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 timetothink
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Another way to redistribute wealth also. And the government confiscating wealth to pay it's debt...alternate to tax, more useful to them.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make concerning my initial impressions. The article never addressed which entity would assume legal authority over the titles of the affected property. It would be natural to assume that the apparently designated financial institutions would gain legal authority over said property. Once again may I point to this section of the article
Originally posted by timetothink
Holding/owning the mortgage means they own the house...it is one and the same. When you have a mortgage, the holder of the mortgage is the real owner....you are basically renting to own until you pay it off. So, it is a very bad idea.
Bad enough for the banks to own your house.....imagine the government owning it? They can kick you out without the foreclosure time I would think.
Now my original comment comparing wall street guys to child molesters may have been a bit harsh, but the point I was trying to make was that they both are types of predators. Anytime you put certain types of people in certain situations they will take advantage of it, it's in their nature.If the government takes legal authority over said property they most certainly will rework the contract over with the debtors. Any time government negotiates a contract with an entity which has a weak bargaining position it will place numerous stipulations while retaining all legal right to do as they see fit. This usually includes termination of the contract.Cases like these (property) that get taken to court are almost always about monetary compensation, not whether government has the authority to the rights of the property. If I remember correctly that is how Judge Andrew Napolitano explained it to a tee.So with the backing of the people (because of the prospect of a cheaper cost of living) the government could possibly seize these properties from these financial institutions all the while retaining all legal authority through the reworked contracts with the debtors.Now all this may be a bit hyperbolic and outrageous, and I would tend to agree. But history has shown that very rarely does any entity do anything to the benefit of the common people out of the kindness of their hearts.
"This is not a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, 'How do we make money?'" he said. "This was a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, 'How do you solve this problem?'"