Posted on 04/15/2010 2:16:18 AM PDT by jerry557
Suckers deserve to be, are, and have always been fleeced, bamboozled, hustled, shanghaied, robbed, sold.
Hard work won’t help the stupid and the greedy. Lay down, invest, depend on liars and thieves and the usual happens. Always.
Crooks always go where the money is. And now the money is in government. So, that is where the crooks are, only they get to make the rules, so that stealing by other names, isn’t called stealing.
I suppose by hard education a few people are beginning to realizes that you can not work enough, harder, longer to make up for someone that is stealing morning noon and night, every day of your life from you.
As a group, we have the government we deserve, which is sucky.
I saw this quote in a book recently: How could someone be so dumb to take out a mortgage knowing they could not even make the first payment....the counter quote to that was: How could some dumb f.....g bank make a loan to someone who cannot make the first payment is the real question.
The answer of course is this was a complete flim flam on the buyers of these repackaged debt instruments: insurance companies, foreign banks, and pension funds with the money going to the originators of the loans and the middlemen: the institutional banks on wall street.
obammma’s answer to foreclosure problem is the short sale
Man I hate those guys! I hate when that happens!
: >)
Look, all this is basically your money to someone else. If you know them and they don't pay back, you are surprised. However, a system was build up, decades of trust and honesty, such that you could get a loan, or give a loan, from someone you didn't know, and then people all over the world would by, and did, and very much wanted to buy the loan packages from people they didn't know.
What was hacked was a chain of honest. And like a chain, or cable or rope, it broke at it's weakest link or section. Once that section broke the losses had to be picked up, by the next section, or the whole system. However the system was so efficient, or so economically or profit squeezed. I believe that very much, as it seemed every actor squeezed as much profit/slack/safety, and loaded a little more risk/tension/weight on to the system. Once one part went, then in the entire system there wasn't enough to take up the damage, assume the loss.
However, the local banks that knew who they were lending too, and charged a half a percent more, and had regular hum drum 20% down skin in the game requirement survived, by and large. Matter of fact, it is the prudent that are now being taxed by Geithner and Bernanke, and Washington and the big Banks to bail out all the New York/Washington cabal.
Nice. Who ever thought the grandkids of Willie Sutton would go to work in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
This is kind of a thing with me, but it is the owners job. He/she/it owns the job.
A lot, if not the majority of people think that the job they are hired to do, is 'their' job. It isn't.
I don't mean to belittle hired labor. It's just that I think it to one's detriment, to carry in their heads a delusion, especially economically. Further, I'm well aware of the creepy, false practices of owners and management to, at no expense to themselves naturally, of imparting the delusion that workers are 'part of the family', or 'team', or any of the other creepy psyco mind game BS that they dump on labor.
Thanks to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for pushing banks to lend to non-credit worthy folks to get them into houses. Fannie and Freddie under Clinton’s buddy Franklyn Raines is also partly to blame.
No income or little income does not support a mortgage and the policies of 0bama cratering the economy pushing people out of jobs and the Financial Services Committees in the House and Senate pushing banks to GIVE money to folks who can’t afford to make payments leads to a lot of foreclosures. This news isn’t a surprise.
Boston is a very, very small town.
Bwarny Frank represents Brook line, very Jewish, liberal, lefty. He went to Harvard, a few miles away, but grew up in New Jersey. He worked for Boston Mayor Kevin White.
Now a deeper connection. The Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, in the early eighties did a “study’ of mortgage redlining in Boston. Basically poor, single mom, black, low to no income blacks couldn’t get mortgages at all, or at rates compared to married, double income, working whites and Asians. This was seen as a crime. The then president of the Boston Fed was Richard F. Styron.
The years go by and....
Freddie Mac Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Syron pocketed nearly $19.8 million in compensation last year, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Friday, even though the mortgage company’s stock lost half its value in 2007.
If Syron stays at the helm of Freddie Mac through the end of next year, he will receive nearly $20 million in stock awards if the board says he has met certain goals. This year, he is guaranteed to get $8.8 million in stock grants regardless of performance.
For 2007, Syron received a $1.2 million salary, a $3.45 million bonus, including $1.25 million to remain at the company, and $771,585 in other compensation. He also received stock and options valued by the company at $14.3 million at the time they were awarded.
I disagree. It's more a case of the banks failing to perform due diligence. They bought the loans, after the homeowners freely agreed to pay a rather foolish price for a home, presumably under the assumption that everyone would make a profit since home prices "always" go up. The homeowner's obligation to repay transferred to the new banks when the loans were sold. I am not displeased that irresponsible banks that bought loans without checking on them and steering away from risky loans based on inflated values with minuscule downpayments will still lose money.
That free house that the banks get? It's worth less than the loan they write off when they foreclose. That serves them right. It's still morally wrong to default on a promise if you have the ability to pay, but I have no sympathy for the losing bank when they get stuck with the house instead of the money that was worth more. It's not in any case (that I'm aware of) a truth in lending issue, just a massive lack of due diligence by all parties involved.
The REAL reason for the increase are all of those 5 years ARMS written at the top of the market(2005-2006) which are beginning to come due.
I’m a business owner and yes the jobs are mine. I encourage loyalty from my employees by showing them loyalty. They make better employees that way.
Blaming the individual for this economy is nonsensical. Our economy is under attack. They want to make people unemployed and dependent on the government.
Yes there were people that overspent. A real unemployment rate of 17% and a 3.2% decline in income isn’t a delusion.
Don't forget a certain young, ambitious community organizer in Chicago in the early 1990s who sued Citibank to force them to extend mortgages to people who had no hope of ever making the payments.
While I agree with your premise that the job belongs to the company - I strongly disagree with your assumption that all those in position of authority are throwing out slop. This is one of the main reasons I hate my job. People throw out pablum on leadership and management and don’t understand the difference. It drives me insane.
As a leader I believe in “take care of your people, and they’ll take care of you.” Something an old navy chief taught me in JROTC and I have held throughout my life. It doesn’t mean, however, to coddle them or baby them....it means to provide the direction, discipline, training, experience, and opportunity for your people to better themselves and move on. Any leader who is not developing their people is not a leader - he’s a manager.
Managing does not require an investment in one’s people. It treats people as a resource - a “human resource”. Goals and objectives take precedence and the people are treated as an expendable asset no different from a screwdriver, machine, or building.
Leadership requires accomplishment of the mission; but accepts that to do this consistently, and remain viable for the long term, requires one to invest in one’s people and an understanding that that investment may not be retained as you promote them to their potential. Leadership asks for loyalty, but in return must deliver fidelity.
It’s my sincere belief that the lack of understanding in this difference is why one of the few still well-functioning organizations in the U.S. is the military. There is no trust from the employees because they’ve been burned so often due to false promises and pretenses. There is no trust because management doesn’t understand that they cannot demand loyalty without offering something in return.
If all that exists in an organization is the commercial relationship of “do the job-get the paycheck”; then there is no incentive for the personnel or organization to continue to improve and develop together. It becomes a free-for-all of “what’s in it for me”. And while I accept the reality that there will always be those who are out for themselves, I refuse to believe that mankind’s light has waned to the point that this is all there is.
I’ve talked with far too many Obama supporters, and you’re right. They don’t like the way I talk.
But how many of them acknowledge that you’re right? Any with serious buyers remorse?
I’m more in favor of an organization that is bluntly ‘what’s in it for me’. If the organization can not explain it, it is incompetent, or hiding something. I think it is always the best for both, and all parties, to be politely blunt about the nature of the relationship, with the exception of small children and feeble adults.
I, we, swim in seas of obfuscation and bunkum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
