It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California Lawyer, Refuses To Pay Bank Of America Credit Card, Threatens To Sue

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 03:48 PM
I hate to say it but I wish you guys would continue to argue even more because it's become a bit of a learning lesson for everyone else that's reading this thread. Honestly, this thread has been extremely helpful in putting all of this into perspective. Getting to see how both sides operate (or should operate, depending on your point of view) really is interesting.

On one hand we've got a clear cut example of the Creditor's line of thought. The man is commiting fraud and is trying to cover up for himself.

On the other we have an example of the Average Joe's line of thought. The Creditors themselves are a fraud and are covering up that fact.

I don't know what side to choose or whether there even is a side to choose in all this. Perhaps both are at fault for the current mess that we're in. Perhaps just one party is. Either way, this micro vs macro/good vs evil discussion is really interesting to see unfold. There's some key knowledge that both sides should pay attention to.

So have at it again you guys, just keep it civil

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 08:28 PM

Is it becoming more common for people to suddenly run their cards up to the limit and default?

Of course it is. Kind of like purchasing a home with no money down, and trying to flip it for a quick profit in a hot real estate market. Then skipping town as soon as the market turns sour and you can't sell the property.

Oh, and then you call your Congressman and complain that it's the bank's fault.

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

You both are morons and do not understand economic policies or CONTRACT LAW.

Wow, tough guy. Big words.

Economic policies? Which ones? What "economic policy" is it exactly that you take issue with when someone stiffs a creditor?

So you are in favor of borrowers committing credit card fraud by not paying for goods and services? Brilliant.

You must be a economics professor, right?

That sounds like a sound economic policy: Everything is free. No one has to pay anything. Contracts? Who needs contracts? Throw out all the contracts. Everyone is free to stiff as many creditors as they please.

Explain to me why Bank of America doesn't have the right to hike up the interest rate on a borrower showing warning signs of default. Explain it legally. Explain it morally. And explain it in terms of the contract that the borrower agreed to when he signed up for the credit card in the first place.

The borrower is servant to the lender, pal. Get a clue. The lender sets the terms, the rate, and the repayment schedule. Not the borrower. Don't like it? Don't borrow. Plenty of people live debt-free lifestyles if they choose to do so. Too tough for you? Grow up.

How is that any different from an auto finance company that charges a higher rate of interest to a sub-prime borrower? Higher risk, higher rate.

Why should a high risk borrower with NO COLLATERAL whatsoever, showing warning signs of default, receive a prime interest rate?

And PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME why I, a borrower that keeps a clean credit history, should have to pay for this attorney's credit card FRAUD in the form of higher fees and rates?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Can you prove, that a credit company offers you anything but a unilateral contract? There is no value to money, it's worthless; it's a promissory note. Go look at how your money is defined in the Bills of Exchange Act, or however it is legislated in America.

In Canada: Definition for: Money: Money includes any negotiable instrument.

From the Financial Administration Act in CANADA (That's a corporation)

Definition for: Negotiable instrument: Negotiable instrument includes any cheque, draft, traveler’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;

From the Bill of Exhange Act

“note” means promissory note;
value” means valuable consideration - because there is no true value.

Furthermore, 57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value.

Do you understand what that means? When you receive a bill,which is very seldom these days (you'll receive an invoice, or a statement of account, followed by a receipt after they fleece you for your sweat equity), the only thing required to settle the 'debt' is your signature. What does that say about your signature? That it has value. Not the 'cash' in your pocket.

You're just pis$ed that you've been wasting your hard earned sweat equity on a scam set up to do just that from the beginning.

Go do some research and stop slowing the human race down, acting like a PERSON.

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Is it becoming more common for people to suddenly run their cards up to the limit and default?

Of course it is. Kind of like purchasing a home with no money down, and trying to flip it for a quick profit in a hot real estate market. Then skipping town as soon as the market turns sour and you can't sell the property.

Oh, and then you call your Congressman and complain that it's the bank's fault.

*chortle* Just sowin the seeds of misinformation, eh? A Mortgage, or Death Promise/Death Pledge is a unilateral contract and a promissory note.

Notwithstanding the fact that the does not have any money to lend, the bank makes the buyer/borrower to sign a mortgage loan application form which is essentially a promissory note that the buyer/borrower promises to pay the bank for the money (what money?) he/she is supposed to receive from this magic bank even before any value or consideration is received by the buyer/borrower from the bank. This promissory note is a valuable consideration, a receivable and therefore an asset transferred from the buyer to the bank which the bank enters into its own asset account as a cash deposit.

