If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   In spite of the settlement with the government, it turns out that banks can still illegally foreclose on your home   (salon.com) divider line 100
    More: Obvious, NBC Bay Area, City University of New York, cashier's checks, loan servicing, RealtyTrac, state attorney general, Center for Investigative Reporting, GMAC  
•       •       •

3114 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 May 2013 at 4:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 09:58:10 PM  

adamatari: OWS didn't  totally fail - we weren't even having conversations about inequality before OWS, at least not loudly and publicly. Romney would probably have been elected if it wasn't for OWS, which led to his very damaging public "47%" comment - which came from GOP talking points against the "1% vs 99%" that OWS brought to the forefront. So don't tell me OWS didn't do any good.


OWS vandalized some local small businesses, raped a lot of people and tried to blow up a bridge in Ohio. Not much of a contribution.
 
2013-05-02 10:29:06 PM  

Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: i'm honestly surprised we haven't seen more effort to flat out murder bankers and CEOs by now.

I'm sure they pay for VERY good security.

yeah, for the top guys.  middle managers?  not so much.  remember - the top guys have the view that middle managers can be replaced.  I suspect that if a lot of the managers started getting killed off, the top 1% might find it difficult to keep their business from falling apart.


They would just outsource the work to Bangladesh or some such place.
 
2013-05-02 10:50:00 PM  

Felgraf: Debeo Summa Credo: But surely, there are any number of communist paradises you could emigrate to, right? What's stopping you? Sure, the USSR and East Germany are gone. And China and Vietnam have abandoned Marxism. But you still have Cuba, right? And North Korea don't forget! Bon voyage, comrade!

Most doing-well European countries are palces you would consider socialistic. Even Germany.


I'd consider the U.S. socialistic. Socialism isn't a bad word. There are degrees to socialism.
 
2013-05-02 11:27:54 PM  

Charlie Chingas: They control the military.


You obviously haven't served.
The American military is controlled through the active cooperation of those who serve in it.
Romney's sons don't serve. Biden's does. The enlisted ranks are of the people.

When the time comes, those tanks and guns will be controlled by the middle-class.
 
2013-05-02 11:39:09 PM  

Without Fail: Charlie Chingas: They control the military.

You obviously haven't served.
The American military is controlled through the active cooperation of those who serve in it.
Romney's sons don't serve. Biden's does. The enlisted ranks are of the people.

When the time comes, those tanks and guns will be controlled by the middle-class.


Should I bite?
 
2013-05-02 11:46:26 PM  

BullBearMS: mod3072: Nemo's Brother: Weaver95: that's ok - once people are out in the cold, no home, no hope, little money and nothing to lose....they'll realize that the GOP made powerful assault weapons cheap, easy to obtain and plentiful and put 2 and 2 together all on their own.

Wrong. Leftist statist puppets like you will win the gun war. Traitors like you will ensure the elite win.

What color is the sky in your world? Congress can't even pass a background check, which the vast majority of the populace supports. I'm not too worried about Fartbong0 kicking my door down and taking my guns anytime soon.

I'm more worried about Fartbong0 appointing a cable and wireless industry lobbyist (and Obama fundraiser) to head the FCC yesterday.

The filthy rich completely own both parties.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 423x600]


Oppose both parties?  Sure, if you want to throw your vote away.

I asked this in a thread the other day: Why is it that the idea of poor people rising up and toppling "corporate masters" with, what, guillotines? a good thing (and totally plausible); but the idea of rednecks rising up and toppling the gubnerrment traitorous (and "ha ha GLWT" impossible)?

I mean, really, isn't it equally traitorous and impossible?  Why should we support poor people rising up?
 
2013-05-02 11:51:26 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Without Fail: Charlie Chingas: They control the military.

You obviously haven't served.
The American military is controlled through the active cooperation of those who serve in it.
Romney's sons don't serve. Biden's does. The enlisted ranks are of the people.

When the time comes, those tanks and guns will be controlled by the middle-class.

Should I bite?


