Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
99% of these people are getting out of a very bad decision on their part with few repercussions. Banks, investors, pension funds, etc. are the ones left holding the bag,
Um, bro? You do know that there are only 12 non-recourse states, right? California is one of them. In the rest, your "few repercussions" amount to the lender suing and getting judgement for the deficiency between the loan amount and proceeds of sale of the collateral.
Additionally, you can be liable for taxes on the deficiency amount whether recourse or non recourse.
But that doesn't fit with your Randian narrative about leeches and producers and whatnot.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Um, bro? You do know that there are only 12 non-recourse states, right? California is one of them. In the rest, your "few repercussions" amount to the lender suing and getting judgement for the deficiency between the loan amount and proceeds of sale of the collateral.
Additionally, you can be liable for taxes on the deficiency amount whether recourse or non recourse.
This is rarely done and when it is it is almost exclusively in the case of a HELOC. If you got greedy when you saw the price of your house go up, took money out to buy jet skis, and then walked away when your home lost value, the bank can sue you for this money. Sounds fair to me.
I guess that doesn't fit into your "something for nothing" Marxist fantasy narrative though.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
I love that the OWS movement will take contributions in the form of check or money order.
Oh the hypocrisy!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Please Crackeraddy explain why?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Certainly they would not cash a check from my Bank of America account?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
OK, here's the plan for "Occupy Pinnacle Capital Management".
Address: 1700 North Broadway, Walnut Creek - when you see nuts, you're getting warm. Warmer than the occupiers in New York, anyway. Plus there'll be a daily BBQ hosted by the friendly capitalist oppressors:
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
Um, bro? You do know that there are only 12 non-recourse states, right? California is one of them. In the rest, your "few repercussions" amount to the lender suing and getting judgement for the deficiency between the loan amount and proceeds of sale of the collateral.
Additionally, you can be liable for taxes on the deficiency amount whether recourse or non recourse.
**This is rarely done and when it is it is almost exclusively in the case of a HELOC. If you got greedy when you saw the price of your house go up, took money out to buy jet skis, and then walked away when your home lost value, the bank can sue you for this money. Sounds fair to me.
I guess that doesn't fit into your "something for nothing" Marxist fantasy narrative though.**
Crack Addict, you are incorrect. It is not "rarely" done.
Banks very often pursue individuals if they feel that they can get money from them. Between the tax burden and deficiency judgements, very few folks are getting out of underwater home loans unscathed. It is easy to simplify this argument with the straw-man of greedy individuals, but that is not the majority.
Do the banks have losses here? Absolutely. Did some individuals abuse the system by living above their means on HELOCs? Absolutely. At the same time, the financial institutions were making sick profits off the loans and in many cases had zero exposure for the loans by selling them back to the govt. In the end, it comes down to "main street" vs "wall street." Major institutions got bailed out, individuals didn't. Both took hits, but the financial institutions are back on track 12 month later with record bonuses and profits, while many individuals will feel the pain from the real-estate crash for many years to come.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Both took hits, but the financial institutions are back on track 12 month later with record bonuses and profits, while many individuals will feel the pain from the real-estate crash for many years to come.
This is completely incorrect, and smells of ignorant OWS talking point. The average time between initial delinquency now and foreclosure is about 2 years. The reason for this is that banks are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans that have already defaulted, and they are getting no income streams for, but they have not foreclosed on them yet because they would have to write down the loss. Writing down these losses would cause nearly all of the large banks to be insolvent. As it stands, they are extending and pretending. Look at the Bank Stock Index:
This is not indicative of "record profits". These bad loans will produce losses for many years to come, and will likely be a severe drag on the economy.
Also, I was completely against the bailouts, but ostensibly the idea was to help the overall economy. It was believed (by some) that pumping money into the banks would trickle down in the form of loans, etc. Did it happen? I don't know. Most liberals claim that "trickle down" does not work anyway, but they then have the task of explaining why a "banking crisis" caused so much pain on main street.
Of course, the answer is that it was not simply a "banking crisis", this was just a symptom of the debt addiction we are suffering from. We lived way beyond our means, and when the inevitable debt hemorrhage occurred, Wall Street was not able to pump money to the debt addicted sectors of the economy any longer.
