Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdnerd
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]No intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.[/quote]
I’d argue no intelligent business person would continue to pay their mortgage if they could buy the same house next door for 50% less.
Have you ever run your own business? Just curious.
From your stance, I am similar to a welfare queen because I took out a business loan from a bank without verifying if they had sufficient collateral to make the loan. Of course I paid back the entire loan, and all of it’s interest. And the government certainly had no qualms in taxing the crap out of myself and my company last year.
Here’s a common definition of a welfare queen:
“A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe women who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.”
In your plight to broadly categorize people, I would at a minimum suggest you choose a better mascot.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]No intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.[/quote]
I’d argue no intelligent business person would continue to pay their mortgage if they could buy the same house next door for 50% less.
Have you ever run your own business? Just curious.
From your stance, I am similar to a welfare queen because I took out a business loan from a bank without verifying if they had sufficient collateral to make the loan. Of course I paid back the entire loan, and all of it’s interest. And the government certainly had no qualms in taxing the crap out of myself and my company last year.
Here’s a common definition of a welfare queen:
“A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe women who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.”
In your plight to broadly categorize people, I would at a minimum suggest you choose a better mascot.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]No intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.[/quote]
I’d argue no intelligent business person would continue to pay their mortgage if they could buy the same house next door for 50% less.
Have you ever run your own business? Just curious.
From your stance, I am similar to a welfare queen because I took out a business loan from a bank without verifying if they had sufficient collateral to make the loan. Of course I paid back the entire loan, and all of it’s interest. And the government certainly had no qualms in taxing the crap out of myself and my company last year.
Here’s a common definition of a welfare queen:
“A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe women who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.”
In your plight to broadly categorize people, I would at a minimum suggest you choose a better mascot.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]No intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.[/quote]
I’d argue no intelligent business person would continue to pay their mortgage if they could buy the same house next door for 50% less.
Have you ever run your own business? Just curious.
From your stance, I am similar to a welfare queen because I took out a business loan from a bank without verifying if they had sufficient collateral to make the loan. Of course I paid back the entire loan, and all of it’s interest. And the government certainly had no qualms in taxing the crap out of myself and my company last year.
Here’s a common definition of a welfare queen:
“A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe women who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.”
In your plight to broadly categorize people, I would at a minimum suggest you choose a better mascot.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
[/quote]Are you suggesting that the small business loan I took out, should also not be considered a business transaction? Would I be a welfare queen for taking such loan?
How about every time I use the ATM? I suppose now the taxpayers are paying for the ATM in some manner. Or when I pay my suppliers by doing bank wire transfers. Does that make me a welfare queen?
The fact of the matter is, every single contract I sign is a business decision.
There is no morality, ethics, shades of gray, etc in a contract. That is part of the very reason they exist.
I personally don’t know anyone who bought a house with the intention of screwing over the taxpayers. I would surely not broadly label everyone who defaults on a home loan right now a welfare queen.
I’d also wager both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates know when it’s time to use an exit clause, or to re-negotiate a contract when it’s in their best interest to do so. You are fooling yourself if you think they would pay 2X the going rate if they have an out.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
[/quote]Are you suggesting that the small business loan I took out, should also not be considered a business transaction? Would I be a welfare queen for taking such loan?
How about every time I use the ATM? I suppose now the taxpayers are paying for the ATM in some manner. Or when I pay my suppliers by doing bank wire transfers. Does that make me a welfare queen?
The fact of the matter is, every single contract I sign is a business decision.
There is no morality, ethics, shades of gray, etc in a contract. That is part of the very reason they exist.
I personally don’t know anyone who bought a house with the intention of screwing over the taxpayers. I would surely not broadly label everyone who defaults on a home loan right now a welfare queen.
I’d also wager both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates know when it’s time to use an exit clause, or to re-negotiate a contract when it’s in their best interest to do so. You are fooling yourself if you think they would pay 2X the going rate if they have an out.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
[/quote]Are you suggesting that the small business loan I took out, should also not be considered a business transaction? Would I be a welfare queen for taking such loan?
How about every time I use the ATM? I suppose now the taxpayers are paying for the ATM in some manner. Or when I pay my suppliers by doing bank wire transfers. Does that make me a welfare queen?
The fact of the matter is, every single contract I sign is a business decision.
There is no morality, ethics, shades of gray, etc in a contract. That is part of the very reason they exist.
I personally don’t know anyone who bought a house with the intention of screwing over the taxpayers. I would surely not broadly label everyone who defaults on a home loan right now a welfare queen.
I’d also wager both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates know when it’s time to use an exit clause, or to re-negotiate a contract when it’s in their best interest to do so. You are fooling yourself if you think they would pay 2X the going rate if they have an out.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
[/quote]Are you suggesting that the small business loan I took out, should also not be considered a business transaction? Would I be a welfare queen for taking such loan?
How about every time I use the ATM? I suppose now the taxpayers are paying for the ATM in some manner. Or when I pay my suppliers by doing bank wire transfers. Does that make me a welfare queen?
The fact of the matter is, every single contract I sign is a business decision.
