It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Should We Consider Outlawing Adjustable Rate Mortgages & Foreclosures?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:
SM2

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I am just shocked that people actually believe this crap. You do understand that Banks are a business, and as such their goal is to make money and stay in business right? They are a private business, not a government entity. Not trying to defend banks, as I am not a fan of them either, however... If a business offers a product, and you do not like the product, or think it is not for you, simply do not purchase the product, if that business has a nuymber of products you do not like,them cease doing business with them. The fact that many people fall for the ARM mortgage is their own fault. They signed the paperwork, they agreed to the terms, they are now responsible for the obligation. i will add this seeing as though some people seem to struggle with the terms responsibility and obligation...

Definition of RESPONSIBILITY
1
: the quality or state of being responsible: as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : reliability, trustworthiness
2
: something for which one is responsible : burden

Definition of RESPONSIBLE
1
a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent (2) : being the cause or explanation c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2
a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : trustworthy b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3
: marked by or involving responsibility or accountability
4
: politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature —used especially of the British cabinet

Definition of OBLIGATION
1
: the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)
2
a : something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action b : a debt security (as a mortgage or corporate bond) c : a commitment (as by a government) to pay a particular sum of money; also : an amount owed under such an obligation
3
a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude
4
: something one is bound to do : duty, responsibility

So seeing as though the individual obligated him or herself to the terms of the ARM freely, i can not find any sympathy for them if they fail to meet their responsibility. You can argue the bank used unclear language, predatory practices, whatever you want, the bottom line, the individual, was responsible for doing their due diligence prior to signing the papers, if you can not meet your obligation, or do not comprehend the risks and terms of the loan, then you should be renting. Now, because someone that made a stupid decision after not doing their due diligence, can not meet their responsibilities and keep their word, you expect the business to give them potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for free? Newsflash, the banks holds the mortgage, which is collateral for the note (loan)that you promise to pay, if you do not pay the note, you forfeit the collateral (the house), that's contract law 101, you should know that going in, if you can not pay the bill you lose your house, if you do not understand that, then you are an idiot, and once again should be renting. This whole argument is just one big example of how dumb people are becoming. You can not expect people to feel sorry for someone because they made a stupid decision, it's called personal responsibility and keeping your word.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


Careful. By stating common sense and person responsibility you may be tarred and feathered here.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


ARMs are nothing more than a con job and con jobs are very seldom successful without the willing participation of the person being conned. The whole idea is to get them to accept the terms of the con and conning them into doing so is what makes a con man what he is. Banks have become con men and we have done nothing to stop them making it a lucrative business indeed. Furthermore, if the banks are the "responsible" party in this scenario, why were we forced to bail them out.


SM2

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well I am not saying they are not conning people to agree to the ARM, I am saying if the person agrees to it, and signs it, they are now responsible for it. If they do not like the situation they are now in because of it, they have only themselves to blame for it. They failed themselves by not doing their due diligence. After all, as Forest Gump said..."Stupid is as stupid does".



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well I am not saying they are not conning people to agree to the ARM, I am saying if the person agrees to it, and signs it, they are now responsible for it. If they do not like the situation they are now in because of it, they have only themselves to blame for it. They failed themselves by not doing their due diligence. After all, as Forest Gump said..."Stupid is as stupid does".


I said this before and I'll say it again; Anyone who thinks they are too "smart" to be conned just hasn't run into the right con man yet. More specifically, they haven't run into the right con man who's offering something that they need or want. Anyone can be suckered, it's not a matter of "smarts" or being "responsible." I assure you, the world's smartest person can be conned, but that doesn't make them irresponsible.


SM2

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well, whatever, I see you will never understand the concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. So yeah, lets just give everyone a brand new house for free, $30 an hour for sitting at home watching jerry springer and a brand new car, just because they might not be able to figure out how to do something on their own. Oh, and by the way, you get to pay for it all.