After making sure that the buyer has the ability to pay the required monthly payments (the buyer has credit), the bank agrees to lend the buyer the money (cash) to pay the seller. The bank has no money to lend but it gave the buyer a promise to lend money by way of a commitment letter, loan approval letter, loan authorization or loan confirmation letter, etc., signed by a bank official or loans/mortgage officer employed by this magic bank

The bank's acceptance of the buyer's promissory note made the bank liable to the buyer/borrower for the full face value of the promissory note which is the agreed purchase price of the property, less any cash deposit or down payment money paid by the buyer directly to the seller.

It is important to note at this point that all real estate transaction requires that the property being sold must be conveyed by the seller to the buyer free of all liens and encumbrances which means that all liens such as existing mortgages, judgments, etc. must be paid before the property can be mortgaged by the buyer as collateral to the mortgage loan which is yet to be received by the buyer pursuant the promise made by Magic Bank. How can the seller obtain clear title if he has not yet received any money from the buyer? And how can the buyer mortgage a property that does not yet belong to him or her?

[edit on 13-6-2010 by purplemonkeydishwasher]

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:49 AM
Money IS debt, debt IS money. You cannot take a negative interger and add another negative, expective of positive results! You get MORE debt, -7 + -7 = -14! The cash in your pocket is a negative amount, a promissory note detailing the amount owing (plus interest) to the Federal Reserve. So how can you make something like a credit card debt disappear with cash? You simply cannot.

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:44 AM
I think the case, if litigated in court, does have merit. Under contract law, a contract cannot be broken unless both parties agree. Unlike most people, I have never had a credit card. I was warned of this scam way back in the early 80s by a man I implicitly trust. I pay cash, or barter, and I pay my bills first, before anything else. This has made me a target for credit card companies, they send me offers and call me on the phone. I am always assured that I could get a "good rate" of interest, and a high credit limit. I guess so, I have an A-1 payment history that goes back 40 years with power companies, phone companies and internet providers. I am a mechanic, so have never owned a new car, and do not really want one either. I can build one that is better than I can buy one, and these new cars with a push button for a switch key is nothing but trouble, as Toyota found out first hand. I drive a 20 year old Chevy G-20 Hybrid Van, equipped with a HHO Generator and many modifications to the engine and electronics. I would not trade it for anything new. Credit cards are the biggest scam perpetrated on the American public. Everyone should refuse to pay. What could they do? I'll tell you what they would do, go under and cease to exist! We Americans do not need to live beyond our means, people!

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by autowrench

HJR-192 1933, June 5th, everyone should understand that a Federal Reserve Note is an IOU for the gold that FDR took from the publics hands, we are waiting for them to honor the IOU's. You owe nothing for anything, everything in the economy is pre-paid. How else could everything be made or manufactured?

WE the people own all natural resources and the Elite have stolen them from us, we have dominion and therefore first dibs on everything. just because you can reach to the top shelf to get something does not deprive everyone else of the same thing. That is not communism or socialism, it is a fact of nature. Dominion is, you are born of the earth, all resources within the earth are there for you to use and to share. The Elite have laid claim to it outright and no one argued that. THAT is how we lost everything. Time to take it back and with gusto.

A credit card is a piece of plastic by which you can claim what you "need" to survive and nothing more. Take only that which you need to get by and share information and lend a helping hand when needed, that is all that matters, we don't need useless laws or politicians that work to keep us enslaved. Wake up people.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:48 AM

Can you prove, that a credit company offers you anything but a unilateral contract?

Of course a credit card contract is a unilateral contract. To think otherwise would be pretty naive. Actually, any loan contract places the lender in a superior position to the borrower.

Remember Bible study as a kid? "The borrower is servant to the lender." So true.

There is no value to money, it's worthless

In that case, empty your bank account and I'll gladly take the proceeds, lol.

Money does have purchasing power. Some of this purchasing power has been devalued over time due to inflation, but it still has purchasing power.

Try an experiment. Next time you are at a local restaurant, after you have dinner, offer to pay the waiter in clam shells. Then post on this forum the results of your experiment. Enjoy.

Go do some research and stop slowing the human race down, acting like a PERSON.