There is no morality, ethics, shades of gray, etc in a contract. That is part of the very reason they exist.
I personally don’t know anyone who bought a house with the intention of screwing over the taxpayers. I would surely not broadly label everyone who defaults on a home loan right now a welfare queen.
I’d also wager both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates know when it’s time to use an exit clause, or to re-negotiate a contract when it’s in their best interest to do so. You are fooling yourself if you think they would pay 2X the going rate if they have an out.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
[/quote]Are you suggesting that the small business loan I took out, should also not be considered a business transaction? Would I be a welfare queen for taking such loan?
How about every time I use the ATM? I suppose now the taxpayers are paying for the ATM in some manner. Or when I pay my suppliers by doing bank wire transfers. Does that make me a welfare queen?
The fact of the matter is, every single contract I sign is a business decision.
There is no morality, ethics, shades of gray, etc in a contract. That is part of the very reason they exist.
I personally don’t know anyone who bought a house with the intention of screwing over the taxpayers. I would surely not broadly label everyone who defaults on a home loan right now a welfare queen.
I’d also wager both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates know when it’s time to use an exit clause, or to re-negotiate a contract when it’s in their best interest to do so. You are fooling yourself if you think they would pay 2X the going rate if they have an out.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
You’re missing the point. A business decision involves two willing parties who are each risking their own money. What we have here is one party, the FB, who took out a low-cost loan at the expense of an unwilling party, taxpayers through an unscrupulous intermediary, crooked banksters.
[/quote]In all fairness, things have changed quite significantly in the last few months.
Personally years ago when I bought my place, the banks were not being bailed out by taxpayers. Two willing parties made an agreement: I pay, or I give the property back to the bank. That’s it. We agreed and signed a contract. Nobody forced anyone’s hand, and we both fully understood the terms of our agreement.
For me, that is entirely a business decision whether I keep the house or hand it back. I fail to see how it could be anything else.
Now, fast forward to today.
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
Loan modifications, etc are in themselves an entirely new agreement but in no way changes the original.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
You’re missing the point. A business decision involves two willing parties who are each risking their own money. What we have here is one party, the FB, who took out a low-cost loan at the expense of an unwilling party, taxpayers through an unscrupulous intermediary, crooked banksters.
[/quote]In all fairness, things have changed quite significantly in the last few months.
Personally years ago when I bought my place, the banks were not being bailed out by taxpayers. Two willing parties made an agreement: I pay, or I give the property back to the bank. That’s it. We agreed and signed a contract. Nobody forced anyone’s hand, and we both fully understood the terms of our agreement.
For me, that is entirely a business decision whether I keep the house or hand it back. I fail to see how it could be anything else.
Now, fast forward to today.
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
Loan modifications, etc are in themselves an entirely new agreement but in no way changes the original.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
You’re missing the point. A business decision involves two willing parties who are each risking their own money. What we have here is one party, the FB, who took out a low-cost loan at the expense of an unwilling party, taxpayers through an unscrupulous intermediary, crooked banksters.
[/quote]In all fairness, things have changed quite significantly in the last few months.
Personally years ago when I bought my place, the banks were not being bailed out by taxpayers. Two willing parties made an agreement: I pay, or I give the property back to the bank. That’s it. We agreed and signed a contract. Nobody forced anyone’s hand, and we both fully understood the terms of our agreement.
For me, that is entirely a business decision whether I keep the house or hand it back. I fail to see how it could be anything else.
Now, fast forward to today.
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
Loan modifications, etc are in themselves an entirely new agreement but in no way changes the original.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
You’re missing the point. A business decision involves two willing parties who are each risking their own money. What we have here is one party, the FB, who took out a low-cost loan at the expense of an unwilling party, taxpayers through an unscrupulous intermediary, crooked banksters.
[/quote]In all fairness, things have changed quite significantly in the last few months.
Personally years ago when I bought my place, the banks were not being bailed out by taxpayers. Two willing parties made an agreement: I pay, or I give the property back to the bank. That’s it. We agreed and signed a contract. Nobody forced anyone’s hand, and we both fully understood the terms of our agreement.
For me, that is entirely a business decision whether I keep the house or hand it back. I fail to see how it could be anything else.
Now, fast forward to today.
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
Loan modifications, etc are in themselves an entirely new agreement but in no way changes the original.
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
You’re missing the point. A business decision involves two willing parties who are each risking their own money. What we have here is one party, the FB, who took out a low-cost loan at the expense of an unwilling party, taxpayers through an unscrupulous intermediary, crooked banksters.
[/quote]In all fairness, things have changed quite significantly in the last few months.
Personally years ago when I bought my place, the banks were not being bailed out by taxpayers. Two willing parties made an agreement: I pay, or I give the property back to the bank. That’s it. We agreed and signed a contract. Nobody forced anyone’s hand, and we both fully understood the terms of our agreement.
For me, that is entirely a business decision whether I keep the house or hand it back. I fail to see how it could be anything else.
Now, fast forward to today.
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
Loan modifications, etc are in themselves an entirely new agreement but in no way changes the original.
-
AuthorPosts
