Republicans Work Toward Debt Enslavement

Its not just the democrats that are acting to enslave the American public in debt.

The republicans have put forth a measure that allows courts to force people to pay their mortgages if they have the means to pay.

www.zerohedge.com...

While this may sound like a good thing, it is decidedly not.

Having a person strategically default on a lender is a risk the lender must bear in the lending process. This is especially true considering the banks aren't even lending with real money in a fractional reserve system.

You see because the banks have offered no lawful consideration (by my standards at least) in the loan transaction, which they created out of thin air by entering numbers into a bank account, they have no right to use the power of government against the people they lent the money to.

It is also important to note that the banks have used the power of government to pay themselves with tax payer dollars for those mortgages that have defaulted.

Thus, since the tax payers have already paid for the mortgages with their tax dollars, the banks have no right to use the power of government to enslave their debtors.

In a free country, no person should be forced at the point of a government gun to pay back debts owned to a fiat fractional reserve lender of debt.

It is the criminal fiat bankers responsibility to assume the risk of a borrower defaulting.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

If you take a loan to buy a house you MUST pay the loan back. Of course they should be forced to pay it back. What you thing you should live in the house for free because you cant pay for it. NO, if you cant pay it you should not have got a house in the first play. to the Republicans for doing the right thing!

reply to post by camaro68ss


If you don't pay it back, the bank gets the house.

What the bankers want instead of the house is for the government to hold a gun to your head and force you to pay them back for an overpriced property on a loan for cash they didn't have the right to give you in the first place since they simply entered some numbers into a bank account.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where banks can use government's guns against me.

America did away with debtors prisons a long time ago, we don't need to bring back debt slavery.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Has anyone actually looked up the root words for mortgage?

It means "Death Pledge". Enlightening isn't it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yeah this law makes NO sense. If you default on the loan, the collateral is the EQUITY in the house. You can't force someone to pay the loan, and still see them loose the house and potential equity. This is just another case of banks using their Republican puppets to steal from the American people. !@% you wallstreet, Republicans, Democrats, and every other politician or policy maker.. so sick of you people.

I agree that people have to pay for their house because it's not fair to people who live within their means but at the same time I believe that property is too overpriced, and because of that eventually people can't even buy off the property.

There should be a 70% to 80% reduction in the price of property IMO and that there should be a strict limit, without loopholes, on total property that can be owned by one person.

This is what you are using to show that both parties are creating monetary enslavement? This is what this says:

People who have the means must pay their mortgage.

Not people without money.
Mot people that lost their jobs.
Not people on welfare.

People who have the money must pay the debt.

This is exactly what we need!

Do you know how much it costs, and that we all pay, when people don't pay their debts. It doesn't go into the wasteland -- it does get paid -- by us! By way of fees, higher interest rates, etc.

Why should people, who have the money, simply be able to walk away and say -- "You know what. I don't feel like living here and I don't think I'll pay the mortgage anymore."

Here's what else happens:
"I'm going to go buy another house before this hits my credit.""

People that have the means, and opt not to pay their mortgage generally do so for ridiculous reasons -- they want to move, they want a mortgage with a lower rate, a lower value mortgage, someone unfavorable moved into the neighborhood, etc. This is not the same as when a person suffers a hardship. But the problem is, since they already have money, they simply buy another house before this hits their credit and then walk away from the first house. Well, isn't that nice for them!?

I support this 100%.

Imagine that.
I am supporting a measure that says people actually have to uphold their end of a financial contract and if they have the money, must pay the money they agreed to pay in the first place.

Gee, I must be crazy....

Here's what some of you are forgetting -- it is not the people that have amassed a decent amount of equity that are going to walk away.

Rather, it is for the people that bought their house and are now upside down because the real estate market tanked and want to walk away to get out from under their debt.

That's what this is trying to tackle. And if you think this is stealing money from the American people, then you should actually follow the trail of bankruptcies and write-offs and see who REALLY pays that debt.....

As far as home values:
If the house is so over-priced, they should have never signed the contract!!

Nobody held a gun to their head and said they had to buy a house now did they? It was a choice. It was/is a risk as all investments are.

At some point, people really need to stop blaming everyone else for their woes and ante up to their commitments.

reply to post by camaro68ss



Well thats just brilliant. I nominate you to be the one who gets to take the money of the senior citizens who make make their mortage because one of them gets cancer.

Or the single mom whose husband got IED'd in Afghanistan.

Or the millions of HARD workers out there that got laid off.

The bank can have the house, but not their money! They still getting paid for the house, if anything, the money from the sale should be put towards the principal owed, and the Usery charge should be WAIVED!

This is the USA, and and the banks know the risks of doin buisness.

I find it hypocritical of the Republicans, who dont want BIG GOVT, to introduce MORE GOVT intrusion!! More regulations! How Liberal of them, and you to agree.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by ErEhWoN]

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Well thats just brilliant. I nominate you to be the one who gets to take the money of the senior citizens who make make their mortage because one of them gets cancer.

Or the single mom whose husband got IED'd in Afghanistan.

Or the millions of HARD workers out there that got laid off.

READ. PLEASE.

This is for people that have the money. Not for the unemployed, not in times of hardship. People that have the money sitting in their bank account and simply choose to default.

Further, if you think that the banks actually take the loss when a person files bankruptcies or defaults on a loan, I suggest you seriously study economics. Where do you think all these fees and such came from in the first place!

We pay when others don't!! Not the CEO, not the government -- US! You and me. We pay. Fees, interest rates, hidden fees, mortgage insurance requirements and the fees for that.

You don't really think it costs anywhere from $500 - 3000 to file an application, do you?