I don't know, should you? Are you aware of how many enlisted personnel have lost homes while on deployment due to shady dealings and falsified paperwork by some of the larger banks?

Do you really think they'll be very willing to defend the people that have screwed their peers?

If I were the the big banks or a politician that represents them, I wouldn't count on a lot of enlisted military support if the shiat were to really hit the fan.
 
2013-05-03 12:01:03 AM  

Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: i'm honestly surprised we haven't seen more effort to flat out murder bankers and CEOs by now.

I'm sure they pay for VERY good security.

yeah, for the top guys.  middle managers?  not so much.  remember - the top guys have the view that middle managers can be replaced.  I suspect that if a lot of the managers started getting killed off, the top 1% might find it difficult to keep their business from falling apart.


Chomping at the bit, are you?
 
2013-05-03 12:18:19 AM  
I knew this was a load of crap the first day you could try and get your mortgage adjusted.

Mortgage has to be owned AND serviced by the same bank. Mine was. Until the day before the rules applied. That's the day Chase sold my mortgage to Wells Fargo yet remained as the servicer. Oops guess you don't fall inside the rules anymore. Darn!
 
2013-05-03 12:22:01 AM  
So, uh, yeah.

Why is "poor people rise up" good, and "rednecks rise up" bad?
 
2013-05-03 12:22:19 AM  

sendtodave: Oppose both parties? Sure, if you want to throw your vote away.


Sure, because the one thing you want to do when both parties sell you out, is just keep supporting them.

The last time the obscenely wealthy owned both political parties happened in America's gilded age. It wasn't until after the people abandoned the existing parties and began electing their own representatives that the traditional parties decided that reform was better than irrelevance.
 
2013-05-03 12:28:02 AM  

sendtodave: Why is "poor people rise up" good, and "rednecks rise up" bad?


I'd think it would be the reasoning behind those two particular groups. The rednecks would likely be rising up because of right-wing propaganda, rather than any factual reality. The poor would be rising up because of the very real phenomenon of repeated and egregious abuses of corporate America upon the citizenry.
 
2013-05-03 12:31:05 AM  

BullBearMS: sendtodave: Oppose both parties? Sure, if you want to throw your vote away.

Sure, because the one thing you want to do when both parties sell you out, is just keep supporting them.

The last time the obscenely wealthy owned both political parties happened in America's gilded age. It wasn't until after the people abandoned the existing parties and began electing their own representatives that the traditional parties decided that reform was better than irrelevance.


I think the powers that be are savvy enough to put off, or avoid completely, another progressive age.  They got their Gilded Age back.

Why as equity investors do we care about these issues? Despite being in great shape, we
think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie
over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the
productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor. As we believe plutonomy explains away
some of the conundrums we highlighted above, we are very relaxed about these issues.

Indeed, if the rich keep getting richer, as we suggest, savings rates might get even worse in
the plutonomy countries. If plutonomy explains away many conundrums that our equity
clients worry about, then this suggests the risk premia ascribed to equities might be too high.

Furthermore, if the rich will be getting even richer in the coming years, this bodes extremely
well for businesses selling to or servicing the rich, be it for example luxury goods stocks or
private banks. The rich are a growing and captive market, who have the nice habit of
relatively little price elasticity. The plutonomy basket of luxury goods stocks, private banks
etc. has handsomely outperformed the S&P500 index since 1986, and we expect similar
outperformance from these types of stocks in the years to come. In the last 3 months alone,
these stocks have outperformed the MSCI AC World index by 7%.
 
2013-05-03 12:34:31 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: sendtodave: Why is "poor people rise up" good, and "rednecks rise up" bad?

I'd think it would be the reasoning behind those two particular groups. The rednecks would likely be rising up because of right-wing propaganda, rather than any factual reality. The poor would be rising up because of the very real phenomenon of repeated and egregious abuses of corporate America upon the citizenry.


Fair enough.  But does being sympathetic over one cause or another make the cause more likely to succeed?

I think poor people rising up would get about as far as rednecks would, and would get about the same amount of sympathy from "main street."

