was not intended to frustrate you, but rather identify the gap in your description of the bill.

[Author]

Posts