Should We Consider Outlawing Adjustable Rate Mortgages & Foreclosures?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 09:14 PM by TheImmaculateD1

reply to post by watcher3339

People who dared to read it were attacked and crucified by the very lenders. I got at least 100 different reports between 07 - 09 from various people telling me of how they were told that "You can't get a better deal anywhere" and were told how the banks blacked out on them the second they dared to ask a question or an explanation.

It takes someone with a higher iq to understand the content as to someone with a lower iq would be like trying to explain Einstein's 17 theories to each in great detail. You'd get someone looking at you with a blank stare.

edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 09:40 PM by The Old American

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Flatfish

so if I stop making payments I can't be kicked out ? I get to stay in my home forever after closing on my no money down mortgage without making one payment ?

I hate to defend the bank, but if they don't get paid, they fail and we have to save up $500,000 in cash to buy a home

I am for regulating the derivatives industry tho, they are the definition of "toxic"

When a mechanic fixes someone's car and they're unable to pay, he doesn't get to repossess their car. When a contractor does a re-modeling job on a house and doesn't get paid, he doesn't get to repossess the house. Why should a bank be any different?

Because the mechanic doesn't own the car, and the contractor doesn't own the house. When you mortgage a house, a lender is buying the house for you, and therefore is the owner, and you are basically on a rent-to-own plan.

If you don't want to take the risk, don't sign on the dotted line agreeing to the terms of the contract.

/TOA

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 09:48 PM by Blackmarketeer

reply to post by The Old American

There's "truth in lending", or at least there was an act for such, then there's ARMs and predatory lending. Any form of consumer advocacy that used to protect home-buyers from sham deals like ARMs is under severe attack by the right wing - soon the mantra will be "You want to buy a house, sign the dotted line, and let's see how long you last against our army of lawyers - we will eat you for lunch".

I'm all for personal responsibility but on the same note, banks have to play fair. Banks have taken control and write their own regulations, the government stopped representing us and now represent only corporate greed.

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 10:48 PM by SM2

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)

Sure they can be held liable, they should not have signed it. If the bank wont let you question them, then leave. Plain and simple.

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 11:02 PM by TheImmaculateD1

reply to post by SM2

When strongarm tactics are being used it's hard for someone who knows little to become aware of the conjob.

If they were so wholesome then actions like the following wouldn't've been needed :
news.firedoglake.com...

I can't find the link but there is massive bank investigations underway. A 400% increase in cases were reported by The FBI in 2010 while investigating mortgage fraud, Another report from Huffington reported a 31% spike in fraud investigations in Q1 11 as compared to Q1 10. Keep on telling yourself that everything is fine and dandy.

I guess it's far easier to always blame the victim and not the culprit.

edit on 4-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-10-2011 @ 11:15 PM by SM2

you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying banks do not strong arm and i am not saying they are wholesome. What I am saying is, they are not forcing anyone to do it. If you do not understand the thing, then do not sign it! Of course the bank is going to try and screw you, of course they want the terms to favor them, and of course they will pressure you to sign. Get up and leave, plain and simple, i promise you they will call you back and offer you different terms.

I weep for the future of our nation, I really do.

edit on 4-10-2011 by SM2 because: edit to add

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 01:17 AM by The Old American

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by The Old American

There's "truth in lending", or at least there was an act for such, then there's ARMs and predatory lending. Any form of consumer advocacy that used to protect home-buyers from sham deals like ARMs is under severe attack by the right wing - soon the mantra will be "You want to buy a house, sign the dotted line, and let's see how long you last against our army of lawyers - we will eat you for lunch".

I'm all for personal responsibility but on the same note, banks have to play fair. Banks have taken control and write their own regulations, the government stopped representing us and now represent only corporate greed.

Of course there's "truth in lending". There's also "read the contract in full before signing". For a purchase as big as a house maybe people should also consider "I should let an attorney read this before I commit to it".

/TOA

reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 09:01 AM by macman

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
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)

Oh get off it. The always popular "No Govt" retort.