Somewhere between "Why are they upsetting the apple cart?" and "Meh."

See:  Occupy movement.
 
2013-05-03 12:49:40 AM  

sendtodave: think the powers that be are savvy enough to put off, or avoid completely, another progressive age.


I think the rich screwed up when they went so far as to fark over the entire global economy and then have their pet politicians refuse to prosecute fraud of that magnitude. It made their control of both parties completely obvious to even the dimmest minds.
 
2013-05-03 12:59:57 AM  

sendtodave: But does being sympathetic over one cause or another make the cause more likely to succeed?


I think it helps for sympathy if your cause has reality as an underpinning, but I don't really disagree with you for the rest of it. It takes direct, acute suffering to make people realize, as even the plight of immediate family members isn't enough to rouse some people.

It's just that with shiat like this continuing, more people are experiencing direct, acute suffering.
 
2013-05-03 01:47:04 AM  

jso2897: COMALite J: BooBoo23: Elandriel: History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap. So...keep it up.

The populace has never been as fat, lazy, and sedated by brain-numbing media as they are now, though. That snap may take waaaay longer than we think.

Moreover, the super-wealthy now have private jets and islands. Getting to them to haul them to the guillotines when it all breaks down may be a lot harder than it was in France a couple centuries ago.

Face it: they're gonna win this time, and there's nothing we can do about it, even though we outnumber them hundreds of millions to one. Civilization itself is doomed, within our lifetimes.

For somebody to "win" something has to be over. It's not going to be "over" until we're extinct - in which case, who, exactly, "wins"?


Whoever wins, we lose.
 
2013-05-03 01:54:50 AM  

BullBearMS: sendtodave: think the powers that be are savvy enough to put off, or avoid completely, another progressive age.

I think the rich screwed up when they went so far as to fark over the entire global economy and then have their pet politicians refuse to prosecute fraud of that magnitude. It made their control of both parties completely obvious to even the dimmest minds.


I wish. Despite the brazenness of the criminal fraud, or perhaps because of it, many people remain unaware that laws were broken. In other threads here I've had people dispute that title and mortgage fraud were carried out by the banks.

The desire of many, especially the middle class, to defend the status quo at all costs is very strong. This leads to denial.
 
2013-05-03 01:58:59 AM  

BullBearMS: sendtodave: think the powers that be are savvy enough to put off, or avoid completely, another progressive age.

I think the rich screwed up when they went so far as to fark over the entire global economy and then have their pet politicians refuse to prosecute fraud of that magnitude. It made their control of both parties completely obvious to even the dimmest minds.


There was no fraud to prosecute.  The system worked exactly as intended.   Nothing has changed, and the conditions that led to the crash are still largely in place.   As soon as something shiny comes along to divert our attention, they're going to do it again, and they'll get away with it again.
 
2013-05-03 02:10:03 AM  

COMALite J: BooBoo23: Elandriel: History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap. So...keep it up.

The populace has never been as fat, lazy, and sedated by brain-numbing media as they are now, though. That snap may take waaaay longer than we think.

Moreover, the super-wealthy now have private jets and islands. Getting to them to haul them to the guillotines when it all breaks down may be a lot harder than it was in France a couple centuries ago.

Face it: they're gonna win this time, and there's nothing we can do about it, even though we outnumber them hundreds of millions to one. Civilization itself is doomed, within our lifetimes.


We are the people who fly the planes and pilot the boats.
we cook your food we cut your hair. We guard them while they sleep.

do not fark with us
 
2013-05-03 02:29:07 AM  

adamatari: I wish. Despite the brazenness of the criminal fraud, or perhaps because of it, many people remain unaware that laws were broken. In other threads here I've had people dispute that title and mortgage fraud were carried out by the banks.

The desire of many, especially the middle class, to defend the status quo at all costs is very strong. This leads to denial.


Loyalists.
 
2013-05-03 05:08:25 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If it's allowed, then it's not criminal conduct. Duh.

/It might be wrong, and perhaps it *should* be criminal, but technically it isn't if it's allowed.