It all comes down to reading the papers you sign, noone is forcing people to sign these mortgages. I turned down several banks because that is all they wanted to offer me, I understood what an ARM was, I was not going to get myself in that position. If you (the general you, not you specifically) do not understand the terms of the loan, then guess what, do not sign it moron, it's your own fault if you do
edit on 4-10-2011 by SM2 because: to add



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
oh for crying outloud

better living through government hey for those who werent paying attention

thats why were so screwed so no not outlaw



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


Look, I've never signed one either but that didn't stop us less gullible taxpayers from paying the bill, did it?

All I'm saying is that if we don't want to keep paying the bill, then we need to fix the problem and the real problem seems to be the trap created by ARMs. At least I don't ever remember having to bailout the banks prior to ARMs, mortgage back securities and/or derivatives, do you?


SM2

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well, the feds should have never bailed out a business plain and simple. ARMs are not the problem, the idiots signing them and then defaulting are the issue, followed by the administration bailing them out.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You would be restricting the actions of corporations and not people.

What I had explained led DIRECTLY TO THE 2008 MORTGAGE MELTDOWN AND MARKET CRASH. That coupled with nefarious lenders and banks was the dual whammy that lead to the crash.

Items like this protect the end consumer and if you feel that the American consumer does not need protecting from these banks who do not give a toss about you or this nation and whose only goal is to maximize profits by doing whatever it wants you've already sworn your allegiance to those who want to end America.

Without Government the very computer you are on would not be safe for use, every single thing you buy would be hazardous to your health and there'd be nothing that you could do about it.

Banks think they are above the law and care not for our Government or the wishes of the people. They turned the stock market into a casino and used other people's money to place bets.

The Occupy Everything movement currently ongoing is the end result of this. Deregulation leads to jobs being sent overseas. People are infuriated at Wall Street because it is their sole fault why you can't get a job.

Cases like this is where Gov't regulation should be strict and not allows them to step all over people while using the law to do it.

By letting the banks do whatever the flip it wants will lead this nation into further continued debt, do nothing for Average Americans. To back the banks blindly means you are a paid shill for them.

It begs to ask the question and that is where does your priorities and allegiance lie?

TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT!
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well, the feds should have never bailed out a business plain and simple. ARMs are not the problem, the idiots signing them and then defaulting are the issue, followed by the administration bailing them out.


Well then according to your theory con men who prey on the elderly are not a problem either, it's those dumb ass elderly who fall for the con job, that's the problem. Please!

Maybe I should try a different approach. Could you tell me just exactly what is so good about ARMs that we need to keep them around? I mean really, who are they "good" for?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Do you remember when Fonzi on "Happy Days" always got choked up when he tried to utter the phrase "I was wrong" and every time he tried to say it, he just couldn't seem to get the word "wrong" out?

Well it seems as though some posters here on ATS feel as though the terms "irresponsible" and "fraudulent" can only be attached to the consumer and should never be stated in conjunction with corporations, banks, etc... They are the "Job Creators" and it almost blasphemous to even ponder the idea that they could do "wrong," like Fonzi.

Anyway, I think that's what we're dealing with here.

edit on 4-10-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Flat,

Let us not also forget that accountability, responsibility and professionalism starts at the corporate level. They suckered alot of people into taking a false loan while taking advantage of a person who isn't as smart as you or I. I attended a mortgage refi that my Mom was doing and guess what? Her, my brother and I stayed in the office for nearly 3 hours reading and asking questions. People are told to not dare question banks and to accept everything "As Is" and that most always leads to people being suckered and conned.

Concentrate on this part and this explains and is the direct, sole and exclusive cause why soo many houses went underwater :

"As when you get a mortgage and have your payments set at $500 a month and after 2 years it balloons to $1,000 just to triple again to $3,000 means that per month you now have to fork over six times what you initially thought you'd be paying"!

Find me one job the "Job Creators" have created stateside that hasn't been sent overseas!
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I couldn't agree with you more. Corporate "accountability" is what seems to be totally lacking in the present day scenario.

Although I agree that there have been some people who knew full well what they were signing at the time and just got caught with their pants down. (These were primarily investors who were attempting to get rich quick "flipping" houses.) Even though they were a contributing factor, I doubt very seriously that the volume of their business alone would have been great enough to cause the housing bubble and/or the following collapse.