Too funny. Now I am suddenly a Martian alien, eh? Beam me up, Scotty!! Here's a suggestion: Try acting like a mature adult and discuss these matters in a civil and intelligent matter. Tossing insults at people that have a different opinion than your own is hardly going to make your case.

Notwithstanding the fact that the does not have any money to lend, the bank makes the buyer/borrower to sign a mortgage loan application form which is essentially a promissory note that the buyer/borrower promises to pay the bank for the money (what money?) he/she is supposed to receive from this magic bank even before any value or consideration is received by the buyer/borrower from the bank.

Whoah. Slow down, Nelly.

1.) Banks have assets. Assets: Cash (Yes, banks actually have their own cash. What a concept), Receivables, Real Estate, Land, Equipment, Investments in the Stock and Bond Market, etc. So, yes, the bank does have money to lend. Sorry. Want proof? Pull up the Balance Sheet of any publicly-traded bank, and look at the Assets that they carry on their books.

Banks also have deposits. Oftentimes, billions of dollars in deposits. These are, on the bank's books, liabilities. Nevertheless, these deposits are huge.

2.) Banks don't force borrowers to sign a mortgage. In fact, the borrowers sign a mortgage willingly. No one puts a gun to their head.

3.) You are all confused.

First, at a real estate closing, a bank writes a bona-fide, legal check for the full amount of the real estate sale. It's real live money, with actual purchasing power.

This check is given to the seller of the property at closing. For example, the seller of the piece of real estate might receive $200,000 in certified funds at closing.

The borrower is obligated, by signing the mortgage payment, to repay the $200,000, with interest, over a set period of time.

Borrower didn't receive any consideration? Huh?

The borrower takes legal title to the property, and now owns the property. The bank has a lien on the property in the amount owed which was paid to the seller by the bank at closing.

At any time, the borrower can pay off the mortgage in cash, typically without any pre-payment penalty whatsoever.

So, let me break it down for you:

3 parties: Buyer of Real Estate (aka "Borrower"), Seller of Real Estate, and the Bank:

Bank writes check to Seller for $200,00 at closing.

Seller receives the $200,000 check, cashes it in his own bank. Real money with real purchasing power.

Buyer signs Mortgage, agreeing to pay the bank $200,000, plus interest, for a set period of time.

Buyer now owns the property, and takes possession of the property for his/her own use and benefit.

Bank places lien on property for $200,000.

Borrower, at any time, can repay the principal balance, plus current interest due, typically without pre-payment penalty. Borrower owns the property, and is responsible for paying property taxes, insurance, and maintaining the upkeep of the property.

That's how it works, generally speaking, in reality.

How can the seller obtain clear title if he has not yet received any money from the buyer? And how can the buyer mortgage a property that does not yet belong to him or her?

The seller owns the property. If there are tax liens, judgments, etc. on the property, the seller is responsible for paying off these liens and judgments, and clearing up the title prior to closing.

Typically, the seller clears up these title issues prior to closing. If he doesn't, it can kill the deal in a heartbeat.

Tax liens are required by the bank to be paid at or before closing. No normal bank will fund a real estate transaction with tax liens on the property.

The buyer takes title to the property after the closing has taken place. He is the new owner. He can take a mortgage on the property as needed. No big deal.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by CookieMonster09]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:01 AM
"America's addiction to credit" is a result of the actions of the banks prior to 1913. They complained that there was "too much private capital formation"...

In other words, people were saving and using the money to start new businesses. The bankers didn't like this, because it meant that the public didn't need them.

So they wanted a "flexible currency" which meant that they wanted a money system which could manipulate the interest rate, regardless of how scarce money was. If you can tell people they can borrow at 1% right now, why save?

That's the hook.

Today, we've swallowed it line and sinker.

Now, one of the most important, vital, and common attributes of business is credit. Money isn't saved anymore. Why would someone save money when if it sits in a bank it loses value because of inflation? Borrow it at the artificially low rate, then use it now to try and get ahead.

This is why we're in trouble. It's been by design, starting at least 100 years ago.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:08 AM
Ask 1,000 borrowers if they understand the full ramifications of the near-universal process of fractional reserve banking.

Maybe two will say "yes"

The rest are unwittingly allowing a private corporation to issue stock for the corporation vaguely known as "United States of America" to the borrower. The borrower then acquires value from the community of our nation via this stock. The nation gives a tiny bit to the borrower, and the borrower owes not the nation, but THE BANK!