No, it's still criminal conduct.  But the government has agreed to forebear from prosecuting the first few offenses.   No different from the deferred action program for people who are here illegally.  It's all "prosecutorial discretion."
 
2013-05-03 06:25:49 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Weaver95: that's ok - once people are out in the cold, no home, no hope, little money and nothing to lose....they'll realize that the GOP made powerful assault weapons cheap, easy to obtain and plentiful and put 2 and 2 together all on their own.

Pressure cookers are cheaper than an AR-15, and no background checks needed.

Just sayin'


And thanks to the NRA, gunpowder can't be traced.
 
2013-05-03 06:27:13 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: jso2897: If you want to be fined five minute's income, defraud hundreds of thousands of people out of billions of dollars.
if you want to go to prison for five years, steal a car worth $8000.

There was a brief period, back in the sixties and seventies, when i thought maybe this country was going to grow a set of balls. i forgot all that when that grinning piece of shiat was elected in 1980.
America is shiat, and not worth saving. Land of the cowards, and home of the pussies.
Enjoy the taste of your master's shiat. you f**king human dogs.

LOL!! I disagree with you completely but credit where credit's due! awesome post!

/"enjoy the taste of your master's shiat" classic

Lol. He thinks he "disagrees" with that which is utterly beyond his slave comprehension.

"slave comprehension"?!? That's not nearly as funny as "master's shiat". Quit while you're ahead.

But surely, there are any number of communist paradises you could emigrate to, right? What's stopping you? Sure, the USSR and East Germany are gone. And China and Vietnam have abandoned Marxism. But you still have Cuba, right? And North Korea don't forget! Bon voyage, comrade!


N. Korea isn't communist, it's a monarchical dictatorship.
 
2013-05-03 08:18:51 AM  

jso2897: COMALite J: BooBoo23: Elandriel: History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap. So...keep it up.

The populace has never been as fat, lazy, and sedated by brain-numbing media as they are now, though. That snap may take waaaay longer than we think.

Moreover, the super-wealthy now have private jets and islands. Getting to them to haul them to the guillotines when it all breaks down may be a lot harder than it was in France a couple centuries ago.

Face it: they're gonna win this time, and there's nothing we can do about it, even though we outnumber them hundreds of millions to one. Civilization itself is doomed, within our lifetimes.

For somebody to "win" something has to be over. It's not going to be "over" until we're extinct - in which case, who, exactly, "wins"?


The rest of the Earth?
 
2013-05-03 08:31:20 AM  

Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.


It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.
 
2013-05-03 08:36:27 AM  
One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.
 
2013-05-03 09:06:43 AM  

Weaver95: that's ok - once people are out in the cold, no home, no hope, little money and nothing to lose....they'll realize that the GOP made powerful assault weapons cheap, easy to obtain and plentiful and put 2 and 2 together all on their own.


The democrats in the Senate were yelling loudest to save the banks. Conservatives were saying ket them fail. To big to fail is a leftist view. But you keep blaming the right. Why change your ignorance now.
 
2013-05-03 09:10:13 AM  
I'm always impressed at the level of angst Farkers can drum up hating "the rich."

I'm curious exactly where the line is in income or assets that, once crossed, a person suddenly becomes a baby-eating monster that revels in oppressing the middle class.

The fact is that there are horrible people, both rich and poor, all over the place.  A terrible poor person will fark up the lives of the people around them.  A terrible person in a position of power will fark up a whole bunch of lives, and that will make the news.  But it seems to me that that person would be evil either way.  They didn't become evil when they got their first big paycheck.  They just have more reach because of their power.
 
2013-05-03 09:20:05 AM  

Parkanzky: I'm always impressed at the level of angst Farkers can drum up hating "the rich."

I'm curious exactly where the line is in income or assets that, once crossed, a person suddenly becomes a baby-eating monster that revels in oppressing the middle class.

The fact is that there are horrible people, both rich and poor, all over the place.  A terrible poor person will fark up the lives of the people around them.  A terrible person in a position of power will fark up a whole bunch of lives, and that will make the news.  But it seems to me that that person would be evil either way.  They didn't become evil when they got their first big paycheck.  They just have more reach because of their power.