As to your first point, I work for a major bank and to my knowledge they have never pursued anyone for a first lien. It is very rare that they will pursue you for a second lien, and even if they did, bankruptcy is an option after foreclosure. Fannie Mae will qualify you for a new home loan 3 years after foreclosure and bankruptcy.
At the same time, the financial institutions were making sick profits off the loans and in many cases had zero exposure for the loans by selling them back to the govt.
This is absolutely correct. But it is also where the OWSers are wrong. It should be OW. Blaming banks for making profits is like blaming a beaver for building a dam. The problem is the moral hazard created by Washington in buying and insuring these loans.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
I'll reiterate;
The whiners at OWS have misdirected angers.
They should not be angry at corporations or Wall St. They should direct their anger at gov't (both parties lately).
Too much gov't interference in some areas - like encouraging home loans to unqualified people, ridiculous labor and manufacturing regs that do nothing but force jobs overseas.
Too liitle gov't in others - like not doing their jobs in regulating the free market properly, or worse, repealing common-sense regulatory measures.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Here is a perfect analogue for your twisted argument Blew.
http://motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness
For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would needlessly burn to death. Why would anyone buy a car that for seven years Ford new was a death trap?
One evening in the mid-1960s, Arjay Miller was driving home from his office in Dearborn, Michigan, in the four-door Lincoln Continental that went with his job as president of the Ford Motor Company. On a crowded highway, another car struck his from the rear. The Continental spun around and burst into flames. Because he was wearing a shoulder-strap seat belt, Miller was unharmed by the crash, and because his doors didn't jam he escaped the gasoline-drenched, flaming wreck. Wow wasn't he lucky that having been forced by Govt regulations Ford Co had made the necessary safety improvements to his Continental.
"I still have burning in my mind the image of that gas tank on fire," Miller said. He went on to express an almost passionate interest in controlling fuel-fed fires in cars that crash or roll over Wow I am convinced that he has "seen the light" And has found the spirit of altruism and the value of the common good.
Almost seven years after Miller's testimony, a woman, whom for legal reasons we will call Sandra Gillespie, pulled onto a Minneapolis highway in her new Ford Pinto. Riding with her was a young boy, whom we'll call Robbie Carlton. As she entered a merge lane, Sandra Gillespie's car stalled. Another car rear-ended hers at an impact speed of 28 miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured. Vapors from it mixed quickly with the air in the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture and the car exploded in a ball of fire. Sandra died in agony a few hours later in an emergency hospital. Seven years of no fix. Oh well you know the Pinto was an fuel saving economy car Ford never wanted to make anyway.
Why did Sandra Gillespie's Ford Pinto catch fire so easily, seven years after Ford's Arjay Miller made his apparently sincere pronouncements—the same seven years that brought more safety improvements to cars than any other period in automotive history?
So who could expect them to make safety changes to them so quickly. I mean think of the shareholders profits after all.
Blew's warped logic would say the Fuknbitch deserved to die cause she was dumb enough and greedy enough to buy a car beyond her means to control. And ol' Arjay deserved to live unharmed because he knew better than to buy the Death Traps his corporation was, through incentives, foisting on the American public. That and because as a corporate fat cat he was a "job creator". Ford of course shouldn't be held accountable right Blewy. Saving innocent lives would be onerous government regulations and you know how that kills jobs.
You know I am with you Blew ol' Arjay Miller probably should have gotten a multimillion dollar bonus for being smart enough to get the Lincoln. Stupid crispy chick shoulda got a Continental.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
As a side note Blew, do you know who was President when the Ford Pintos were making passenger flambes all over America?
Well I'll tell you. Richard Nixon.
That's right Richardmotherf*#kingtrickydicknixon.
And Blew, do you know what political Party Ol' Dicky came from?
Well I'll tell you. Republican.
Thats right another republican shill for Corporatocracy.
Do you want to know the dirty deals between Nixon and his Corporate masters?
OCCUPY WALL STREET!
Drag the Corporatocracy to the ground and stick a dagger where it's hard should be,
Hang the Profiteers by their cankles and whack them like pinatas till something finally trickles down.
Take back our country and reclaim citizenship from the Corporations.
Like the sign said I'll believe Corporations are people when Texas executes one".
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Hey Philo, re-read my post above about regulation. But it's kinda weak that you have to go back to the 60's to make a point. Exploding pinto's??? And Nixon???
