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.
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".
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.
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?
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?
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)
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
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.
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."