For many farkers, the rich/poor divide supersedes good/evil. There was a thread on the main page yesterday in which 80% of
farkers were defending a bank robber.
 
jgi
2013-05-03 09:34:22 AM  
Vote with your dollars. Pay off your debt, stop accruing new debt. Stop buying stuff you don't need just to fill rooms in a house. Save and invest your money. You can drop out of the system. You do not need debt to survive.
 
2013-05-03 09:39:27 AM  

Tommy Moo: Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.

It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.


That's the way its always been until they take it a little too far.

Remember these are sociopaths we are dealing with.
 
2013-05-03 09:51:43 AM  

Tommy Moo: One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.


Seriously?  That's one of your biggest fears?  That's hysterical.  Literally, hysterical defined as irrational from fear.

You realize that if the bank forecloses on a home and sells it, the borrower gets any proceeds over and above outstanding mortgage balance and realtor commissions, etc., right?  The bank does just doesn't get a free house for which you've already paid - they only get what their owed.

There's some sort of idiotic misperception here that banks are willfully stealing homes from people who are actually current on their mortgage.  The fact of the matter is that banks absolutely don't want to have to foreclose - they would be much happier if the borrower actually paid back the money lent to them.  Foreclosing on a current mortgage actually loses them money.  The vast majority of these "foreclosure frauds" are situations where the borrower has missed many months of mortgage payments but is still squatting in the house, but the bank fails to get something notarized properly or cross a T or dot an I on a form before serving a foreclosure notice.
 
2013-05-03 09:52:04 AM  
This isn't going to change until some robo-signer OKs foreclosing on a CEO's summer home, then the banks will fix it themselves so that it never happens again*.

*to the rich, because fark the poor.
 
2013-05-03 10:01:24 AM  

Tommy Moo: Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.

It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.


Oh my god!   That's so farking funny.  A conspiracy theory involving the 1% and netflix streaming!  I have tears running down my eyes.

Do you think there's a monthly meeting of the 1% where they discuss how to keep the 99% down?  Do people who cross a certain income or wealth threshold get invited and initiated?  "Welcome to the 1%, by the way we're going to need ten bucks each from you to film the next season of House of Cards"

You guys get nuttier by the day, honestly.
 
2013-05-03 10:20:52 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Tommy Moo: Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.

It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.

Oh my god!   That's so farking funny.  A conspiracy theory involving the 1% and netflix streaming!  I have tears running down my eyes.

Do you think there's a monthly meeting of the 1% where they discuss how to keep the 99% down?  Do people who cross a certain income or wealth threshold get invited and initiated?  "Welcome to the 1%, by the way we're going to need ten bucks each from you to film the next season of House of Cards"

You guys get nuttier by the day, honestly.


I can't wait to hit it big so that I can get measured for my dark hooded robe and issued my secret decoder ring!
 
2013-05-03 10:38:33 AM  

Tommy Moo: One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.


You need to do what my husband and I did. Don't go on vacations or spend any money you don't have to till you pay off your mortgage. Actually we saved and bought a home with cash. We have never made more than 30,000 and often much less so if we can do it so can you. Right now the bank owns your home. You have the idea of security but no real security as evidenced by your question.

Make a budget where you account for every penny. No more going out to eat, buying new clothes, going out for fun or going on vacations. Sit at home watching free movies you downloaded while you eat spaghetti and work on the budget. There are so many things people waste money on! We even moved to a city with a bus system so we could live with the constant expense of a car.  Make your own laundry detergent, eat generic brands, buy clothes at thrift stores, turn down the heat or air conditioning, buy a push mower so you never have to buy gas again. I could go on and on but most people won't give up anything. Like children they want everything now. How much do you want to be free and secure? Make it happen.
 
2013-05-03 10:39:56 AM  
I meant to say live WITHOUT the constant expense of a car.
 
2013-05-03 10:47:59 AM  

Mija: Tommy Moo: One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.