SSSSSPLLLLLLLLLTTTTT!!!!!!!

That is what I say to that.

I have never advocated for NO Govt. Less Govt. That is all. minimal Govt. The least amount of Govt.

Is that clear now?

But, let me reiterate. There is no need to ban something, when common sense states not to do it, the end result is most people not benefiting from it and other options are available.

Wow, gotta have Govt there to make sure the dummies don't do dumb things.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 10:30 AM by Flatfish

Originally posted by SM2
you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying banks do not strong arm and i am not saying they are wholesome. What I am saying is, they are not forcing anyone to do it. If you do not understand the thing, then do not sign it! Of course the bank is going to try and screw you, of course they want the terms to favor them, and of course they will pressure you to sign. Get up and leave, plain and simple, i promise you they will call you back and offer you different terms.

I weep for the future of our nation, I really do.

So if you find yourself nailed to a cross, don't go trying to blame somebody else for your predicament because it is, without a doubt, your own dumb ass fault. You should have known better than to go around standing so close to crosses in the first place.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 10:45 AM by macman

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by SM2
you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying banks do not strong arm and i am not saying they are wholesome. What I am saying is, they are not forcing anyone to do it. If you do not understand the thing, then do not sign it! Of course the bank is going to try and screw you, of course they want the terms to favor them, and of course they will pressure you to sign. Get up and leave, plain and simple, i promise you they will call you back and offer you different terms.

I weep for the future of our nation, I really do.

So if you find yourself nailed to a cross, don't go trying to blame somebody else for your predicament because it is, without a doubt, your own dumb ass fault. You should have known better than to go around standing so close to crosses in the first place.

You forgot to add that you not only signed up to be nailed to the cross, you brought your own nails and hammer.

Give me a break.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 11:03 AM by Flatfish

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by SM2
you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying banks do not strong arm and i am not saying they are wholesome. What I am saying is, they are not forcing anyone to do it. If you do not understand the thing, then do not sign it! Of course the bank is going to try and screw you, of course they want the terms to favor them, and of course they will pressure you to sign. Get up and leave, plain and simple, i promise you they will call you back and offer you different terms.

I weep for the future of our nation, I really do.

So if you find yourself nailed to a cross, don't go trying to blame somebody else for your predicament because it is, without a doubt, your own dumb ass fault. You should have known better than to go around standing so close to crosses in the first place.

You forgot to add that you not only signed up to be nailed to the cross, you brought your own nails and hammer.

Give me a break.

Now there we go. Why in the world, would or should, I give you a break? I don't hear you offering to give "breaks" to anyone other than the predatory lenders themselves.

Now you of all people, want me to give you a break just because you can't fathom the ramifications of the policies you support? Maybe you should take a little of your own advice and get a lawyer to sit down and explain it to you.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 11:06 AM by macman

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by SM2
you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying banks do not strong arm and i am not saying they are wholesome. What I am saying is, they are not forcing anyone to do it. If you do not understand the thing, then do not sign it! Of course the bank is going to try and screw you, of course they want the terms to favor them, and of course they will pressure you to sign. Get up and leave, plain and simple, i promise you they will call you back and offer you different terms.

I weep for the future of our nation, I really do.

So if you find yourself nailed to a cross, don't go trying to blame somebody else for your predicament because it is, without a doubt, your own dumb ass fault. You should have known better than to go around standing so close to crosses in the first place.

You forgot to add that you not only signed up to be nailed to the cross, you brought your own nails and hammer.

Give me a break.

Now there we go. Why in the world, would or should, I give you a break? I don't hear you offering to give "breaks" to anyone other than the predatory lenders themselves.

Now you of all people, want me to give you a break just because you can't fathom the ramifications of the policies you support? Maybe you should take a little of your own advice and get a lawyer to sit down and explain it to you.

Explain what?
That I, as a borrower have the ability to tell the bank "NO" when offered an ARM or Interest only loan?

Oh, I forgot, along with the evil banker lurking in the grass comes a heavy handed thug that twists your left arm until you sign the loan with the right.

