will further bank regulation torpedo the economy even further?

#76
#76
KiffinKiller said:
I'm not condemning the innocents who worked for the "indymacs". I am condemning precisely those who falsified the documents.
Click to expand...

i'm saying those who did so by and large are unemployable. they aren't in jail, but losing your occupation is hardly getting off scott free. the amount that have walked away with millions is pretty low.
 
#77
#77
droski said:
i'm saying those who did so by and large are unemployable. they aren't in jail, but losing your occupation is hardly getting off scott free. the amount that have walked away with millions is pretty low.
Click to expand...

That's who I was refering to: the minority.
 
#78
#78
droski said:
i don't understand why staying in business is some sort of lack of punishment. 99% of bank employees had nothing to do with the banks needing tarp. why should they get punished more then they have already (thru layoffs and their stock being worth zero) because some guy in a back room they've never seen screwed up? as for the moron who took the loan they've been able to walk away from the house without the banks going after them personally and many of them have gotten free rent for years while fighting the fight.
Click to expand...

I work for a major international company. If it were to go under because of what one division did, then I should get to keep my job through a govy bailout just because I had nothing to do with it?

I think there is a lot of stereotyping going on. I think the notion that the moron who got the loan he couldn't pay is getting off scott free, and the bank isn't having to pay are both wrong. Both have had to pay, I am just trying to provide some balance to the discussion that the consumer is at the biggest fault because he is an idiot. Blame goes around, and in many cases the banks were just as stupid as the consumer.
 
#79
#79
rjd970 said:
I work for a major international company. If it were to go under because of what one division did, then I should get to keep my job through a govy bailout just because I had nothing to do with it?

I think there is a lot of stereotyping going on. I think the notion that the moron who got the loan he couldn't pay is getting off scott free, and the bank isn't having to pay are both wrong. Both have had to pay, I am just trying to provide some balance to the discussion that the consumer is at the biggest fault because he is an idiot. Blame goes around, and in many cases the banks were just as stupid as the consumer.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. The fact that banks weren't doing thorough checks on their mortgage clients or, worse yet, checking them and ignoring facts is hard for me to swallow.
 
#80
#80
droski said:
of course. which is why they are to blame more than the people giving them the money. i.e. they should suffer the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa.

Did you not say this?

why? who is more responsible for YOUR OWN FINANCES than you? that's absurd. i've never understood why giving people more money then they deserve is preditory. i'll gladly take your free money if you don't want it.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that the consumer is responsible not only for his own finances, but that of the bank too? Is it predatory for the consumer to take the loan that both they and the bank should have known couldn't be paid back? It takes two to tango here, it isn't like the consumer came in and robbed the bank or forced them at gunpoint to lend.

The banks offered and marketed these things. They deserve a huge chunk of the blame too.
 
#81
#81
rjd970 said:
I work for a major international company. If it were to go under because of what one division did, then I should get to keep my job through a govy bailout just because I had nothing to do with it?

I think there is a lot of stereotyping going on. I think the notion that the moron who got the loan he couldn't pay is getting off scott free, and the bank isn't having to pay are both wrong. Both have had to pay, I am just trying to provide some balance to the discussion that the consumer is at the biggest fault because he is an idiot. Blame goes around, and in many cases the banks were just as stupid as the consumer.
Click to expand...

there are lots of reasons why people in bankrupted companies will keep their jobs (company stays in existance during reorganization, company is bought by someone). i'm just not sure why punishing these innocent people (let alone the millions of americans who'd be royally screwed if every bank went under) makes life any fairer?

the befenfits are free rent in a house i cannot afford. what punishment is the consumer getting? his credit score dropping?
 
#82
#82
droski said:
there are lots of reasons why people in bankrupted companies will keep their jobs (company stays in existance during reorganization, company is bought by someone). i'm just not sure why punishing these innocent people (let alone the millions of americans who'd be royally screwed if every bank went under) makes life any fairer?

the befenfits are free rent in a house i cannot afford. what punishment is the consumer getting? his credit score dropping?
Click to expand...

And everybody working for a bank is getting off scott free.

...see how I did that?
 
#83
#83
rjd970 said:
Whoa, whoa.

Did you not say this?



Are you seriously saying that the consumer is responsible not only for his own finances, but that of the bank too? Is it predatory for the consumer to take the loan that both they and the bank should have known couldn't be paid back? It takes two to tango here, it isn't like the consumer came in and robbed the bank or forced them at gunpoint to lend.

The banks offered and marketed these things. They deserve a huge chunk of the blame too.
Click to expand...

nope not saying that. i'm saying the banks aren't to blame for these people losing their houses. obviously the banks shouldnt' ahve given those people the money, but the banks giving it to them is not preditory in any way whatsoever. the banks suffered by their stock price dropping to zero, tens of thousands of layoffs, and every major exec getting fired. not seeing how the consumers have suffered.
 