You need to do what my husband and I did. Don't go on vacations or spend any money you don't have to till you pay off your mortgage. Actually we saved and bought a home with cash. We have never made more than 30,000 and often much less so if we can do it so can you. Right now the bank owns your home. You have the idea of security but no real security as evidenced by your question.

Make a budget where you account for every penny. No more going out to eat, buying new clothes, going out for fun or going on vacations. Sit at home watching free movies you downloaded while you eat spaghetti and work on the budget. There are so many things people waste money on! We even moved to a city with a bus system so we could live with the constant expense of a car.  Make your own laundry detergent, eat generic brands, buy clothes at thrift stores, turn down the heat or air conditioning, buy a push mower so you never have to buy gas again. I could go on and on but most people won't give up anything. Like children they want everything now. How much do you want to be free and secure? Make it happen.


I agree that the average American is way too focused on instant-gratification with irresponsible disregard for their long-term financial health.  However, eating delicious food, going out for fun and taking trips to new and interesting places are big parts of what make my life worth living.  I want to be completely debt free, but I was not willing to live in a crappy apartment eating ramen while I scraped every nickel I could together to buy our house with cash.  Instead, I splurge occasionally, enjoy a few luxuries (but not all of them) and purchased a house I could pay off in <15 years.

Money isn't everything.  I'd be wealthier now if I chose to live without any indulgences, but I don't think I'd be happier or having as much fun.  And what I'm hoping to do is maximize the area under the curve for happiness.  That means not going insane now and suffering big negative consequences later but still making sure I'm gathering rosebuds while I may.
 
2013-05-03 11:01:28 AM  

Mija: Tommy Moo: One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.

You need to do what my husband and I did. Don't go on vacations or spend any money you don't have to till you pay off your mortgage. Actually we saved and bought a home with cash. We have never made more than 30,000 and often much less so if we can do it so can you. Right now the bank owns your home. You have the idea of security but no real security as evidenced by your question.

Make a budget where you account for every penny. No more going out to eat, buying new clothes, going out for fun or going on vacations. Sit at home watching free movies you downloaded while you eat spaghetti and work on the budget. There are so many things people waste money on! We even moved to a city with a bus system so we could live with the constant expense of a car.  Make your own laundry detergent, eat generic brands, buy clothes at thrift stores, turn down the heat or air conditioning, buy a push mower so you never have to buy gas again. I could go on and on but most people won't give up anything. Like children they want everything now. How much do you want to be free and secure? Make it happen.


Up until the bank that owns your neighbor's house forecloses on them for not doing like you have, but has a typo on the forms.  Then you get off the bus to find your shiat in the yard and the locks changed on the house  you own.  Good luck fighting the bank then.  You might eventually win, but they will not make it easy.
 
2013-05-03 11:22:52 AM  
My buddy was going through a divorce when this all went down, so was losing the house no matter what happened.

But he fit the guidelines for this lawsuit and just got a $3,400 check the other day.

Best part is the ex-wife doesn't get to see a dime of it.  She had to borrow $60 for groceries the other week--he paid some bills and got a new TV.

/I always hated that biatch.  Told him to dump her when they were dating but he wouldn't listen.
 
2013-05-03 11:53:40 AM  
The feds had a solid gold criminal case and threw it away.  They had knowingly fraudulent documents filed in federal courts by bank officers - could have charged and convicted any number of them from 1 to 100 to ALL and sent them to federal prison as a lesson to the banks that you do NOT want to fark this up again.

Instead they waived the criminal charges, got a pittance of money (which the banks just made back by borrowing at 0% from the Fed and charging us for mortgages, or through customer fees) and provided zero dis-incentive to continuing the status-quo.

Believe me if a bank manager really thought he could go to jail for falsifying mortgage documents he'd be much more inclined to figuring out another way of dealing with a distressed loan.  And he'd be more inclinded to ensure that people were paying attention to the details.
 
2013-05-03 12:04:07 PM  

Rent Party: There was no fraud to prosecute.