Should I bring up Carter next? And the housing program he initiated?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Blew's warped logic would say the Fuknbitch deserved to die cause she was dumb enough and greedy enough to buy a car beyond her means to control. And ol' Arjay deserved to live unharmed because he knew better than to buy the Death Traps his corporation was, through incentives, foisting on the American public. That and because as a corporate fat cat he was a "job creator". Ford of course shouldn't be held accountable right Blewy. Saving innocent lives would be onerous government regulations and you know how that kills jobs.
Yes! Let's revert to socialism, and let the government manage the auto industry. Then they can make safe cars, cars which cannot possibly kill anyone - because they won't be able to build one that can go fast enough!
This is such an infantile straw man argument, which always comes up when lefties are running out of angles to argue. As if capitalism is supposed to guarantee that nobody will ever be hurt because under capitalism bad decisions and error-prone thinking are non-existant.
At least under capitalism we became aware of the problem and Ford fixed it. Do you think a government which managed the car company and controlled the press would ever let this get out, much less correct the problem?
How about those FEMA formaldehyde trailers? They are still for sale if you want one...
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Yes! Let's revert to socialism, and let the government manage the auto industry. speaking of infantile straw man arguments.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Just curious... are you aware (hahaha, that alone is funny)
that the original members of the Tea Party did something illegal and left quite a mess?
Are you aware they they were fighting a government backed corporation?
Are you aware that they were citizens without corporate sponsorship... more like the OWS folks than the Tea Baggers? Of course you aren't.
How is that relevant now?
Then, it was a foreign entity trying to tax the piss out of us and we said, "Screw you, we'll take sovereignty of this land and make a new tax-code and Constitution". It was more about independance from foreign rule.
The current theme is just a smaller Fed, less spending, and a more diligent, responsible gov't held accountable by the People.
There are similarities, but it's different. Kinda like the difference between OWS and the Tea-Baggers.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Yes, Wes, they were Brits imposing taxes from across an ocean and the American people got fed up with being ruled by Britain and the Church of England.
Do you really think I don't know the history?
Many countries told the Brits to piss off. We were one of the first.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
and a more diligent, responsible gov't held accountable by the People Right on Bluey.
But consider carefully what you said in the current context.
That the government has become much more accountable to the money provided by special interests, including corporations. Corporations are "people" and now have the legal right to spend as much $$ on political candidates as they like. Then there are the "citizens" like Koch Bros and many many more who own corporations who will benefit directly from the laws they try to influence. Regardless of the benefits such laws provide society.
The thuggery is transparent to people who look at the whole picture.
Throw in a nasty mix of religious fundamentalism, global warming denial, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a frequently corrupt and incompetent healthcare system that has terrible outcomes compared to other industrialized countries, disbelief in science (intelligent design anyone?), denying women the right to manage their own fertility, gay bashing, privatizing the education system for profit.......
Intelligent and caring people are pretty pissed off. And it's not because they think their government is overtaxing them. It's because they see the rich getting MUCH richer and themselves and others getting nowhere.
10% unemployment while corporation, Wall Street and banking executives take home millions per year, each. The US Gov't is currently not representing the needs of the people and the people are finally becoming aware. On the issue of gov't representing the people, there's not much difference between the Tea Party and OWS.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Dr. F, weschrist, philo, high traverse, and others: good job here.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Throw in a nasty mix of religious fundamentalism, global warming denial
This is where you lose me, bro.
But I mostly agree with the rest of your rant.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
imposing taxes from across an ocean and the American people got fed up with being ruled by Britain and the Church of England It's a lot more complicated than that. Freedom of Religion was pretty much alive in the Colonies soon after they were settled. In England there was religious freedom by the early 1700's.
The Stamp Act was designed to financially assist the East India Company who had the monopoly over trade with England in the colonies. Until 1776, most of the Colonists considered themselves proud to be English. Which is one of the reasons they were so pissed off about not being represented in Parliament.
Much as many Americans, including yourself I believe, but for different reasons, think the Gov't is now in the hands of corporations and wealthy people effectively bribing and then coercing "our" representatives.
It was the English Parliament and King cracking down on the political discontent that created the actual rebellion. Had the King and Parliament given the Colonists representation in Parliament we might still be part of the United Kingdom.
There are a lot of similarities to the US during the later stages of the Vietnam War.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!