isadore;1112311 wrote:It is the consumer's responsibility to know that hamburg is falsely labeled and eating it will kill him. It is the consumer's responsibility to know that deceptively prepared loan agreement will destroy him financially. No.

In english please?

isadore;1112311 wrote:It is the consumer's responsibility to know that hamburg is falsely labeled and eating it will kill him. It is the consumer's responsibility to know that deceptively prepared loan agreement will destroy him financially. No.

You mean those nasty ARM mortgages? "A" stands for adjustable. If you're too fucking stupid to read & understand financial contracts before you sign them then you're too incompetent to own a house.

believer;1112317 wrote:You mean those nasty ARM mortgages? "A" stands for adjustable. If you're too fucking stupid to read & understand financial contracts before you sign them then you're too incompetent to own a house.

What in the hell are you talking about..."too fucking stupid"? According to the CRA, everyone is entitled to home ownership. It just isn't FAIR that some save up, diligently search for a home within their means, shop for the best mortgage terms, AND make monthly payments. Those folks shouldn't be emulated cuz they got theirs by pure luck and their socio-economic birth selection. It's all random, you see. People shouldn't be denied access to their housing entitlement just cuz they are poor...they're just victims of their unlucky birth situation.

BGFalcons82;1112331 wrote:What in the hell are you talking about..."too fucking stupid"? According to the CRA, everyone is entitled to home ownership. It just isn't FAIR that some save up, diligently search for a home within their means, shop for the best mortgage terms, AND make monthly payments. Those folks shouldn't be emulated cuz they got theirs by pure luck and their socio-economic birth selection. It's all random, you see. People shouldn't be denied access to their housing entitlement just cuz they are poor...they're just victims of their unlucky birth situation.

Oh yeah....guess I'm too old skool.

believer;1112340 wrote:Oh yeah....guess I'm too old skool.

Yep, no one can change their plight in life. If you are born poor, you will always and forever be so. If you are born stupid, well that's just something you have to deal with cuz you can never be smart. That's why we need us some government, cuz we all is too stupid to survive on our own.

gut;1112282 wrote:That's the sort of victim mentality the liberals love to see!

What is it, exactly, about "Adjustable Rate Mortgage" that is so difficult to grasp? Seems to me when people can't or won't read that you don't need to go to any great lengths to "trick" them. Just admit it - you believe it's the responsibility of the taxpayer and the job of govt to protect people from their own stupidity/ignorance/laziness.

You want your nanny state to have some big 'ol titties to suck on. Is that the jist of it?

Some folks are just cold hearted. My sympathies are with the working people abused by these financial institutions with their predatory techniques and documents. Mortgage agreements are complex and the lender has all the advantages in their prepared agreement. We have seen not just predatory lending practices but also predatory mortgage servicing burying the borrower with a mountain of fees.

believer;1112317 wrote:You mean those nasty ARM mortgages? "A" stands for adjustable. If you're too ****ing stupid to read & understand financial contracts before you sign them then you're too incompetent to own a house.

The terms of these agreements are much more complex with the possible rate changes and fees. But of course blame the victim not the criminal.

believer;1112317 wrote:You mean those nasty ARM mortgages? "A" stands for adjustable. If you're too ****ing stupid to read & understand financial contracts before you sign them then you're too incompetent to own a house.

LOL. Yes people should know the difference between fixed rate and adjustable rate mortgages. In my example above, I'm surprised people did not hammer me for not reading the fine print. My mistake was not reading the contract regarding penalties for early payoff. It was not explained to me well at all. I took responsibility for not reading it...it cost me thousands. The "payoff penalty" I was saddled with occurred when we bought our second home...8 years later...whenever we settled the first mortgage in the selling our home.

The housing bubble and subsequent collapse was a combination of a lot of things. As Hits alluded, the articifially low "come on" interest rates (first year rate if you will) that was practically zero, gave a false sense of security to the new home owner. And yes, most people do not understand what compounding interest rates are. Sad but true.

