diplomat1824, don't come on here with the sole purpose of bashing Sicarius, regardless of whether his views merit it.

Ultimately, this place is for Diplomacy, and if you're not gonna play the actual game go find another forum to argue on.

holes the size of the sun? what are you referring to?

lunacy actually diplomat.
I dont mind at all when people disagree with me, it lets me refine my arguments, and to put some often held incorrect assumptions to rest.
but you never have anything close to an argument.
get out of my thread

Sicarious, could be the made up statistics you attribute to a virtually unknown Congresswoman. When confronted with the fact those statistics cannot be verified, you claim you don't give a shit about that congresswoman. But you still refuse to disavow the facts. Your argument loses quite a bit of credibility. Is your argument an emotional one? Or a fact and/or law based one? It appears only emotional, and thats fine, but don't pretend it to be otherwise.

this hobby is so pain-stakingly slow to play its sometimes ridiculous

I invoked marcy kaptur not because she has any bearing on my beleifs, but because I thought she may on yours.

I'm doing this because of my morals.

Then your arguments would sound much better if you just spoke emotionally without the made up 'facts'.

Please read Retirement Announcement. The most recent post on it may interest you.

Ok dingleberry jones, (and others)I think you might be an apologist for thew bankers. What about bundling up peoples' mortgages in CDO's and later CDS's? Did the homeowner, who is a party to the mortgage contract agree to have the contract and all it's terms transferred to another lending facility without their knowledge? The banks get mortgages off their books by bundling up CDO's and CDS's specifically so they don't HAVE to bite the big one if the mortgage defaults.
Most of these folks who got themselves into an untenable mortgage were tricked into it by predatory lenders using such despicable tactics as the "no-doc" or "liar" loan, where the borrower is ENCOURAGED to lie about their income BECAUSE no-doc loans are based on the borrowers STATED not DOCUMENTED income. How can you blame someone for wanting a piece of the American "Dream?" We have been so conditioned to be materialistic by the consumer culture to the point where many people no longer see that they have ANY personal value UNLESS they have an SUV, or a new house....regardless of whether or not they can afford it. Folks got scammed by the banks into taking out loans that they could not afford, were told that it would be OK and that the bank would work with them if they couldn't and the loans that were written up benefited the banks more if the borrower defaulted on the loan rather than pay it off.
So, perhaps dingleberry, you should stop being an apologist for these criminal bankers who have lied MILLIONS of Americans into taking out loans that they could not afford rather than blaming someone for being gullible and believing our parents when they told us that bankers were upstanding citizens when in reality they haven't been anything more than white collar predatory con-artists since the 80's at least.

According to the DSM-IV (the primary diagnostic tool for psychiatric disorders) there are 7 criteria for the determination to made that an individual is antisocial, or a psychopath. A corporation (which a bank is) is considered a "legal person." Only 3 of the 7 criteria need to be met to make the diagnosis of psychopathic antisocial personality disorder. Let's take a look at those criteria, shall we?
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, or conning others for personal profit
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Gee, look at that. The banks fit ALL 7 CRITERIA! Still interested in defending the banks?

Besides that, banks have been on my shit-list since I was old enough to read.
the reasons to be anti bank are a mile log.

literally, I once wrote them all on notecards and placed them end to end.

I didnt really do that that was a joke.

woudnt want someone to say

"no you didnt, thus your entire point is wrong"

Oh Sicarious, talking with you is like talking with a petulant child. Get caught in a lie and flail about throwing out a whole bunch of unrelated facts, issues and lies in the hopes that the attention of your audience will get distracted and forget your lies.

"dingleberry jones, (and others)I think you might be an apologist for thew bankers" I think I made it quite clear how I thought about the bankers when I said "i blame the banks for ruining the economy." I don't know how I can be any clearer. It sounds to me like you think that only one party can be at fault. So if I find homeowners responsible for their position, I must therefore be on the side of the banks. Grow up and realize there's plenty of blame to go around.

"What about bundling up peoples' mortgages in CDO's and later CDS's? " That may have an impact on the country's economy, but it has ZERO to do with a homeowner's ability to pay their mortgage.

"Did the homeowner, who is a party to the mortgage contract agree to have the contract and all it's terms transferred to another lending facility without their knowledge? The banks get mortgages off their books by bundling up CDO's and CDS's specifically so they don't HAVE to bite the big one if the mortgage defaults."
One of the documents you sign when you get a mortgage is acknowledgement that your mortgage may be sold. In fact, many brokers make their business solely on doing this. They aren't big enough to hold the loans, so they temporarily hold the loan until they can sell it to a big player. But again, this has no impact on whether a homeowner can pay his mortgage.

"Most of these folks who got themselves into an untenable mortgage were tricked into it " Please show me proof of this. The video you showed was about ONE homeowner, who admitted she didn't read anything and didn't have a lawyer.

