Posted on 06/27/2010 7:00:44 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I’ll call his b.s.
It makes more sense for the producers and people with jobs to greatly reduce all unneccesary spending during any ‘rat administration, in any ‘rat state, in any ‘rat supporting business and any ‘rat supporting media. The useful idiots will always spend. Slow down/retard any and all spending when socialists are in power. “It’s the economy stupid”. They’ve clobbered the productive enough (going back several decades) economically.
When you get capitalist-friendly, small business-friendly, individual-rights friendly, property-rights friendly administrations in power...turn on the spending spigot a bit.
The useful idiots will always spend. Stop feeding the progressive/socialist/collectivist beast in power. It’s war against a domestic enemy.
Un. Freaking. Believable.
And a bad sign. That's the threshold for criminality; it describes mens rea as the criminal law knows it.
Someone who thinks that something is morally right if not criminalized, is likely to think that something should be criminalized if morally wrong.
That's a great line.
Where's Groucho when we need him? Imagine the fun he'd have had spoofing the Chicago Way . . .
Sounds like a terrorist leader who sends brainwashed radical “martyrs” to die for his beliefs but he stays safely far away from the action.
It’s gotta be the bank’s fault!
Were ya sleeping when D.C. forced the American people to bail out the banks, Wall Street and fat corps to the tune of trillions?
Ya forget about that wowee?
When it comes to Ratigan.. "move along, nothing to see here", really DOES apply.
Chico probably knew a little more about the Chicago way than Groucho did.
nobody forced anyone to run out an spend obscene money on a flipper or a condo or a vacation home...
Liberals cannot understand this is a ploy for the government to own everything and micro-manage everything we do.
You mean Obama won’t pay for a tent?
Prob’ly so!
We had major wars over this issue on other threads not very long ago where I was called a lot of names for saying it was immoral to walk away by choice in a “strategic default”.
Well, I’m not one of them, DB. I was appalled by the number of people who said that on a conservative forum!
Everyone agrees, if you cannot make your payments, after you have cut back on phones, cars, computers, gadgets, clothes, vacations, then you have to do what you must. You cannot get blood from a stone.
But just walking away because it is “to your financial advantage is immoral.
I am on your side. I was depressed to see so many embrace that. It boils down to moral rot. If it is okay to walk out on your obligation for something you legally put your signature on paper for, then where do you stop?
Is it okay to stiff the guy who painted your house because it is more important to vacation in the Caribbean?
Or to not pay your dentist because you want to buy a new computer instead?
How would those people feel if their employer didn’t pay them because they thought the money would be better spent on something else?
This mindset some people have baffles me.
You are absolutely correct.
There was a story 2 weeks ago, in the NY Slimes of all places, that exposed these "debt consolidating and debt forgive" scam companies.
They probably advertise right on your own radio stations (the same ones that bring you Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts).
People will pay these companies thousands of dollars, in hopes of getting their massive, irresponsible debt "resolved." What they don't tell you is, often times the credit card companies, banks, or other debt collecting agency will simply sue you. Then, you have a MUCH bigger problem. They are not just going to say "Well, so and so called on their behalf, so.....what the hell? That $55,000 you owe us in credit card debt is forgiven!"
Moreover, the bible tell us to pay our debts.
Proverbs 22:7, Psalm 37:21, Ecclesiastes 5:4
It shouldn't. They are just thieves and connivers...
Contracts work with two parties.
No pay, no house.
Forget this nutjob because he is advocating no pay and keep house.
The banks undertook the risk the collateral would not decrease. This is true even under 20% or 10% down loans. (the borrower had enough equity to cover any decrease in value.)
Also keep in mind until the end of 2012 the deficiency is not taxable as income.
That is assuming the buyer makes the bank live up to the contract of house or payments.
This left wing buffon does not understand business or contracts.
oh, and lets not forget the truth in lending violations. However, those are very specific and do not fall into the left wing rant of “greedy banks did it”.
What so many don’t seem to understand is, just because some of the penalties/remedies of failing to meet your contractual obligations are spelled out in a mortgage contract it does not mean that these remedies are simply an “option” to get out of the contract while at the same time supposedly honoring the contract. Not paying is a breach of contract where you are in fact breaking the contract you agreed to - not paying and the resulting foreclosure are not simply an option of the contract - it is a result of the borrower breaching the contract.
Dylan Ratigan took to the ramparts of The Huffington PostThe bankers should just have a hit man on their payroll.
The problem with the home crisis is that we have a unique situation of banks requiring thir own “special” appraisers. Home mortgages are not just a simple contract, they are very regulated with specific legal requirements to ensure standardization in recording. (beats the old branch of a tree and clump of dirt exchange.)
Banks have traditionally counted on a “free pass” in forclosure actions because homeowners rarely fought back or attempted to enforced their rights under the law. (banks have to use original notes, use impartial appraisers, properly disclose costs, etc....)
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.