The governmnent had no business in interfering with the natural market and should never have forced the banks to offer low interest rates to people earning 10 bucks an hour. The Bush administration happily chirped that the United states had a record number of home owners. The law of supplyb and demand kicked in.....and the prices of homes escalated....like never before. Even Ben Bernanke did not understand the imminent danger of such a scenario. Much of the economy growth was fueled by people borrowing against their new found wealth (increase in home equity)....inflated by the huge demand for new housing. All those involved (both parties) in this horrible legislation in trying to stick the low enders into their own homes was a mathematical clusterfukk waiting to happen.

Hundreds of economists, mainly from the Chicago school of thinking (libertarians...think Peter Schiff for example) foreboded the impending bubble pop. And when that happened, not only did the new home owners go under, but those that had financed fancy vacations from their new found equity wealth ended up going belly up as well.

wedge...not to give Bush a free pass, but his administration did propose changes in 2003 that might have helped prevent the problems of 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But he was told by Barney Frank and other democrats "it ain't broke, don't fix it"...and was accused of trying to limit the economically disadvantaged ability to obtain home loans. He eventually relented (he was occupied with some other heavy things in 2003...LOL) to his discredit.... but he is hardly the one responsible for the legislation that led to this, and his complicity in allowing it to continue is less than his congressional opposition.

But of course blame the victim not the criminal.

If you insist on pinning blame...pin it on government.

isadore;1112353 wrote:The terms of these agreements are much more complex with the possible rate changes and fees.

You have just defined adjustable. Don't sign an adjustable loan if you are not comfortable with the possible changes.

HitsRus;1112387 wrote:wedge...not to give Bush a free pass, but his administration did propose changes in 2003 that might have helped prevent the problems of 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But he was told by Barney Frank and other democrats "it ain't broke, don't fix it"...and was accused of trying to limit the economically disadvantaged ability to obtain home loans. He eventually relented (he was occupied with some other heavy things in 2003...LOL) to his discredit.... but he is hardly the one responsible for the legislation that led to this, and his complicity in allowing it to continue is less than his congressional opposition.

I read your link and there is no question, the enactment would have gone a long way in curtailing what we saw over the past 5 years.

Yet during Bush the 43rd's state of the union speeches, he bragged upon the fact that home ownership had set record levels under his administration.

Also, something to consider.....whenever I cite similar regulation is needed for Wall Street (as has Obama), I get hammered for it....especially by my fellow libertarians. Freddie and Fannie were/are part of Wall Street, whether we like it or not. By not enforcing watchdog activities...as your link clearly suggests, then the tax payer will ultimately be on the hook for bailouts.

Now your reply will be that "government sponsored" entities are different. Well yes they are.....but the same sins are commited by the private sector.

Footwedge;1112252 wrote:Just a question for you Al. Have you ever signed the closing papers on a mortgage? I've bought 2 homes in my lifetime, and I learned a valuable lesson after the first one.

I am college educated, with a degree in business administration...a minor in economics. The mortgage legalese papers were comprised of over 35 pages. It would have taken over 6 hours of reading all the fine print and probably 3 days to understand every nuance stated. Whether you think so or not, the documents are "bank loaded" in the small print, and I was verbally lied to regarding the penalties for early payoff. I was burned....and it cost me thousands. Why? Because I trusted the bank people...and that was a mistake.

Ultimately, it was I who had signed the papers....and I had no recourse.

Now...let's fast forward to the housing crisis and sub priming. Same 35 pages of fine print...same people trusting the banks to be honest and fair. Well, if they can verbally hoodwink a college educated, business degreed, trusting customer, just imagine what they could do with the GED crowd...en masse. Keep in mind the following...

Closing mortgages are "front loaded" for the bank salesman in garnishing commissions. His own financial well being is based on mortgage closings, It is not in his/her interest to be forthight in explaining imminent caveats to those that cannot really afford the home in the first place. Mortgages are secured...with very little risk on the bank's end. True, foreclosed properties have a reduced value, but in the long run, banks do not stand to lose much...compared to those that are, in many cases, forced into bankruptcy.