Let's check in with William K Black, the banking regulator who was put in charge of handling prosecutions during our last big banking crisis, the Savings and Loan mess of the early 90's. He was responsible for landing over 1000 fraudulent bankers in prison over a banking crisis that was only a tiny drop in the bucket compared to our current mess.

There was fraud at every step in the home finance food chain: the appraisers were paid to overvalue real estate; mortgage brokers were paid to induce borrowers to accept loan terms they could not possibly afford; loan applications overstated the borrowers' incomes; speculators lied when they claimed that six different homes were their principal dwelling; mortgage securitizers made false reps and warranties about the quality of the packaged loans; credit ratings agencies were overpaid to overrate the securities sold on to investors; and investment banks stuffed collateralized debt obligations with toxic securities that were handpicked by hedge fund managers to ensure they would self destruct.

So, yes. There was plenty of fraud to go after.

What changed between then and now?

The difference between the government's response to the two crises, Black says, is a matter of will, and priorities. "You need heads on the pike," he says. "The first President Bush's orders were to get the most prominent, nastiest frauds, and put their heads on pikes as a demonstration that there's a new sheriff in town."

The first president Bush ordered fraudulent bankers prosecuted.

Obama put a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of deciding who would be prosecuted. The millionaire Wall Street defense attorney decided that nobody would be prosecuted.

Frontline on PBS has a good episode on the banking fraud that destroyed our economy and our government's refusal to prosecute it.
 
2013-05-03 12:12:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You realize that if the bank forecloses on a home and sells it, the borrower gets any proceeds over and above outstanding mortgage balance and realtor commissions, etc., right? The bank does just doesn't get a free house for which you've already paid - they only get what their owed.


Actually, I did not realize that. Thank you. I feel better. No sarcasm. I always thought banks could just steal your house and keep all of your equity.
 
2013-05-03 12:20:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Tommy Moo: Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.

It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.

Oh my god!   That's so farking funny.  A conspiracy theory involving the 1% and netflix streaming!  I have tears running down my eyes.

Do you think there's a monthly meeting of the 1% where they discuss how to keep the 99% down?  Do people who cross a certain income or wealth threshold get invited and initiated?  "Welcome to the 1%, by the way we're going to need ten bucks each from you to film the next season of House of Cards"

You guys get nuttier by the day, honestly.


I doubt they have organized membership, but it probably looks like a more vaporous, subtle, back-handed version of what you're suggesting. Wealthy donors swap ideas at country clubs on how to keep poor workers stupid and distracted so they can make more profit while continuing to pay low taxes. They end up funding groups (yes, with their own money) who do lobbying and advocacy for less public education and more public subsidies for football stadiums. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if several such groups put pressure/bribes on media outlets, such as Netflix, to keep their prices affordable. Netflix is a company. It wants to make as much money as possible. Why wouldn't they raise the price to $10 or even $15 a month? Is there anyone who honestly doesn't think it would be worth $15 a month to watch unlimited high-budget movies and Emmy winning TV shows? Something is holding the price down.
 
2013-05-03 12:23:36 PM  

Mija: Tommy Moo: One of my biggest fears is that I will pay of 90% of my mortgage balance, and then, with two years of payments left, I'll go on vacation and mail in a single payment two days late when I get home, and they will swoop in, foreclose, and sell my house for 100% of its value after collecting about 150% of its value in payments from me over the years. I know that sounds preposterous, even for banks, but I wonder if there is actually legislation protecting me from that. If they could do it, they sure as hell would.

You need to do what my husband and I did. Don't go on vacations or spend any money you don't have to till you pay off your mortgage. Actually we saved and bought a home with cash. We have never made more than 30,000 and often much less so if we can do it so can you. Right now the bank owns your home. You have the idea of security but no real security as evidenced by your question.

Make a budget where you account for every penny. No more going out to eat, buying new clothes, going out for fun or going on vacations. Sit at home watching free movies you downloaded while you eat spaghetti and work on the budget. There are so many things people waste money on! We even moved to a city with a bus system so we could live with the constant expense of a car.  Make your own laundry detergent, eat generic brands, buy clothes at thrift stores, turn down the heat or air conditioning, buy a push mower so you never have to buy gas again. I could go on and on but most people won't give up anything. Like children they want everything now. How much do you want to be free and secure? Make it happen.