"How can you blame someone for wanting a piece of the American "Dream?" We have been so conditioned to be materialistic by the consumer culture to the point where many people no longer see that they have ANY personal value UNLESS they have an SUV, or a new house....regardless of whether or not they can afford it." And yet you want to perpetuate this by keeping people in homes they cannot afford. The American Dream doesn't require a 2500 sq foot home and 3 new cars in the driveway. And no, I don't blame them for wanting that. But I DO blame them for the position they got themselves into when they
realize they can't afford it.

"Folks got scammed by the banks into taking out loans that they could not afford, " Folks took a risk. They took a risk that interest rates would work in their favor, that their ARM wouldn't balloon. There are plenty of people who are risk-averse, who said, 'yeah, the low interest ARM sounds good now, but what happens in 5 years?

I'm not even going to address the psycho-babble about ICD9 codes and your diagnosis that bankers are clinical. I'm wondering if there are any mirrors in the box you live in?

"Folks took a risk. They took a risk that interest rates would work in their favor, that their ARM wouldn't balloon."

Yes, some folks took a risk. No question.

I don't have any stats to back up what I'm about to say, but I highly doubt that the majority of people being evicted nowadays are a result of a ballooning ARM.

What about the loss of jobs? You exemplified this yourself: "I was laid off 7 months ago and took a job making less than I was. My wife has received a 15% pay cut. And we can still pay our mortgage."

I think if we looked into it, you would find that many Americans CAN afford their mortgage with their current job. The real problem isn't the ballooning ARM...it's the jobs that were outsourced to other countries.

If you don't have a job or cannot find one, you cannot pay your mortgage.

I think that if you combine predatory lending practices and outsourcing, it would make up the bulk of the reason for foreclosures. Personal fiscal irresponsibility is a sure factor in this, but I think it's rather small considering.

The main point I'm trying to say is that I think MOST Americans are responsible enough to realize what they can or cannot have. Take away their high-paying job and that's a whole other story.

"The American Dream doesn't require a 2500 sq foot home and 3 new cars in the driveway. And no, I don't blame them for wanting that. But I DO blame them for the position they got themselves into when they realize they can't afford it."

I would argue that this American probably COULD have afforded it just fine...until his high-paying job was outsourced.

Tax loopholes ENCOURAGE outsourcing. And the US government has done nothing to date to stop it.

http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/03/tax_breaks_for_.html

Here's the loophole:
...the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are.

Darwyn,
Yes, the loss of jobs has something to do with it. And if you are buying a home without ever considering the loss of a job, you're foolish. And if you cannot find a job, or more likely, cannot find a high-enough paying job to make payments on the home you have, then you can't afford the house you have.

I don't believe that ARMs was the bulk of people either. I'm trying to decipher what Sicarius is referring to when he states (without any backup or evidence of any sort), that the majority of people were tricked into their situation. The only thing I could think of was the surprise when ARMs ballooned. If your banker convinced you 'you will have your high paying job forever', well, that speaks wonders. I don't view that as being 'tricked'.

"The main point I'm trying to say is that I think MOST Americans are responsible enough to realize what they can or cannot have. Take away their high-paying job and that's a whole other story."

I don't believe thats true. Americans do not know how to save. They only think, can I afford this mortgage right now? Not 'can i afford this AND put some money away for contingencies?' Part of being a responsible grown up is knowing what you can afford and still have a fall back plan for emergencies. The savings rate in this country was at an all time low before the recession. That is not, to use your word, the definition of 'responsible'. That is living in the present.

DJ,

Well surely there a many factors contributing to the current foreclosure crisis. I just think that "Americans do not know how to save" is a convenient excuse when there are clearly more prominent factors at work here.

I think it's difficult to make that assessment universally to Americans when we have government and bank policy that promotes this crisis.

Its not an excuse. Its a fact.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt

And as long as the economy kept humming along, there was no reason to pay attention to whether you were saving. But it was shortsighted and irresponsible to believe that would keep occurring. Yes, if the 'other things' never happened, it wouldn't matter that we weren't saving. But if we were saving, we'd have a few months of mortgage payments in the bank.

But what's a few months of mortgage payments if one cannot find a job at all? One would only be buying their time. The crisis would still occur.

I understand what you are saying...but saving wouldn't fix anything. It only prolongs the inevitable. And that suggests that savings isn't the problem, like you seem to be suggesting.

If you assume everyone was fiscally responsible and saved like you suggest, let's just fast forward a few months...and the problem (no jobs) is still there and Sicarius is STILL doing what he's doing only it's months from now.

What's the difference? There still wouldn't be jobs.

You can only plan your mortgage around losing your job for so long before a cardboard box becomes the only logical solution.

No, the logical solution is to spend less a percentage of your income on your home during the good times. By the time the crash hits, you have more money saved up, to allow you longer time to look for a job, to allow you to accept a much lower paying job until to keep the lights on for a few months out, to pay that mortgage that was alot less.

I'm not saying there aren't a host of other issues in the economy. I'm saying the idea that the homeowner is blameless is ludicrous.

ok, then I can agree with your last statement.

