Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
Participantparamount,
What would you have done in 2006, if a representative from the government had come to you and said, “Look, there’s been a ton of fraud in the housing market. We’re going to unwind all the housing transactions back to 2001. You’ll be made whole, but that 50% equity increase (or whatever it was between your purchase in 2003 and 2006) was basically a product of fraud, so you won’t be getting any of that.”
I bet you would’ve screamed bloody murder! This is what bugs me about you ‘victims’. You’re only claiming victimhood because you ended up upside down. If you had made money due to all the fraud in the market and the government tried to take it from you, you would again characterize yourself as a victim.
It looks to me like you are trying to build some type of ‘moral case’ so that you can walk away with a ‘clear conscience.’ I’m sure at this point that you are going to walk away no matter what anybody on this board says, but if you walk away, you won’t be sticking it to the fraudsters. At this point, the American taxpayer essentially owns your loan and that is who you will be sticking it to. The fraudsters are long gone and many taxpaying citizens like myself who never participated in the housing bubble one way or the other will be forced to pay for a mess that we had no part in.
It sucks that I as a responsible bill-paying person have to have my taxes go to paying for people like you, but that’s life.
Participantparamount,
What would you have done in 2006, if a representative from the government had come to you and said, “Look, there’s been a ton of fraud in the housing market. We’re going to unwind all the housing transactions back to 2001. You’ll be made whole, but that 50% equity increase (or whatever it was between your purchase in 2003 and 2006) was basically a product of fraud, so you won’t be getting any of that.”
I bet you would’ve screamed bloody murder! This is what bugs me about you ‘victims’. You’re only claiming victimhood because you ended up upside down. If you had made money due to all the fraud in the market and the government tried to take it from you, you would again characterize yourself as a victim.
It looks to me like you are trying to build some type of ‘moral case’ so that you can walk away with a ‘clear conscience.’ I’m sure at this point that you are going to walk away no matter what anybody on this board says, but if you walk away, you won’t be sticking it to the fraudsters. At this point, the American taxpayer essentially owns your loan and that is who you will be sticking it to. The fraudsters are long gone and many taxpaying citizens like myself who never participated in the housing bubble one way or the other will be forced to pay for a mess that we had no part in.
It sucks that I as a responsible bill-paying person have to have my taxes go to paying for people like you, but that’s life.
Participantparamount,
What would you have done in 2006, if a representative from the government had come to you and said, “Look, there’s been a ton of fraud in the housing market. We’re going to unwind all the housing transactions back to 2001. You’ll be made whole, but that 50% equity increase (or whatever it was between your purchase in 2003 and 2006) was basically a product of fraud, so you won’t be getting any of that.”
I bet you would’ve screamed bloody murder! This is what bugs me about you ‘victims’. You’re only claiming victimhood because you ended up upside down. If you had made money due to all the fraud in the market and the government tried to take it from you, you would again characterize yourself as a victim.
It looks to me like you are trying to build some type of ‘moral case’ so that you can walk away with a ‘clear conscience.’ I’m sure at this point that you are going to walk away no matter what anybody on this board says, but if you walk away, you won’t be sticking it to the fraudsters. At this point, the American taxpayer essentially owns your loan and that is who you will be sticking it to. The fraudsters are long gone and many taxpaying citizens like myself who never participated in the housing bubble one way or the other will be forced to pay for a mess that we had no part in.
It sucks that I as a responsible bill-paying person have to have my taxes go to paying for people like you, but that’s life.
Participantparamount,
What would you have done in 2006, if a representative from the government had come to you and said, “Look, there’s been a ton of fraud in the housing market. We’re going to unwind all the housing transactions back to 2001. You’ll be made whole, but that 50% equity increase (or whatever it was between your purchase in 2003 and 2006) was basically a product of fraud, so you won’t be getting any of that.”
I bet you would’ve screamed bloody murder! This is what bugs me about you ‘victims’. You’re only claiming victimhood because you ended up upside down. If you had made money due to all the fraud in the market and the government tried to take it from you, you would again characterize yourself as a victim.
It looks to me like you are trying to build some type of ‘moral case’ so that you can walk away with a ‘clear conscience.’ I’m sure at this point that you are going to walk away no matter what anybody on this board says, but if you walk away, you won’t be sticking it to the fraudsters. At this point, the American taxpayer essentially owns your loan and that is who you will be sticking it to. The fraudsters are long gone and many taxpaying citizens like myself who never participated in the housing bubble one way or the other will be forced to pay for a mess that we had no part in.
It sucks that I as a responsible bill-paying person have to have my taxes go to paying for people like you, but that’s life.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Not just JP Morgan:
“DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) have committed to temporary moratoriums on foreclosures as the government works on a financial stability plan slated to include billions of dollars aimed at keeping people in their homes.”
Info on Jim the Realtor’s site:
“Here are the current counts of bank-owned SFRs and condos in San Diego County – these ought to be enough to tide us over for a month, but get the train back on the tracks soon!
Citigroup – 168
Morgan Stanley – 205
JP Morgan Chase – 265
WFB/Wachovia – 417
Bank of America – 1,725
Total – 2,780
We know that there are over 10,000 bank-owned properties currently in the county, so I doubt that I picked up every one owned by these four lenders. The BofA count includes Countrywide, Bank of New York, Deutsche, and US Bank, plus the private-label CWabs.”
[/quote]
I would imagine that if the banks brought those 7,220 REOs to market that the resultant markdowns in the rest of their books would make it clear that they are insolvent. The government is still trying to figure out a way to make the taxpayers pay for all these bad loans in a way that is politically palatable. This foreclosure moratorium is just a way to buy time in hopes that the government will eventually figure out a way to bail out the banks without the taxpayers knowing that it is a bailout. I think it’s going to be tough to do as even J6P is pretty well aware of what’s going on with these housing bailouts nowadays.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Not just JP Morgan:
“DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) have committed to temporary moratoriums on foreclosures as the government works on a financial stability plan slated to include billions of dollars aimed at keeping people in their homes.”
