Someone put a leash on Aguirre

[temeculaguy]

It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. You cannot force these things, you need to make them voluntary and offer incentives to make the voluntary loss of money more palatable. banks should process short sales faster but you cant force them to lose money faster, they hate losing money and it is their money so they have every right to take their sweet time in losing it. I don’t need politicians to tell me “yes we can” I need them to acknowledge that “can’t” is a nessecary vocabulary word. You “can’t” have peace in the middle east, you “can’t” buy or keep a home if you can’t afford it, you “can’t” have free money, you “can’t” have a trophy if you don’t win, you “can’t” have a BMW if you don’t have a job, you “can’t” buy things you “can’t” afford and if you aren’t smart or savvy or “can’t” resist temptation, you “can’t” be rich. My message to mike or any ambitious politician, start using the word “can’t” and use it often.

Any law passed would only be in effect for loans made after the law was enacted, loans today don’t need the protection of 2005 loans and they are full doc with downpayments at lower prices, 2009 loans wont default like the earlier vintages. So it’s all just noise for the election and do we really need more regulation, more bail outs, more government. What we need is for a politician to stand up and say, “this is the greatest system of economics ever created, intervention distorts it, the sooner this plays out the sooner we can enjoy the recovery. We “can’t” save people from themselves, for every winner there must be a loser and in this case the lenders are losers along with the borrowers, the winner sold and we “can’t” go back and take their profits, both losers will be rich with wisdom and that is how is supposed to be.”

This lesson is nothing new, it can be found in the writings of Lao Tzu many years B.C., it can be found in the christian bible and it is clear as day in the writings of the architect of capatalism, check out “The Wealth of Nations” circa 1776 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

I saw batman this week, and while Heath Ledger’s Joker exceeded Nicholson’s, the previous joker had an applicable quote, “This town needs an enema.”

Or if I may quote Judge Smails as I have done many times before “The world needs ditch diggers too.” If Ted was alive today, that line could be rewritten “the world needs renters too.”

[Aecetia]

Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html

[Aecetia]

Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html

[Aecetia]

Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html

[Aecetia]

Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html

[Aecetia]

Here is another suggestion from bubbletracking:

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[urbanrealtor]

wow.

Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.

Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.

Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.

References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.

Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]

Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.

The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).

I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]

Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.

The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).

I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]

Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.

The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).

I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]

Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.

The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).

I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?

[Author]

Posts