IMO, it was the rampant predatory lending practices in the form of ARMs that was utilized to con the american home buying public into a future balloon payment that no one could afford. Foreclosures are nothing more than the banks way of "flipping" the house. I believe it was deliberate and intentional and to date, no one at the corporate level has been held to account.

Thanks for your input.


edit on 4-10-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


well, the feds should have never bailed out a business plain and simple. ARMs are not the problem, the idiots signing them and then defaulting are the issue, followed by the administration bailing them out.


Well then according to your theory con men who prey on the elderly are not a problem either, it's those dumb ass elderly who fall for the con job, that's the problem. Please!

Maybe I should try a different approach. Could you tell me just exactly what is so good about ARMs that we need to keep them around? I mean really, who are they "good" for?


You have no business signing any contract you do not understand, regardless of y our age, it's all in print, right in front of you. In the case of a mortgage, at least in my state, you go to a lawyers office of your chosing, and you sign all the paperwork, it is also state law that the lawyer explain anything about the contract that you do not understand. So, all the tools are there for you or anyone to gain an understanding of the mortgage, or contract that you are about to sign. So once again, if you fail to grasp the in s and outs, then it is your own fault.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by SM2
 


Look, I've never signed one either but that didn't stop us less gullible taxpayers from paying the bill, did it?

All I'm saying is that if we don't want to keep paying the bill, then we need to fix the problem and the real problem seems to be the trap created by ARMs. At least I don't ever remember having to bailout the banks prior to ARMs, mortgage back securities and/or derivatives, do you?



We bailed out the Savings and Loans industry after they engaged in risky lending policies.
And we shouldn't have.

The most recent bailout was so big, to not have done it would have had a huge negative impact on Main Street. So, I get why they did it. In practice I may have done the same thing. But, in principle, I object.
edit on 4-10-2011 by watcher3339 because: typo



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


All I can say is that for your sake, I hope that you're always as smart as you think you are and that you never get taken by a legalized con for which there is no recourse.

On the other hand, It's been my life experience that when one individual is blind to the plight of another, the plight always seems to find a way to make itself more recognizable to them, usually by affecting those who were blinded more directly. Be careful of what you refuse to recognize, it'll sneak up on you and turn you into it's next victim.

I have been very fortunate in my home buying experiences and I own my home outright but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize a con when I see one.


edit on 4-10-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2


The people cannot be held liable for signing a deal that the lender did not allow them to question or read. Typical mantra is to attack the defenseless and to defend the banks that caused it.
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by SM2


The people cannot be held liable for signing a deal that the lender did not allow them to question or read. Typical mantra is to attack the defenseless and to defend the banks that caused it.
edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Anyone who signed without reading is an idiot. IF a lender refused to let you read something before signing (heck if anyone, even your 10 year old son tries to get you to sign something without reading it) then you know right then and there NOT to sign it. Common sense.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by SM2
 


Look, I've never signed one either but that didn't stop us less gullible taxpayers from paying the bill, did it?

All I'm saying is that if we don't want to keep paying the bill, then we need to fix the problem and the real problem seems to be the trap created by ARMs. At least I don't ever remember having to bailout the banks prior to ARMs, mortgage back securities and/or derivatives, do you?



We bailed out the Savings and Loans industry after they engaged in risky lending policies.
And we shouldn't have.

The most recent bailout was so big, to not have done it would have had a huge negative impact on Main Street. So, I get why they did it. In practice I may have done the same thing. But, in principle, I object.
edit on 4-10-2011 by watcher3339 because: typo


Yeah and if I remember right, there was a "Bush" involved in that scandal too. Maybe this will ring a bell;

en.wikipedia.org...



Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was on the Board of Directors of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.[17]
The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.[18]
As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.[citation needed]
Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine, paid for him by Republican supporters.,[19] and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.


I seem to remember someone else being somewhat involved in that scandal as well. How about John McCain and the "keating five."

en.wikipedia.org...



The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan), were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment."


After getting their hands slapped, the banking corporate elite decided that a new, more "legal" form of stealing would need to be developed. They exercised their power over our elected officials in congress via unlimited lobbying efforts and not only got it approved, but got them to promote it as well. The new system was known as Adjustable Rate Mortgages and Sub Prime Loans. Go figure.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join