Trains

On Oct 17, 2:42*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ST wrote:
On 10/16/08 7:14 AM, in article , "Fred
Fredburger" wrote:

ST wrote:

UNTIL THEN.... I will continue to believe in that golden rule "personal
responsibility"

Are you able to square the "personal responsibility" angle with the
massive gov't bail-out of financial institutions that's going on? I'm
curious as to how that's done.

Dumbass!
I said personal responsibility! As in getting a dumbass loan for a home with
payments that are equal to buying a 2008 Honda Accord! Its takes days to go
through the process and piles of paperwork. And NOBODY noticed the payment
schedule?

THAT is called personal responsibility!

Somewhere in this process, there are people who approved those loans.
Also people who made policies to approve loans to people with crappy credit.

Why let them off scott-free?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 17, 2:42*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ST wrote:
On 10/16/08 7:14 AM, in article , "Fred
Fredburger" wrote:

ST wrote:

UNTIL THEN.... I will continue to believe in that golden rule "personal
responsibility"

Are you able to square the "personal responsibility" angle with the
massive gov't bail-out of financial institutions that's going on? I'm
curious as to how that's done.

Dumbass!
I said personal responsibility! As in getting a dumbass loan for a home with
payments that are equal to buying a 2008 Honda Accord! Its takes days to go
through the process and piles of paperwork. And NOBODY noticed the payment
schedule?

THAT is called personal responsibility!

Somewhere in this process, there are people who approved those loans.
Also people who made policies to approve loans to people with crappy credit.

Why let them off scott-free?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn it sorry for the blank reply. We have gone through a ton of ****
with a major lender we have a mortgage with. Their people have lied at
every chance. We got around to doing a refininance to lock in a good
fixed rate, they claimed they had disclosed everything. When I got
down to the Lawyers office they started asking me if I agreed to all
kinds of things, including massive costs to me that hadn't been
mentioned, and actually were specifically denied by the lenders
people. When I walked out and started raising hell they responded with
"Oh, you must have misunderstood." . To which I replied "NO, You lied
your ass off , yet again and I'm reporting it to the AG's office."
Needless to say nothing happened, except they sold our loan almost
immediately.
Luckily we have a lawyer innthe family, and a good family friend who
does our law stuff and we were prepared for their ****. 99% of the
folks who walked into these lying scumbags are now ****ed through the
blatant dishonesty of the lenders trying to grab a fast buck and a
commission.
Still don't have that mess straightened out completely.
These *******s need to be prosecuted, jailed, and fined, along with
forced rewriting of the loans to reasonable, transparent terms.
Bill C
Paul your experience sounds pretty typical of what we had to deal
with, except even worse.

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
wrote:

Wether it's fraud by inclusion, or exclusion, it's fraud.

OK, but I was responding to your point about people voting more than
once and the idea of picture IDs helping with that. A bogeyman that
the right wing pulls out to attract certain people (like you) and try
to scare away voters (recent citizens, the very old who don't drive,
etc).

It's truly bizarre to try to support right-wing voter supression
tactics (picture ID requirement) with evidence of another form of
voter suppression (not counting mail in ballots). It's laughable.

and I don't agree it's a big hurdle.

If there is no evidence of any problem, despite massive attempts by
the justice department to find it, what is the possible purpose of
putting *any* hurdle in place? I know why the purpose of John McCain
and Rush Limbaugh on this sort of thing. What is your purpose?

It's odd to make public policy to solve problems that have been
demonstrated to_not_exist.

But more to my point, it's typical that you have latched onto a
right-wing talking point about a non-issue and now are trying to
defend it.
______________________
"I'm astounded that this issue is being trotted out again," Iglesias told
TPMmuckraker. "Based on what I saw in 2004 and 2006, it's a scare tactic." In 2006,
Iglesias was fired as U.S. attorney thanks partly to his reluctance to pursue
voter-fraud cases as aggressively as DOJ wanted -- one of several U.S. attorneys
fired for inappropriate political reasons, according to a recently released report by
DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.