The bank, however, never created anything. They didn't even acquire anything to be able to give it back to the borrower. They simply said "We will give you what other people accept in return for valued goods or services." The fact that what they gave you was so easily created, and created out of nothing is immediately obscured in the minds of the borrower, because they are focused on the fact that they will be receiving something right now.

The "deal" that sounds good in the moment becomes criminal when you realize what happened.

To state it in a way that people might understand easily: The bank loaned you counterfeit money, but made you pay them back with money you earned for real.

It's a criminal scam, a ponzi scheme, a fraud. Recognize it as such, stop supporting this system any way you can, and tell everyone you know how it works.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:37 AM

To state it in a way that people might understand easily: The bank loaned you counterfeit money, but made you pay them back with money you earned for real.

How so?


After careful thought, research, and consideration, the owners of XYZ Tooling have decided to upgrade their equipment at their machine shop. They don't want to drain their cash reserves, and have decided to approach their local bank for a commercial term loan for this particular equipment acquisition.

To stay current with the industry, XYZ Tooling Company needs to buy a new Widget Maker Machine for $50,000. The owners of XYZ Tooling have decided to purchase the machine from Widget Maker Machine Manufacturing, Inc., the leading Widget Maker Machine manufacturer in the industry.

At the closing table, the bank writes a check to Widget Maker Machine Manufacturing, Inc. for $50,000 in live, certified funds. In turn, Widget Maker Machine Manufacturing, Inc. delivers the Widget Maker Machine to XYZ Tooling a few days before closing, to allow the owners to test the machine for its functionality. Before the loan closes, the owners of XYZ Tooling agree that the Widget Maker Machine is truly exceptional -- It will help XYZ to cut costs, improve efficiencies, generate more production volume, and increase safety in their plant. The machine will also drive more profits to XYZ in a shorter period of time, due to the Widget Maker Machine's efficiency.

In turn, XYZ Tooling Company signs a commercial term loan contract with the bank, agreeing to repay the bank $50,000 at 5% interest over the next 5 years. XYZ can pay back the loan at any time without a pre-payment penalty. The payment ends up being $943.00/month plus taxes, for the next 5 years, after which time the machine will be owned free and clear. In total, XYZ will pay back the bank $943 times 60 months, or $56,580 over 60 months.

To the owners, the loan payment is nominal. For every time that they have to pay out $943 in a loan payment, they realistically and conservatively believe they can earn 7-10 times as much in profit for the usage of the machine over the course of a single month. Winters might be slower, but all in all, the machine will more than pay for itself over the course of the year.

The bank even offers to set up a seasonal payment plan, recognizing the cyclicality of XYZ's industry. XYZ tells the bank that a seasonal payment plan isn't necessary -- They can more than afford to pay the payment even during slower months.

The bank, for assuming the risk in this loan, will earn $6,580 in interest, less administrative costs and processing costs - let's say $1,000 for the sake of example. The bank, therefore, will put $5,580 in its coffers -- assuming the borrower pays the loan in full, and on time.

The owners of XYZ have several financing options -- It's not at all like the bank is holding XYZ over a barrel. The manufacturer has a financing program with GE Capital in place, but the interest rate is slightly higher. The owners also have several other local banks that they could approach. All in all, though, the owners decide to stick with their current bank, because the loan officer has a good, long-term relationship with the company that has been built up over many years --- Plus, the rates and terms are fair and reasonable, and the loan officer is making the transaction pretty seamless and fairly straightforward -- and convenient.

Naturally, in the rare event that XYZ defaults, the bank has the right to take possession of the machine, and resell the machine for whatever its fair market value is at the time. If their is a deficit upon resale, XYZ as a corporation, and the individual owners will be responsible for paying any deficiency.

XYZ Tooling Company receives the Widget Maker Machine, and takes ownership of the machine. XYZ is free to use the machine, and is responsible for its upkeep and repairs. This particular machine uses the latest and greatest Widget technology, so repairs should be minimal assuming the Widget Maker Machine is operated properly.

The bank files a first lien position with the local authorities, in the amount of $50,000.

Before closing the $50,000 loan, the bank conducts its due diligence by examining XYZ's financial capacity to repay. XYZ is a solid company, with over 20 years time in business, great cash flow, minimal debt exposure, solid liquidity, in a growing market, with a management and ownership team with high net worth. Sales revenue and profits have increased steadily, year over year for the past 5 years or more. Ownership is stable, conservative, and strong. The owners are of good character, and have always paid their obligations on time -- and are generally debt averse.