It's easy to say...buyer beware. But in the real world, the banking industry is loaded with crooks...that care much more about putting new business on the books, versus looking out for the personal well being of their own customers.

Yes, and I don't think that it is unreasonable to spend several hours reading over something that will be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't know exactly how much time I spent reviewing, but it was several hours. If someone is uncomfortable with a loan, I would suggest visiting other banks or hiring an attorney to review the loan terms. Lastly, if you don't feel comfortable with the loan don't take it.

HitsRus;1112391 wrote:If you insist on pinning blame...pin it on government.

for deregulating that allowed the financial institutions to destroy some many lives.

Footwedge;1112371 wrote:I took responsibility for not reading it...it cost me thousands. The "payoff penalty" I was saddled with occurred when we bought our second home...8 years later...whenever we settled the first mortgage in the selling our home.

An expensive lesson many have learned. Colleges, for all their liberal (from an educational perspective) grandeur, do a very poor job of preparing non-business majors to manage their finances. This exposure should arguably occur in high school.

The simplest thing people can and should know is never sign ANYTHING you don't understand when thousands of dollars are at stake. Probably not as obvious/intuitive that RE Broker's & Mortgage lenders don't have your objective best interest at heart. But I have a problem with everyone blaming the greedy bankers and lenders when they were just as guilty buying homes they knew they really couldn't afford. The old adage "if it sounds too good to be true..." is almost common knowledge, but greed is what led these people to ignore that very sage advice.

I'd agree with pretty much everything else you wrote, except that I think this whole mess was very much bipartisan. Truly a liberal initiative/push, but Republicans have increasingly shown they won't oppose widely publicly popular programs. Washington is full of vote panderers who kick the can and avoid the objective and rational tough decisions. I had to just shake my head over the whole debt ceiling debacle. Short of a balanced budget amendement, the debt ceiling is the only stop-gap measure available to fiscal responsibility. And all the rhetoric and criticism directed at the Tea Party was completely misguided and off-target. And I don't believe most Republicans are adamantly opposed to tax increases - it's obviously part of the solution. But I think there's a huge gulf between what Dems think tax increases can accomplish and what reality is, and their refusal to make real cuts IMO is creating this impasse.

SS & Medicare is this thing in a nutshell. You have to cut benefits and raise taxes @ 15% (which means @ 1% out of your check, and same on the employer match) and everyone shares equally in the pain. Neither party appears anywhere close to taking that on. It's political suicide and there are too many career politicians in Washington for that ever to get a modicum of support.

Al Bundy;1112431 wrote:Yes, and I don't think that it is unreasonable to spend several hours reading over something that will be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't know exactly how much time I spent reviewing, but it was several hours. If someone is uncomfortable with a loan, I would suggest visiting other banks or hiring an attorney to review the loan terms. Lastly, if you don't feel comfortable with the loan don't take it.

All valid points....but I seriously doubt you...or anyone for that matter...

A. Read all the fine prints (6 hours)...and/or
B. Hire an attorney to do so.

Call up a bank....any bank and ask them how long the closing takes. They will all tell you..."about an hour or so". Nobody reads all of that crap...nobody.

I understood the type of mortgage I was getting...and how it worked. What I wasn't told was that with my variable rate, I also would be penalized to the tune of thousands of dollars if I moved inside of 15 years...and had my mortgage in essence "paid off".

I admit that it was my mistake in not "catching this". but I will also tell you that my bank never presented this scenario verbally at the table...while closing for my house.

An example of how it works..

Mr. Footwedge, this form is telling you that you rescind all mineral rights on your property....please sign here. (the paper is 5 pages of font 6 size.