Iglesias, who has been the most outspoken of the fired U.S. attorneys, went on to say
that the FBI's investigation seemed designed to inappropriately create a "boogeyman"
out of voter fraud.

And he added that it "stands to reason" that the investigation was launched in
response to GOP complaints. In recent weeks, national Republican figures -- including
John McCain at last night's debate -- have sought to make an issue out of ACORN's
voter-registration activities.
______________________

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/iglesias_im_astounded_by_dojs.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Oct 17, 6:02*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Still don't have that mess straightened out completely.
*These *******s need to be prosecuted, jailed, and fined, along with
forced rewriting of the loans to reasonable, transparent terms.


Dumbass -


I agree with you, but the problem is that most of what happened is
legal.

It didn't used to be legal. Thanks to Phil Gramm (former chair of the
Senate Banking Committee), the financial lobby, Alan Greenspan (whose
job it is to know better and *still* is defending credit default
swaps), both major political parties who unwittingly went along with
all of it - there will be *no* payback.

It's what happens when, in the interest of deregulating, they downsize
the wrong laws.

We're all gonna pay the price. Those guys who made the fast buck are
the only ones who will come out ahead. At the expense of everyone
else. It's a sad situation.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Oct 16, 11:37*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *Greg, I want to make certain that we understand what's being said.

Very good stuff, but it's pearls before swine. Greg is a crackpot from
the farthest reaches of the lunatic fringe. He's a self-professed
expert on the constitution and international banking, yet apparently
lives in a trailer behind his parent's house and can't afford to drive
a Yugo.

You can't reason with an unreasonable person, but you did lay it out
very nicely for those who are interested in the facts.

Thanks. But I should get combat pay for having had to go to sites run by Malkin
and some of those others that I didn't quote. Jeebus, those people are ****ed up.
Anyway, I put up some pretty obviously bigotted stuff but there's a lot more that is
more subtle - the "dog whistle" stuff that you can find in the oped pages of the WSJ
or Krauthammer's pieces in the NYT or opeds in Investor's Business Daily. The people
their wording is aimed at will understand it immediately.

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Oct 16, 11:37*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article , ST
wrote:
On 10/16/08 7:14 AM, in article , "Fred
Fredburger" wrote:

ST wrote:

UNTIL THEN.... I will continue to believe in that golden rule
"personal responsibility"

Are you able to square the "personal responsibility" angle with the
massive gov't bail-out of financial institutions that's going on? I'm
curious as to how that's done.

Dumbass!
I said personal responsibility! As in getting a dumbass loan for a home
with payments that are equal to buying a 2008 Honda Accord! Its takes days
to go through the process and piles of paperwork. And NOBODY noticed the
payment schedule?

* *You could learn something about ARMs, Steve.

Exactly. ARMs can be very complex. I've had an excellent ARM for the
past 20 yrs- 2% margin on the 11th District COFI. I got that because
I have excellent credit and was knowledgeable enough to be able to
find the best deal. Still, my mortgage got sold to another bank and I
noticed that my interest rate was not adjusting down to track the 11th
District COFI, which was falling. I called them, and they explained
that by the terms of my loan the interest rate could not fall below
the initial teaser rate I got back in '88, when 7.5% was a really low
rate and fixed loans were over 10%.

However, I pulled out my loan docs and proved to them that there was
no such limitation on my interest rate.They immediately caved and
refunded the over payments. How many less knowledgeable people were
getting ripped off and had no idea it was happening?

I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of people would miss that.

That sort of "mistake" by the mortgage holder would have cost me
hundreds of dollars a month. The 11th District COFI is currently 2.7%,
so I'm paying 4.7%. If I hadn't been paying attention my house payment
would be a whopping 60% higher. That's a lot of coin.

