the government wouldnt need to step in and save people and there would have never been any bubble to begin with if people could just stop being re ed for 10 seconds and think for themselves. you're not buying a house as a ing investment to make money re s, you're buying a home to live in. therefore you should never pay more than the houses intrinsic value, or what it is worth to you. if you love the house so much that it was worth 500,000 to buy it, then it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks it's worth and you're unaffected by any depreciation in value because you enjoy the home. you had to have it and were willing to pay 500,000 to buy it. if people wouldn't buy houses at prices beyond what the property is worth to them, then there wouldn't be any housing bubbles. stop thinking that the price is going to stick there long enough for you to live in it for a few years then turn around and make a profit. houses aren't investment opportunities unless you're a professional and really know what the you're doing.
WTF? Manny, I never thought I would see you agreeing with outright theft.
What if I had borrowed money from an evil banker last year and invested in GM stock before it took a . Damn, I made a bad investment. My stocks worth half what I paid for it. Is it fair to tell the banker...hey, I made a ty investment that is now worth half what I paid for it so that what I am going to pay you...half of what I borrowed.
Its not even close to outright theft. Its protection of the community because of a situation that the banks created initially. They're already taking a loss here, and foreclosure benefits no one.
A contract is a contract. The government has no right to interfere in a private contract just because the homeowner made a bad investment.
Some did. Most didn't. Last I checked it was still $120b in the hole with guys like JP Morgan still owing billions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtou...tarp-watchdog/
That particular report goes on to talk about how they have made billions in profit in their own right. Also note that this is Forbes; we wouldn't want you going red scare on the media outlet as well.
Banks sure deserve our support. Your confirmation bias is disturbing.
big banks, yes, so they could escape restrictions on salaries.
no so with non-big banks
Small Banks Struggling Under TARP Rules
There's a significant amount of money that's outstanding, I mean, if we look at how much AIG owes and GM and Ally Financial, which used to be GMAC, as well as there are 434 banks and credit unions still in TARP.
Romero says about $118 billion is still on TARP's balance sheet. The Treasury Department says those numbers are outdated, and it's only about $100 billion. Tim Massad, assistant secretary for financial stability, says about $15 billion is owed by banks.
A lot of them are smaller banks. And those banks, you know, do have a harder time repaying. That's because they don't have the same access to the capital markets and many of them also have had problems with their real estate investments.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/25/151386...der-tarp-rules
Wow.
The banks created it...
They went out there and MADE those poor people buy those houses.
And they can still afford to pay for them, they just don't want them anymore because they aren't the good investment they thought it was when they bought it.
You're simplifying it to something its not. Its more than that. Foreclosure has detrimental affects to the entire community and the government absolutely has a responsibility to step in and mitigate those effects when they've reached a level that they currently are.
The banks were partners in the loans. They didn't care about the risk because they were getting paid up front. The people made bad decisions but so did the bank. The difference? The banks new what they were doing on a systematic level.Wow.
The banks created it...
They went out there and MADE those poor people buy those houses.
And they can still afford to pay for them, they just don't want them anymore because they aren't the good investment they thought it was when they bought it.
Are you going to deny this? Cause if so we can just stop talking about it then. I'm tired of the same tired debate.
Fine. Then let the government figure out how to make those poor pitiful homeowners whole again instead of stealing from the lenders.
the banks do a lot of crooked things but government seizure of private property is so fundamentally wrong and a slippery slope that i don't even want to go near. some of you people are really really far gone tbh what's wrong with some of you that you can't understand the principle of the matter? it's all about the principle.
Its not stealing. They're doing what they can to prevent foreclosure. Look, if you want to disagree with the idea of using eminent domain in this manner then go right ahead but really you can spare me the hyperbole because thats not what it is at all. The government isn't keeping the property.
You are so oversimplifying it. The banks that originated the loans don't own the loans anymore. Bond funds, pension funds, etc. own the loans. You aren't punishing evil bankers, you are punishing ordinary investors who made seemingly safe investments and are stealing their savings.
Remember...they aren't helping the homeowners because they can't afford to make the payments they agreed to make...They are helping them because they didn't make the profit on the investment they thought they would.
Poor lenders.
You think this about saving a profit for people in danger of forclosure?
lmao
the government essentially seized 150,000 from the creditor and gave it back to the debtor. they didn't seize the actual property, they seized part of the loan amount.
LOL profits.
Its about avoiding foreclosure. Its not theft. Its not about making a profit for homeowners. Seriously, give me a break.The county, along with Ontario and Fontana, wants to use eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages from investors and restructure them to help borrowers keep the homes.
The creditor never had that money and given the recent history of foreclosures to even TRY to say they did is laughable.
Umm yeah they do. They write the contract laws in the first place. Being able to lend cash is very clearly not a right but a privilege.
And they didn't pay it back. You going to acknowledge that?
Stealing from these investors savings and pensions to subsidize deadbeat homeowners is so fundamentally and morally wrong I can't believe you can't see that.
You may want to read how it works and then explain to me how the investor getting the valuation of the loan is theft.
Manny, read the article. This isn't for helping people who are in danger of foreclosure. To qualify for the program you have to be current on your loan...so by definition they aren't in danger of foreclosure. These are the deadbeats that can afford to make the payments but are walking away from their bad investments.
lmao
we operate under a fractional banking system, as does the rest of the world. loaning money that they don't actually have all of at any given point in time is how the monetary system works. you don't like it? well then we have to change it.
the banks aren't doing anything that isn't designed by the government. the problem with giving those mortgages a haircut is that they have already been repackaged and sold to investors who like CC said, invested in them and have their savings and retirement there. it's wrong.
Nope he isn't going to acknowledge it.
It's interesting that he doesn't rail about the $100b that they owe (re:steal) us. Let's not help the consumer but let's just give the lenders an even bigger windfall.
If this is theft then every eminent domain usage in the past is theft.
CC...
Are you really trying to reason with lib s?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