#84
#84
rjd970 said:
And everybody working for a bank is getting off scott free.

...see how I did that?
Click to expand...

difference being the guy who bought teh house he couldn't afford did something wrong while the teller making $10 an hour did not.
 
#85
#85
droski said:
difference being the guy who bought teh house he couldn't afford did something wrong while the teller making $10 an hour did not.
Click to expand...

...and neither did the people who bought houses in good faith they could afford lost massive equity when the collapse happened.
 
#87
#87
droski said:
difference being the guy who bought teh house he couldn't afford did something wrong while the teller making $10 an hour did not.
Click to expand...

In my experience, tellers don't usually make decisions on major loans/mortgages. Maybe that's the problem?
 
#88
#88
utvolpj said:
did the people ask for the money knowing they couldn't pay it back?
Click to expand...

Im sure some did. But did the banks give them the money knowing this fact? I find it hard to believe that so many people 'pulled a fast one' on major loan/mortgages institutions for so many years.
 
#89
#89
rjd970 said:
...and neither did the people who bought houses in good faith they could afford lost massive equity when the collapse happened.
Click to expand...

i feel sorry for people who coudl afford said house and now are massively underwater. i don't feel sorry for the same people if they walk away from their obligations despite being able to pay.
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
...and neither did the people who bought houses in good faith they could afford lost massive equity when the collapse happened.
Click to expand...

does that excuse them from walking away from the mortgage? I know that some states allow a homeowner to walk away and only take a hit on their credit rating, that doesn't make breaking a contract right, especially when the owner can actually afford the mortgage, but is just pissed at the world because he/she was stupid enough to sign an ARM.
 
#92
#92
KiffinKiller said:
Im sure some did. But did the banks give them the money knowing this fact? I find it hard to believe that so many people 'pulled a fast one' on major loan/mortgages institutions for so many years.
Click to expand...

many people lied on their applications. others had credit scores that were artificially high. i doubt there are many examples of a maid buying 5 houses while listing her real income. these days people actually ask for proof of said income, but that wasn't true before.
 
Last edited:
#95
#95
droski said:
nope not saying that. i'm saying the banks aren't to blame for these people losing their houses. obviously the banks shouldnt' ahve given those people the money, but the banks giving it to them is not preditory in any way whatsoever. the banks suffered by their stock price dropping to zero, tens of thousands of layoffs, and every major exec getting fired. not seeing how the consumers have suffered.
Click to expand...

This doesn't surprise me coming from you.
 
#96
#96
rjd970 said:
This doesn't surprise me coming from you.
Click to expand...

i'm seeing how people who did things the right way have got hurt, but not how people who have walked away from their homes or bought houses they can't afford got hurt and if you can explain to me how they have been punished i'm all ears.
 
#97
#97
MG1968 said:
does that excuse them from walking away from the mortgage? I know that some states allow a homeowner to walk away and only take a hit on their credit rating, that doesn't make breaking a contract right, especially when the owner can actually afford the mortgage, but is just pissed at the world because he/she was stupid enough to sign an ARM.
Click to expand...

Does the fact that the bank lended to a consumer that couldn't pay the money back absolve them? The bank ultimately has to sign on to the loan and take part of the risk.

Again, underwriting was a major problem, moreso than people stealing from the poor banks by lying on applications.

All this blame on the consumer by arguing the banks were taken advantage of is comical.
 
#98
#98
rjd970 said:
Does the fact that the bank lended to a consumer that couldn't pay the money back absolve them? The bank ultimately has to sign on to the loan and take part of the risk.

Again, underwriting was a major problem, moreso than people stealing from the poor banks by lying on applications.

All this blame on the consumer by arguing the banks were taken advantage of is comical.
Click to expand...

no one is arguing the banks weren't dumb or at fault for lending to people without verifying income. difference being the banks seem to be getting 100% of the guilt where the people defrauding them are getting 0%.
 
#99
#99
droski said:
i'm seeing how people who did things the right way have got hurt, but not how people who have walked away from their homes or bought houses they can't afford got hurt and if you can explain to me how they have been punished i'm all ears.
Click to expand...

People who bought houses they can't afford have credit scores in the tank, most don't have houses, and many are still underwater.

The difference is the above applies to people who did it the right way too. The teller who had nothing to do with it still has a job, the homeowner who did everything right may not.

Not saying go and fire every teller so misery is shared, I am saying compare apples to apples. Many innocent people got screwed, both on the lender and consumer side.

Blaming one more than the other stupid. One side borrowed based on greed, the other lended based on greed.
 
#100
#100
droski said:
no one is arguing the banks weren't dumb or at fault for lending to people without verifying income. difference being the banks seem to be getting 100% of the guilt where the people defrauding them are getting 0%.
Click to expand...

Not from my seat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top