That's the first time I've heard of an ARM that has a rate that low at this point
in its life. I imagine there are others but they must be rare as hell. I bought in
'99 and worked hard to get a fixed rate. It wasn't great but it ended up being about
a point less than everyone else I knew who bought around the same time as I did. I've
refinanced a couple of times when lower rates came available (shortening the loan to
a 15 year helped). I also put about 30% of the payment as extra principle every
month. I want to be done as soon as possible.

A friend sold her crappy house a couple of years ago, and told me the
buyer had qualified by getting an ARM with a 1.75% teaser rate. How
could any responsible lender do that? When a loan like that fully
adjusted to a normal interest rate, like 6%, the payment would more
than triple. Who can afford that? It was obviously nuts. We're all
paying the price for that lunacy, which is why it is in our interest
to make sure it doesn't happen again. We have a right to protect
ourselves from this greed and irresponsible lending.

People are trying to put all the blame on the borrowers but I'd say that the
lenders are more culpable because *they should know better.* I think there were two
things going on the lenders just started seeing their huge paychecks and lost
sight of everything else, and they assumed that the old way of thinking still
applied, where people would get seriously in trouble on credit cards but make the
house payment. When people saw their payments going sky high and other factors made
them owe more than the house was worth, they said "**** it" and stopped making the
payments.

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Oct 17, 8:40*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *People are trying to put all the blame on the borrowers but I'd say that the
lenders are more culpable because *they should know better.*

snip




Dumbass -


Everyone's culpable. The only people I really "blame" a

1) Phil Gramm (for sneaking in that legislation that enabled the
credit default swaps)
2) Alan Greenspan (*he's* the one who should know better than to have
allowed this)

Gramm enabled it, Greenspan could have stopped it and didn't.

The reason I don't blame the lenders *as much* is those deriviatives
are structured in such complicated ways that hardly anyone can get
their head around them. The lenders were under the illusion that they
could make the subprime loans and be protected by the credit default
swaps in case something went bad.

They were wrong.

There are $45 trillion in credit default swaps out there. Hardly
anyone has an idea of how much it's going to take to untangle the
mess.

It's very tangled. Very, very tangled.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Oct 16, 7:20*pm, Bill C wrote:

We've finally found something you don't think that more government
oversight and involvement would be good for. Amazing.
*How many illegals are working here? How many have documentation? How
many are being given rights and privileges reserved for US citizens?
How many are voting? Why are you in favor of screwing those folks who
try to come here legally and become citizens and earn their rights?
*Not surprised that you wouldn't want anyone tightening this up with
an estimated 20 million here who could vote as easily as they are
working, and they are voting your way because you pander to them and
don't give a rat's ass about the folks trying to do it legally.

Dumbass,

That's nuts. Illegal or undocumented immigrants are
too scared to call the cops when they are the victims
of crimes. (Every honest police dept. in an area with
illegal/undocumented people is aware of this problem.)
They aren't about to go register to vote and write their
names and addresses on pieces of paper that get
sent to the Man. Even though it's a different office at the
county courthouse that processes the registrations.

There was a flutter over this because of a report that
claimed there are a lot of non-citizen voters, by asserting
that there are a lot of non-citizens who got called
for jury duty (which could mean they are on the voter
reg rolls - but it could also mean they have driver's licenses).
The report was written by a partisan named Hans van
Spakovsky (a former DoJ appointee who ginned up
a lot of fear about vote fraud). Here is a partisan
argument that his report was wrong:
http://www.truthinimmigration.org/Fi...oundation..pdf

You can read both and make up your mind.

Ben

wrote:
You can read both and make up your mind.

Dumbass,

It doesn't really matter which direction you want this thread
to go. You can't get there from here.

Everybody thinks logical, well thought out arguments will
make a difference. Everybody is wrong.

Bob Schwartz

On Oct 18, 8:53*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
wrote:
You can read both and make up your mind.

Dumbass,

It doesn't really matter which direction you want this thread
to go. You can't get there from here.

Everybody thinks logical, well thought out arguments will
make a difference. Everybody is wrong.

Bob Schwartz

That's a logical, well thought out argument, but it won't make a
difference.
-Paul