I don't quite go that far, but I am trying to pay off my 30 year mortgage in 10. I put somewhere between an extra $300 and $1000 in each month, depending on what I have left over. You have to strike a balance, though. I didn't go to college so I could spend my prime years being a miser. The women I date expect me to be able to take them out once in a while, and I'm not going to wait until I'm too old to enjoy sex before I start living life proper.
 
2013-05-03 12:50:20 PM  

Tommy Moo: Debeo Summa Credo: Tommy Moo: Elandriel: Keep it up though banks, corporations, government.  The people keep getting angrier.  History has shown that no matter how cowed a populace is, eventually they snap.  So...keep it up.

Please.

It will never happen. The 1% is savvy enough to keep the 99% happy and stupid and fed. When we get angry, they give us a tiny concession like extended unemployment benefits in '08. They also probably subsidize Netflix (do you imagine the company could actually make a profit charging $8/month for access to half of the movies and TV shows ever filmed?) As long as people have food in their stomachs, a roof over their heads, and mindless entertainment to consume, they will never revolt. The 1% will always monitor the situation and keep society at that threshold.

Oh my god!   That's so farking funny.  A conspiracy theory involving the 1% and netflix streaming!  I have tears running down my eyes.

Do you think there's a monthly meeting of the 1% where they discuss how to keep the 99% down?  Do people who cross a certain income or wealth threshold get invited and initiated?  "Welcome to the 1%, by the way we're going to need ten bucks each from you to film the next season of House of Cards"

You guys get nuttier by the day, honestly.

I doubt they have organized membership, but it probably looks like a more vaporous, subtle, back-handed version of what you're suggesting. Wealthy donors swap ideas at country clubs on how to keep poor workers stupid and distracted so they can make more profit while continuing to pay low taxes. They end up funding groups (yes, with their own money) who do lobbying and advocacy for less public education and more public subsidies for football stadiums. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if several such groups put pressure/bribes on media outlets, such as Netflix, to keep their prices affordable. Netflix is a company. It wants to make as much money as possible. Why wouldn't they raise the price to $10 or even $15 a month? Is there anyone who honestly doesn't think it would be worth $15 a month to watch unlimited high-budget movies and Emmy winning TV shows? Something is holding the price down.


Netflix might be making it up on idiots like me who still have the 2 -disc plan even though we stream all the time and only send a disc back once every 4 months.

But more importantly, as someone who happens to agree that netflix is a good value for what we pay, let me say SHUT UP!
 
2013-05-03 07:03:23 PM  

BullBearMS: Rent Party: There was no fraud to prosecute.

Let's check in with William K Black, the banking regulator who was put in charge of handling prosecutions during our last big banking crisis, the Savings and Loan mess of the early 90's. He was responsible for landing over 1000 fraudulent bankers in prison over a banking crisis that was only a tiny drop in the bucket compared to our current mess.


So if there was fraud, why aren't these guys in jail?   The only thing the Savings and Loan scandal did was teach the bankers that they need to adjust the system so they can get away with it, and that is exactly what they did.   Hence, no fraud.  Just the system operating as designed.

We paid for it again, as designed, and no one even got a sternly worded letter over it, as designed.   The system worked perfectly.
 
2013-05-03 09:17:19 PM  

AlgertMan: Yeah I got a $300 check in the mail this week.  What was odd was that the original letter said I was getting close to $900.


My letter said I was getting $800. Got $3K. Still not nearly enough after the mess I went through trying to save the house from foreclosure (and failing).
 
2013-05-03 09:28:08 PM  

Rent Party: So if there was fraud, why aren't these guys in jail?


The guy who put them in prison last time says he wouldn't have any trouble putting them in prison again this time.

Then again, he thinks criminals should go to ail even if they are valuable campaign donors.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report