And...Mr. Footwedge, your variable rate will be 2.35% above the prime lending rate as determined by such and such closing price on May 15th every year. They will show you the number, the matrix in determining the change of rate...and where to sign. Again...another 3 to 4 pages of legalese...size 6 font.

isadore;1112348 wrote:Some folks are just cold hearted.

Cold-hearted? No, just blunt honesty. It truly is sad that people are too lazy or ignorant to be accountable for their actions. No one held a gun to their head. These people deserve at least as much blame for their predicament as they are trying to spread around.

The govt's responsibility is to ensure transparency so that consumers can make informed decisions. The govt's responsibility IS NOT to make those decisions for you. There was a wealth of information, books and advisers available to these people to make informed decisions and to understand what they were getting into. Sorry, I just struggle to be overly sympathetic for people who chose to ignore the many opportunities to educate themselves on the matter and now claim to be a victim.

Footwedge;1112457 wrote:All valid points....but I seriously doubt you...or anyone for that matter...

A. Read all the fine prints (6 hours)...and/or
B. Hire an attorney to do so.

I spent about 30 minutes reading all the fine print - about 2 pages worth - when I financed my car several years ago. But that's just me. I read everything I sign.

People will spend hours researching a $1000 television purchase. But when they take out a $200k mortgage they suddenly become lazy and stupid.

gut;1112469 wrote:I spent about 30 minutes reading all the fine print - about 2 pages worth - when I financed my car several years ago. But that's just me. I read everything I sign.

People will spend hours researching a $1000 television purchase. But when they take out a $200k mortgage they suddenly become lazy and stupid.

2 pages? Really? You have 10 forms to fill out...each multiple pages. Did you buy a house?....or a dog house?

gut;1112469 wrote:I spent about 30 minutes reading all the fine print - about 2 pages worth - when I financed my car several years ago. But that's just me. I read everything I sign.

People will spend hours researching a $1000 television purchase. But when they take out a $200k mortgage they suddenly become lazy and stupid.

I also take the time to review the policies when I buy anything. When buying a home, I asked to have a week to review the paperwork. When the loan officer seemed annoyed with that I said, I simply said maybe I will visit another bank. She gave me the week to review it.

I laughed at the TV example because I had started to write the same thing about how people spend more time researching a 2-year cell phone plan than they do a 30-year mortgage worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't want to see anyone lose money, but there has to be some personal accountability in managing one's finances.

Barack Obama doesn't care about black people.

/Kanye West'd

gut;1112461 wrote:Cold-hearted? No, just blunt honesty. It truly is sad that people are too lazy or ignorant to be accountable for their actions. No one held a gun to their head. These people deserve at least as much blame for their predicament as they are trying to spread around.

The govt's responsibility is to ensure transparency so that consumers can make informed decisions. The govt's responsibility IS NOT to make those decisions for you. There was a wealth of information, books and advisers available to these people to make informed decisions and to understand what they were getting into. Sorry, I just struggle to be overly sympathetic for people who chose to ignore the many opportunities to educate themselves on the matter and now claim to be a victim.

gosh it would be great if you could struggle to be minimally sympathetic to average people who have been abused and cheated by the agents of powerful financial institution using deceptive documentation. But to put it bluntly that is too much to ask.

dwccrew;1112480 wrote:Barack Obama doesn't care about black people.

/Kanye West'd

well there is on black person he does not care about.
"Kanye West is a jackass." according to Barack Obama

The sad part......... Kool Aid wins.... Romney will not win against Obama so we need to to start looking forward to 2016

Republicans are far too divided to win. It was time for the Party to endorse Ron Paul but instead we get Obama-White. I have to call it like I see it the GOP is one sorry ass party right now.

isadore;1112505 wrote:gosh it would be great if you could struggle to be minimally sympathetic to average people who have been abused and cheated by the agents of powerful financial institution using deceptive documentation. But to put it bluntly that is too much to ask.

Maybe we have different ideas of "average people", but I believe that "average people" are able to read and do basic calculations. If they can't read and do basic basic calculations, they probably shouldn't be signing the documents.