I never once stated that the banks weren't a big issue with this.

You want better living through bigger Govt, to regulate stupidity from those that want it there home right now.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 11:17 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by The Old American

There's "truth in lending", or at least there was an act for such, then there's ARMs and predatory lending. Any form of consumer advocacy that used to protect home-buyers from sham deals like ARMs is under severe attack by the right wing - soon the mantra will be "You want to buy a house, sign the dotted line, and let's see how long you last against our army of lawyers - we will eat you for lunch".

I'm all for personal responsibility but on the same note, banks have to play fair. Banks have taken control and write their own regulations, the government stopped representing us and now represent only corporate greed.

Yes one can always tell when a scam has had an effect because they pass new laws to protect.....now that the bleeding is over.

And I am one who is really disappointed in some that went whole sale into supporting the banks. Not because I have anything against banks but simply because the ARM was a thing sold in large scale for large scale rip off and knowing that 80% of those forced into an ARM didnt understand it.

And I say forced because thats what it was. We go a fixed loan only after 3 months of offers for an ARM. But we didnt cave in. They even told us thats all we qualified for. This was a lie. They just got a higher commisson of the ARM loans. Which is another indicator that the ARMs were being pushed.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 11:52 AM by VforVendettea

Originally posted by Flatfish
When a mechanic fixes someone's car and they're unable to pay, he doesn't get to repossess their car.

When a contractor does a re-modeling job on a house and doesn't get paid, he doesn't get to repossess the house. Why should a bank be any different?

Sorry, someone beat me to it.

Actually it is called a mechanics lein and the car owner must pay for the repairs or forfeit the car to the mechanic.

There are some legal hoops to jump through of course.

edit on 6-10-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 12:16 PM by SM2

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by The Old American

There's "truth in lending", or at least there was an act for such, then there's ARMs and predatory lending. Any form of consumer advocacy that used to protect home-buyers from sham deals like ARMs is under severe attack by the right wing - soon the mantra will be "You want to buy a house, sign the dotted line, and let's see how long you last against our army of lawyers - we will eat you for lunch".

I'm all for personal responsibility but on the same note, banks have to play fair. Banks have taken control and write their own regulations, the government stopped representing us and now represent only corporate greed.

Yes one can always tell when a scam has had an effect because they pass new laws to protect.....now that the bleeding is over.

And I am one who is really disappointed in some that went whole sale into supporting the banks. Not because I have anything against banks but simply because the ARM was a thing sold in large scale for large scale rip off and knowing that 80% of those forced into an ARM didnt understand it.

And I say forced because thats what it was. We go a fixed loan only after 3 months of offers for an ARM. But we didnt cave in. They even told us thats all we qualified for. This was a lie. They just got a higher commisson of the ARM loans. Which is another indicator that the ARMs were being pushed.

You were not "forced" you were "coerced" big difference there. Force would imply you had no alternative, and by your own admition you did have an alternative, as did everyone that signed an ARM. To cry foul after you agreed to something does not cut it. More government is not the answer, it never is. You cant regulate bad decisions. There has to be failure for there to be success. Not everyone can win. If I make a mistake, and trust me I have made plenty, i do not blame the person that sold me on the decision, I blame myself for not researching the decision more thoroughly, as it ultimately my decision to make, so therefore by virtue my responsibility to research the various routes I can take, if I make the wrong one, it's my fault. i can't blame wal mart because i picked up cream cheese instead of sour cream. I guess no one remembers the old addage "Buyer beware".

edit on 6-10-2011 by SM2 because: corrections

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 05:29 PM by Flatfish

Originally posted by VforVendettea

Originally posted by Flatfish
When a mechanic fixes someone's car and they're unable to pay, he doesn't get to repossess their car.

When a contractor does a re-modeling job on a house and doesn't get paid, he doesn't get to repossess the house. Why should a bank be any different?

Sorry, someone beat me to it.

Actually it is called a mechanics lein and the car owner must pay for the repairs or forfeit the car to the mechanic.

There are some legal hoops to jump through of course.

edit on 6-10-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)