I'm just not so sure how blaming the homeowner in this case is in any way constructive to addressing a solution.

I don't disagree with what Sicarius is doing, because it forces those who ARE responsible for this mess, to take another look. Perhaps he should do this on a case by case basis and help those who WERE fiscally responsible rather than those who weren't...but in the end, does it really matter?

There are few jobs left and no amount of personal responsibility will overcome the irresponsibility that we, as a nation, expect responsibility from. Our government. lol...ok, yer right, I suppose that's delusional. :)

But really, blaming the homeowner is like blaming the passengers of the Titanic for crying about their imminent death. After all, it's their fault they got onto the ship, right?

But the passengers of the titanic had no means of keeping the ship afloat. The homeowner could pay his/her mrtgage on time and stay in their home. They could also make decisions about which home they purchase and not be overly indebted as a result.

The homeowner has no means of keeping the economy afloat either when there are no jobs.

Not the best example on my part...but they could have brought their own wetsuit (or equivalent thereof) and flotation devices to stay warm enough for a rescue. Shouldn't that have been their responsibility as well?

Darwyn, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Like the Titanic, the US Government offers life jackets in the form of welfare, foodstamps, public housing, etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish having to go through that on anyone.

I'm not quite sure staying in too-expensive housing qualifies as life-saving.

THE FIRST FORECLOSURE WE'RE DEFENDING (sorry caps) is a family of 7 who rents. always pay their rent on time, but landlord didnt. he is being foreclosed on, so the fmily has to leave.
seceond one we're defending is a single mother with 2 kids and another one maybe 2 weeks away. she lost her job because they were all sent to india, she cannot find another job.
do you see a problem with either of these?

the day I go to ottowa hills and defend someones house they cant pay off because they have 5 cars and a country club membership, I'll let you know.
any way thats not the point.
this is about people in their own neighborhoods controlling the land they live on.
no one should decide what goes on in a place except the people that live there. dont forget I am an anarchist, maybe I have evil ulterior motives

I pretty much agree with you on the first one. It's not their fault and if the law is so harsh that renters have to be evicted when the landlord gets foreclosed on that law should be changed. Why can't they negotiate a new lease with the bank or the new owner, though?

The second one is surely a heartbreaker of a case but the fact still is that she can't pay the mortgage. It sucks, it really sucks, but if she can't afford it she can't live there.

You're gonna really hate me for this, but it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father (I assume they all have the same father). Don't tell me single parent families are equivalent to having a mother and father who love one another, that's ridiculous.

Sicarius, I have no problems with what your doing. Protest until you feel good, thats what you're there for.

Its hard to read your post and not question its veracity; you've lied quite frequently in this thread already. You can tug on heart strings, thats great. Yes, I feel bad for both of those two. And if you want to look at them all on an individual basis, be my guest.

But a massive government bailout of homeowners in default is unfeasible and unwarranted and unjust. The nature of renting (at least back when I did it) is that written into the rental agreement is that the landlord has the right to terminate a contract under certain circumstances. Some rentals are month to month, some are yearly, etc. Landlords have the right to sell their property or convert it to other uses, and they have legal recourse to get the renters out of their property, usually x days notice.

If it was the original owners evicting the renters to build a mini-mall, it would be looked at differently. The owners have the right to use their property as they see fit. If the bank now owns the property, they have certain rights and duties, and by all means, explore every legal avenue to keep the people in their homes. But thats the nature of renting; you don't own that house, so you never know what the owner will do. By trying to keep renters in their apartment, you are frightening off future potential landlords who may decide that it is not worth renting, because they will lose the right to use the property how they see fit.

Regarding the 2nd, terrible situation, especially with kids. I know all you want me to look at is the two kids who will be 'out on the street'. But how much was mom making, how much was her mortgage, how much was she saving, and can she move to a smaller home? Or an apartment? Should she have known her job was going to India and tried to find another? Or retrain into a new career? Sometimes kids have to move, its a fact of life. I can't just look at those poor kids and give you an answer as to whether I have a problem with those. If that's all it came down to, I'd take out a huge mortgage, teach my kids to mug for the camera and never pay a dime towards my house.

"You're gonna really hate me for this, but it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father "

Oh geez, yeah, I hate you for that :P

If I'm incorrect about renters rights when their landlord defaults, if they somehow lose the rights that were listed in their lease with their landlord, I would agree those should change. My assumption is that the bank has to give at least just as much notice as a landlord did. If I'm incorrect, please fill me in (though it is probably different in every state).

You're gonna really hate me for this, but it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father-your a dick

and i know im not contributing to the thread but it really had to be said

What's really so wrong with saying that? Two incomes would have increased the chances of them staying in their home.

Also, single parents rarely have high paying jobs, so by marrying her children's father (crazy as it sounds) she would have made it easier on herself to either further her education or do something to improve her life.

If thinking it's better NOT to have kids out of wedlock makes me a dick then I fully embrace the title.