Info on Jim the Realtor’s site:
“Here are the current counts of bank-owned SFRs and condos in San Diego County – these ought to be enough to tide us over for a month, but get the train back on the tracks soon!
Citigroup – 168
Morgan Stanley – 205
JP Morgan Chase – 265
WFB/Wachovia – 417
Bank of America – 1,725
Total – 2,780
We know that there are over 10,000 bank-owned properties currently in the county, so I doubt that I picked up every one owned by these four lenders. The BofA count includes Countrywide, Bank of New York, Deutsche, and US Bank, plus the private-label CWabs.”
[/quote]
I would imagine that if the banks brought those 7,220 REOs to market that the resultant markdowns in the rest of their books would make it clear that they are insolvent. The government is still trying to figure out a way to make the taxpayers pay for all these bad loans in a way that is politically palatable. This foreclosure moratorium is just a way to buy time in hopes that the government will eventually figure out a way to bail out the banks without the taxpayers knowing that it is a bailout. I think it’s going to be tough to do as even J6P is pretty well aware of what’s going on with these housing bailouts nowadays.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Not just JP Morgan:
“DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) have committed to temporary moratoriums on foreclosures as the government works on a financial stability plan slated to include billions of dollars aimed at keeping people in their homes.”
Info on Jim the Realtor’s site:
“Here are the current counts of bank-owned SFRs and condos in San Diego County – these ought to be enough to tide us over for a month, but get the train back on the tracks soon!
Citigroup – 168
Morgan Stanley – 205
JP Morgan Chase – 265
WFB/Wachovia – 417
Bank of America – 1,725
Total – 2,780
We know that there are over 10,000 bank-owned properties currently in the county, so I doubt that I picked up every one owned by these four lenders. The BofA count includes Countrywide, Bank of New York, Deutsche, and US Bank, plus the private-label CWabs.”
[/quote]
I would imagine that if the banks brought those 7,220 REOs to market that the resultant markdowns in the rest of their books would make it clear that they are insolvent. The government is still trying to figure out a way to make the taxpayers pay for all these bad loans in a way that is politically palatable. This foreclosure moratorium is just a way to buy time in hopes that the government will eventually figure out a way to bail out the banks without the taxpayers knowing that it is a bailout. I think it’s going to be tough to do as even J6P is pretty well aware of what’s going on with these housing bailouts nowadays.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Not just JP Morgan:
“DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) have committed to temporary moratoriums on foreclosures as the government works on a financial stability plan slated to include billions of dollars aimed at keeping people in their homes.”
Info on Jim the Realtor’s site:
“Here are the current counts of bank-owned SFRs and condos in San Diego County – these ought to be enough to tide us over for a month, but get the train back on the tracks soon!
Citigroup – 168
Morgan Stanley – 205
JP Morgan Chase – 265
WFB/Wachovia – 417
Bank of America – 1,725
Total – 2,780
We know that there are over 10,000 bank-owned properties currently in the county, so I doubt that I picked up every one owned by these four lenders. The BofA count includes Countrywide, Bank of New York, Deutsche, and US Bank, plus the private-label CWabs.”
[/quote]
I would imagine that if the banks brought those 7,220 REOs to market that the resultant markdowns in the rest of their books would make it clear that they are insolvent. The government is still trying to figure out a way to make the taxpayers pay for all these bad loans in a way that is politically palatable. This foreclosure moratorium is just a way to buy time in hopes that the government will eventually figure out a way to bail out the banks without the taxpayers knowing that it is a bailout. I think it’s going to be tough to do as even J6P is pretty well aware of what’s going on with these housing bailouts nowadays.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Not just JP Morgan:
“DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) have committed to temporary moratoriums on foreclosures as the government works on a financial stability plan slated to include billions of dollars aimed at keeping people in their homes.”
Info on Jim the Realtor’s site:
“Here are the current counts of bank-owned SFRs and condos in San Diego County – these ought to be enough to tide us over for a month, but get the train back on the tracks soon!
Citigroup – 168
Morgan Stanley – 205
JP Morgan Chase – 265
WFB/Wachovia – 417
Bank of America – 1,725
Total – 2,780
We know that there are over 10,000 bank-owned properties currently in the county, so I doubt that I picked up every one owned by these four lenders. The BofA count includes Countrywide, Bank of New York, Deutsche, and US Bank, plus the private-label CWabs.”
[/quote]
I would imagine that if the banks brought those 7,220 REOs to market that the resultant markdowns in the rest of their books would make it clear that they are insolvent. The government is still trying to figure out a way to make the taxpayers pay for all these bad loans in a way that is politically palatable. This foreclosure moratorium is just a way to buy time in hopes that the government will eventually figure out a way to bail out the banks without the taxpayers knowing that it is a bailout. I think it’s going to be tough to do as even J6P is pretty well aware of what’s going on with these housing bailouts nowadays.
Participant[quote=rnen]
Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.
Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.
[/quote]
Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”
So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.
How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.
We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.
Participant[quote=rnen]
Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.
Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.
[/quote]
Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”
So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.
How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.
We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.
Participant[quote=rnen]
Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.
Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.
[/quote]
Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”
So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.
How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.
We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.
Participant[quote=rnen]
Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.
Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.
[/quote]
Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”
So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.
How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.
We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.
Participant[quote=rnen]
Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.
Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.
[/quote]
Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”
So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.
How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.
We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.
-
AuthorPosts
