- This topic has 215 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM #423452June 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM #422765
kicksavedave
ParticipantIn the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”
Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:
A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.
Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.
That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.
Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.
June 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM #422997ParticipantIn the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”
Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:
A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.
Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.
That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.
Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.
June 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM #423273ParticipantIn the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”
Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:
A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.
Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.
That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.
Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.
June 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM #423341ParticipantIn the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”
Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:
A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.
Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.
That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.
Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.
June 30, 2009 at 7:58 PM #423503ParticipantIn the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”
Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:
A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.
Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.
That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.
Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.
June 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM #422790patb
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Banks extort money from people.
They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.
June 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM #423022Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Banks extort money from people.
They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.
June 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM #423298Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Banks extort money from people.
They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.
June 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM #423366Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Banks extort money from people.
They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.
June 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM #423528Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
As to your friend. There really is no other word for what he’s proposing regarding the kitchen. It’s extortion, plain and simple. He probably has rationalized to himself that it’s okay because the bank doesn’t really care. True, banks don’t have feelings, they are companies, not people. But he’s still demanding payment for not destroying something that belongs to someone else. And that my friends is extortion.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Banks extort money from people.
They extort 28% APR from you while paying 2% to account holders.
June 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM #422795patientrenter
ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
June 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM #423027ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
June 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM #423303ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
June 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM #423371ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.