Besides, why just houses.
I don't want to pay my car anymore. It's worth less now than it was a year ago when I bought it.
And my credit cards. I don't even where that dress anymore I'm still paying for -- I know, I just won't pay the bill. Let someone else eat it.

Rarely agree with you, but do here.

The banks charge interest rates.

Those interest rates take into account (1) The time value of money and (2) The risk of default. that is why a 200k house will cost you 400k-500k over 30 years etc.

If they want the GOV to enforce payments of mortgages and remove the vast majority of risk of default for the banks, then they can use the Prime rate on all mortgages for everyone...it's currently around 3%.

Otherwise they can STFU...just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by lpowell0627


READ. PLEASE.

This is for people that have the money. Not for the unemployed, not in times of hardship. People that have the money sitting in their bank account and simply choose to default.

Yes from the article..

Strategic Defaults

A strategic default occurs when a borrower decides to stop paying their mortgage even though they can still afford their payments. It is usually undertaken by those who owe more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth.

You cannot purchase a home unless the mortgage company has it appraised to determine it's value.

They then loan you the money with the agreement..if you don't pay it back we will take the house. They further require a down payment. This buys them theoretical profit room for when they take posession of and then sells your home. They also charge interest above Prime as a further safe-guard to off-set risk.

So when the mortgage company says ...yes, your home is worth X, we will loan you slightly less than that (downpayment) and take your house if you don't pay us....isn't that THEIR gamble with thier money? Thier appraisal? Their interest reciepts?

The agreement has always been...they can take your house...now that their gamble has proven unprofitable...they don't want the house, they want whatever money you have left.

These folks that are defaulting are simply saying OK, take the house then. It's the banks problem if they were wrong about it's value.

Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by lpowell0627


Using violence to extract payment from a debtor relieves the lender of risk.

There is another organization that engages in such behavior with debtors, it's called the mafia.

Let us not forget that the banks have no asset risk in this deal, the creation of loan monies is nothing more than a ledger entry.

The bank is not putting up any of its own property as backing for the loan. The bank also has access to the Federal Reserve and the congress as a lender of last resort to bail them out if they do make bad loans.

The borrower has no bailouts.

Placing the risk of violence on the borrower, regardless of ability to pay, is wrong. If the bank didn't think the house was worth the requested loan amount, they never should have made the loan to begin with. The banks can not have a choice between the house or forced labor of the debtor.

Loosing ones home is risk enough, government violence against the homeowner is wrong.

We should have a law that says if the bank becomes insolvent due to making bad loans, government comes in with guns and forces THEM to sell off their assets to their creditors.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Of course, that's not how it works with our criminal banking system.

Instead, they rob the tax payer to bail themselves out.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by maybereal11
Yes from the article..

Strategic Defaults

A strategic default occurs when a borrower decides to stop paying their mortgage even though they can still afford their payments. It is usually undertaken by those who owe more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth.

You cannot purchase a home unless the mortgage company has it appraised to determine it's value.

No kidding. Here's the problem you guys forgot:

People that bought homes in the last 5 years are upside down because the real estate market tanked.

My house dropped value by 38%.

I am upside down, not because the house wasn't appraised, but because the bubble burst. I put 20% down and have remained current.



Look, as a former employee of the banking system, I can tell you that what you say makes sense to you, but it is not right. It is not how the system works. Whether or not it should work that way is not for this thread. But it doesn't work the happy mathematical way you think it does.

There are tons of ways to buy a house that require no down payment. Then, there are fifty million other options -- 2% down - 30% down.

Further, in 30 years, theoretically your house is also worth that much more.

When people go bankrupt and default on loans, WE pay. Period.

How about everybody just decide to stop paying everything that's worth less than when you bought it --

house, car, furniture, etc.

Why stop at housing. Let's have everybody default and see how that works out. You will surprised when the banks are still running but we're just paying BUCKETS more to do the same business as before.

Also, the bank assumes a risk in case of:

death
unemployment
hardship
disability / injury

But not for:

I no longer feel like paying.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by lpowell0627]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Violence? You really consider passing legislation that states that people that have the money have to own up to the debt that they agreed to pay ?

I'm sorry. I don't consider this violence.

The military is not going to be at your door with a gun demanding a check. That would be violent.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Violence? You really consider passing legislation that states that people that have the money have to own up to the debt that they agreed to pay ?

I'm sorry. I don't consider this violence.

The military is not going to be at your door with a gun demanding a check. That would be violent.

The bank can not have the borrowers labor as collateral.

That is debt slavery.

That is what the bill is purporting to do.

The bank has the house as collateral. In a civilized society, one does not allow a bankers to use State violence against borrowers to ensure bills are paid.

If the bank felt there was too much risk of a default and that they could not recover the loss through the recovery and sale of the home, they should not have made that loan in the first place.

The bank should not have a choice between taking the home or forcing a borrower to labor for them under the duress of a government gun.

This is a risk in lending that the bank must assume, not the borrower.

Debt slavery is wrong.

When a bank makes a large loan for a house, it is THE BANK that is purchasing the house. They are allowing the borrower to live in that home as long as he continues to make the payments.

If this was a rental situation (which it is), it becomes obvious how wrong this bill is.

For example, by the logic put forth in defense of this bill:

If I sign a 3 year lease for an apartment, should the property owner be able to force me - AT GUN POINT - to continue my lease at the 1 year mark if I chose to quit paying and move out?

I signed the contract right?

Of course this would be ridiculous because the property owner still has the property and he can rent it back out to whoever he chooses.

The court may award some damages to the owner for my early termination should he sue me, but there's no way I would be forced to pay the lease out in full.




[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]