There is some risk, however -- There always is in these kind of loans. The overall economy is still in a recession, and some of XYZ's competitors have not fared as well. Some have even filed bankruptcy due to the recession. But XYZ, assuming it stays on course, seems like a pretty reasonable risk. The collateral is pretty weak --- I mean, in the event of repossession, what on earth will the bank do with a Widget Maker Machine anyways? Resale will probably be 30-50% of its original sale value, if that. And, if the business fails, pursuing the owners and the company for any deficiencies will probably not prove fruitful -- Litigation is costly and essentially useless, especially if XYZ is broke.

Nevertheless, despite these risks, the bank's credit committee approves the loan within 24-48 hours, and a boilerplate loan contract is drawn up for the corporation's signers to authorize.

The bank sends out an inspector to take pictures of the machine, and write down any serial numbers for future reference.

Are you telling me that the check written to the machine seller, Widget Maker Machine Manufacturing, Inc., is counterfeit? I don't think so, sir.

This is the kind of loan transaction that takes places at banks large and small every single business day. The money paid by the bank for the purchase of equipment for the business is not counterfeit. To say otherwise is a complete distortion of the facts.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by CookieMonster09]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:40 AM
for all of you that want to go back to a hard-asset backed currency, please do some research into the the early to mid 1800s of america and it's struggle with a national currency. the booms and busts of that time, through many, and sincere, efforts to establish a workable model have lead this country to our present day situation.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by djusdjusthe one thing people fear most is not having an identity. Your entire identity and sense of self worth is tied up in how much money you've got in this social construct.

If you don't participate, you are cast out, if you do, you are enslaved.

Sounds amazingly like the description of number of the beast

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by CookieMonster09

Your description is precisely how everyone THINKS the loan process works, but it is precisely WRONG.

The "money" the bank "loaned" didn't exist until it was created by writing a check on an account that only shows 10% reserves.

It's like you writing a check for $1000 when you only have a hundred bucks, but the government saying that it's "legal."

All this "risk" the bank has is utter nonsense. The bank doesn't risk anything when it can create money out of thin air.

This process is precisely how the expansion of the money supply in the United States occurred. In my grandfather's days, a burger, fries, and milkshake was 25 cents. Today it's 15 times as much. Why? Because there's a lot more dollars that exist today for every milkshake. Where did all this extra money originate from? The process is called "money expansion" and it is a direct consequence of "fractional reserve banking."

I know it's hard to believe, because it makes no logical sense. I don't blame you for fighting the idea. If I have to say it a million times, I will. But BANKS - CREATE - the MONEY - they LOAN.

Wikipedia: "Fractional Reserve Banking" :

John Kenneth Galbraith:
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."

Ralph M. Hawtery, British Secretary of Treasury:
"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing."

Major L. B. Angus:
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented."

William Patterson, Founder of Bank of England, 1694:
"The bank hath benefit of interest on moneys which it creates out of nothing."

Modern Money Mechanics, publication of the Chicago Federal Reserve:
"Of course, banks do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts."

Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada:
"Banks create money. That is what they are for. The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry into a book. That is all. Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created – brand new money."

Robert B. Anderson, former U.S. Secretary of Treasury
"When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower."

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University:
"Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend – not money – but promises to supply money they do not possess."

Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:
"Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower’s IOU."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition:
"Banks create credit. It is a mistake to suppose that bank credit is created to any extent by the payment of money into the banks. A loan made by a bank is a clear addition to the amount of money in the community."

[edit on 22-6-2010 by 30_seconds]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:58 PM
that lawyer better get a good lawyer...

cause if he tries to do it himself he'll lose based on attorney conflict of interest laws

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:13 PM

Your description is precisely how everyone THINKS the loan process works, but it is precisely WRONG.

Have you ever closed a commercial equipment loan with a business? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Have you ever worked at a bank and closed a commercial loan of any kind or capacity?

If you had, you would know that the example I gave is exactly the operational and credit review process that takes place at banks nationwide for pretty much every commercial loan that gets approved, with few deviations.

The "money" the bank "loaned" didn't exist until it was created by writing a check on an account that only shows 10% reserves.

I've debunked this goofy fallacy in several threads already - Thumb through my previous postings and feel free to read my more than extensive commentary on the subject.

In short summary:

Banks have all kinds of assets to lend against. Deposits are liabilities on a Balance Sheet, NOT assets.

