[SK in CV]

And one more thing socratt

[quote=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.
[/quote]

I wasn’t the least bit offended by your creative use of the quoting. I did start it. I disagree with the content, but not the style.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing socratt

[quote=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.
[/quote]

I wasn’t the least bit offended by your creative use of the quoting. I did start it. I disagree with the content, but not the style.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing socratt

[quote=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.
[/quote]

I wasn’t the least bit offended by your creative use of the quoting. I did start it. I disagree with the content, but not the style.

[SK in CV]

And one more thing socratt

[quote=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.
[/quote]

I wasn’t the least bit offended by your creative use of the quoting. I did start it. I disagree with the content, but not the style.

[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.

[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 said:

As to your Faith is fantasy comment, I wish I had a moment to share some of my life experiences growing up around a few devil worshippers. It wasn’t all that fun and what they were playing with wasn’t a game, I promise you that!!!![/quote]

On this part, it seems we agree. Whether the devil or some other god, faith often does as much damage as it does good.

[SK in CV]

[quote] socrattt said:

As to your Faith is fantasy comment, I wish I had a moment to share some of my life experiences growing up around a few devil worshippers. It wasn’t all that fun and what they were playing with wasn’t a game, I promise you that!!!![/quote]

On this part, it seems we agree. Whether the devil or some other god, faith often does as much damage as it does good.

[SK in CV]

[quote] socrattt said:

As to your Faith is fantasy comment, I wish I had a moment to share some of my life experiences growing up around a few devil worshippers. It wasn’t all that fun and what they were playing with wasn’t a game, I promise you that!!!![/quote]

On this part, it seems we agree. Whether the devil or some other god, faith often does as much damage as it does good.

[SK in CV]

[quote] socrattt said:

As to your Faith is fantasy comment, I wish I had a moment to share some of my life experiences growing up around a few devil worshippers. It wasn’t all that fun and what they were playing with wasn’t a game, I promise you that!!!![/quote]

On this part, it seems we agree. Whether the devil or some other god, faith often does as much damage as it does good.

[SK in CV]

[quote] socrattt said:

As to your Faith is fantasy comment, I wish I had a moment to share some of my life experiences growing up around a few devil worshippers. It wasn’t all that fun and what they were playing with wasn’t a game, I promise you that!!!![/quote]

On this part, it seems we agree. Whether the devil or some other god, faith often does as much damage as it does good.

[SK in CV]

For socrattt:

I’m quite sure I haven’t claimed I was a moderate. I’m not even close. But neither have I expressed any ideological mantras, least of all “Obama is the messiah”. I live in the real world. Faith, like yours, is fantasy. Whether conservative or liberal, or Christianity or Islam, faith is religion. I have none in anything other than the capacity of the human mind. I am a believer in almost nothing.

You should have noted, up to this point, I haven’t even expressed any opionon on the bill. I certainly don’t think it’s fair. But real politik rarely is. First I pointed out your failure to fairly represent what the bill does, and secondly, the flaws in your arguments against the bill.

If I missed one of your questions, I apologize. It wasn’t intentional. After reviewing the thread, I still don’t see it. If you’re interested, restate it, I’ll be glad to answer.

[Author]

Posts