Conservatively run banks have tons and tons of assets, including their own cash, investments in the stock and bond markets, loan receivables, interest receivables, real estate, land, equipment, etc.

Proof? Pull up the Balance Sheet for any major well-run bank that is publicly-traded. You will more than clearly see that banks typically have hundreds of millions, even billions in assets - some liquid (such as cash), some not so liquid (such as real estate).

They don't need to "magically create money out of thin air" -- Banks earn profits from interest earned on loans, and already have significant cash reserves in place, oftentimes to the tune of billions of dollars.

Banks, like any other profitable business, earns interest -- also called profits. That is not the same thing as "creating money".

If Ford Motor manufactures a car for $10,000, and sells that car to a consumer for $15,000, did Ford Motor manufacture $5,000 out of thin air? Of course not. It's called profits. Ford profited $5,000 from the manufacture and sale of an automobile.

Banks are no different. If a bank lends me $50,000, at 5% interest over 5 years, the bank receives interest over time in the form of profits. If I default, the bank repossesses the collateral, sells the collateral at its fair market value, and typically eats the loss if the guarantor doesn't pony up the difference.

Interest earned is not "creating money out of thin air" -- It's the profits a bank earns by taking risks in making loans. The risk is default, and non-payment of principal and interest, as well as devaluation and depreciation of the underlying collateral.

And, boy, do banks earn a ton of interest over time. Your typical 30 year conventional mortgage for $100,000? If you pay over 30 years, you will end up paying well over another $100-150,000 in interest, depending on the interest rate, over the course of 30 years. All the while, the bank holds a first lien position in real property - typically real estate.

And guess what else? Those first 10 years? You end up paying essentially interest-only, with very little principal reduction during that first decade. At the end of 10 years, you basically have paid interest-only payments for the past decade.

Why on earth would banks have to create money out of thin air with profit margins such as these?

All this "risk" the bank has is utter nonsense. The bank doesn't risk anything when it can create money out of thin air.

How do you explain the historically unprecedented number of bank failures?

I'll answer that for you. Banks, particularly in the Southeast, lent recklessly on speculative real estate developments to builders and sub-prime borrowers that defaulted on their loans, leaving the bank holding the bag. Risk? Very, very risky lending.

You have no concept as to why banks are failing --- They failed because they made gambling bets on loans that turned sour.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by CookieMonster09]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
Well, I had worked in banking for a number of years. I can understand how someone would think that the money doesn't exist, because in many instances it doesn't, physically. Yes, we lent money, yes we received loan payments and yes there was a wonderful spread sheet of assets and liabilities, and so forth. However, IF I wanted to walk into the bank and withdrawn 200,000 in cash (let's say hundreds) it would take three days for the bank to pull it together.

Granted I'm sure larger branches kept more on hand, but the fact remains if you want to physically take your from the bank, you will have to wait for them to order it from the FED.

If there was a legitimate run on the banks they banks could not physically give every customer their money, it simply isn't possible, they do not possess it. It exists on a balance sheet, it exists in the computer, it does not exist physically in the possession of the bank.

On a side note, I finally got out from the mountain of debt on the first few pages, yeah me. I however was rewarded by the majority of credit card companies by lowering my limits, due to too high of a credit balance eventhough everything is paid off and I have zero debt, not to mention each one of those thieves made thousands off of me. That's fine, I'll keep the one that was good to me and screw the rest. I guess I simply find their blatant lies frustrating, if you (the bank) were nervous by my rough patch a few months ago and now that it is paid off want to limit your exposure, fine, I can accept that, but don't lie to me about it, that's just infuriating.

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by MOFreemason

It's called usury and it's what is killing this country...don't doubt that for a second.

This is a great start!

Americans could bring the crooked banking establishment to their knees and take our country back if every American did this. No mortgage or credit card payments to the top three offenders for three to six months.

What could they do to us if everyone did it? But trust me...this is the ONLY thing the greedy bankers and ineffectual, corrupt politicians will notice. And after them...the insurance companies.

Money talks. And we need to do this while we still have some control.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by CookieMonster09

This sounds like it came from a text book. Are you copying out of your economics text? I mean if you are, you might wanna consider the source.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by ldyserenity]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:08 AM
Again, the only way to fight this disease is on terms they understand. They are abusing people. Plain and simple. Bank of America is the top offender, but there are others.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in