Deputies refuse to evict 103 year old woman

[MaineShark]

The Banksters created things so everyone is upside down. It's the norm..if you talk to people. With their manipulation of the dollar almost everyone took out equity loans and refinanced.

No one forced anyone to take out equity loans.

The folks who did so, chose to do so, of their own free will.  They thought they were getting "easy money" to spend (mostly on vacations and toys, from the statistics I've seen).  The have no one to blame but themselves.

There certainly are cases where folks were the victims of fraud (I know several, personally), but the majority of folks voluntarily gambled on an obvious bubble, and are reaping the consequences of that poor decision.

The fact that the press did not include any indication as to why she was in foreclosure, strongly indicates to me that there was no cause for sympathy, there.  No guarantee, but if she cashed out equity to pay for her grandchildrens' college, or a life-saving operation for a homeless orphan, it's likely that would have been mentioned.  If she cashed out equity to go on a casino cruise, it's less likely that the reporters would mention it, when it's clear what sort of story they want to write.

I'd want to see all the facts.

[Tom Sawyer]

The government's policies ie. taxes, interest rates etc., create a wind that blows affecting everyone. Compounded by most of the mainstream sources of financial information encouraging people to manage their money and debt in certain ways... To say that the average person is completely responsible for these kinds of decisions is certainly an oversimplification.

The government bailed out industry and the banks... my banker neighbors were buying expensive sports cars at the peak of the banking troubles.

The game is rigged to the point that even if you decide not to play; they have destroyed the value of the currency and weakened the economic engine to the point that virtually everyone is harmed.

If the government takes the credit for creating it all, they certainly should take the burden for the collapse... that includes the banks that are intimately connected with the government and the people that use that system.

[MaineShark]

Like I said, I'd like to know the details before making a judgment.

If she was taking out money to put towards college for a grandchild or something, where the government and the banks are fully involved and entrenched (eg, laws which make college educations necessary in certain circumstances), my feelings will be different (ie, I will feel that there is plenty of blame to go around, even if she deserves some), than if she just took money out to go gambling or something.

I'll reserve judgment until details emerge...

[Lloyd Danforth]

I think she stepped on my foot at a Roulette table at Foxwood's a couple of years ago.

[KBCraig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with-regret.html

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were "no documentation" mortgages.

"On the application, you don't put down a job; you don't show income; you don't show assets," he said. "But you still got a nod."

"If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan," he added.

Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

"You've got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she'd flip it," he said. "That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans."

Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

"The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we're going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas."

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

[Russell Kanning]

I have learned from the bankers and airlines. I am spending money like a senator and will apply for my bailout in a decade.

[KBCraig]

People should be responsible for their own decisions, and their debts, which would make deceptive and predatory business practices moot. But in cases where someone acting in good faith falls for a scam, they should have recourse to mitigate the loss. Under this system, the only side who can get help are those who perpetrate the fraud and deception.

This is one thing that drives me nuts about the Occupiers... many have their hearts in the right place, but their heads are on backwards. They will read a story like this and see the banks as villains, and the government as saviors, when the government created the rules and playing field that allows the fraudulent practice in the first place.

[MaineShark]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with-regret.html

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were "no documentation" mortgages.

"On the application, you don't put down a job; you don't show income; you don't show assets," he said. "But you still got a nod."

"If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan," he added.

Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

"You've got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she'd flip it," he said. "That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans."

Allowing someone to make a poor choice, is not the same as forcing them to make a poor choice, though...

They will read a story like this and see the banks as villains, and the government as saviors, when the government created the rules and playing field that allows the fraudulent practice in the first place.

And, in some cases, actually mandated the fraudulent practices, in order to meet standards the government set.

[littlehawk]

They were LURED into taking out new loans. I never said nor meant FORCED.

[MaineShark]

They were LURED into taking out new loans. I never said nor meant FORCED.

And, if they were not forced, then the bankers who did so, did nothing wrong.  They might not have done the right thing, but they didn't do the wrong thing (at least, as far as that goes).

[KBCraig]

They were LURED into taking out new loans. I never said nor meant FORCED.

And, if they were not forced, then the bankers who did so, did nothing wrong.  They might not have done the right thing, but they didn't do the wrong thing (at least, as far as that goes).

If I lie to you, and you believe me and suffer loss as a consequence, it doesn't mean that I "did nothing wrong". Whether or not you are justified in recovering damages from me, the lie was "wrong".

[MaineShark]

They were LURED into taking out new loans. I never said nor meant FORCED.

And, if they were not forced, then the bankers who did so, did nothing wrong.  They might not have done the right thing, but they didn't do the wrong thing (at least, as far as that goes).

If I lie to you, and you believe me and suffer loss as a consequence, it doesn't mean that I "did nothing wrong". Whether or not you are justified in recovering damages from me, the lie was "wrong".

That would be fraud, and fraud is a form of force.

But if all they did was encourage folks to buy their product, then there was no lie.  There may not have been total honesty, but no salesman is going to be proactively honest about pointing out all the flaws in his product, and anyone talking to a salesman knows that.

There were certainly many cases of fraud, at varying levels within the whole mess, from the salesman, and on up.  But there were many more cases of homeowners listening to ordinary, non-fraudulent sales pitches, and making poor decisions as a result.

I'd be interested in knowing which this case is.

[littlehawk]

Josey,

Lieing with the sole purpose of deceiving others is wrong. Period. The average commoner is trusting. People who lie know this and take advantage of them. It appears your moral values differ from mine.

In this case (lieing to others to gain a profit) it is nothing more than pure theft.

[KBCraig]

If I lie to you, and you believe me and suffer loss as a consequence, it doesn't mean that I "did nothing wrong". Whether or not you are justified in recovering damages from me, the lie was "wrong".

That would be fraud, and fraud is a form of force.

But if all they did was encourage folks to buy their product, then there was no lie.  There may not have been total honesty, but no salesman is going to be proactively honest about pointing out all the flaws in his product, and anyone talking to a salesman knows that.

There were certainly many cases of fraud, at varying levels within the whole mess, from the salesman, and on up.  But there were many more cases of homeowners listening to ordinary, non-fraudulent sales pitches, and making poor decisions as a result.

I'd be interested in knowing which this case is.

You're totally right, but we're sitting around the living room discussing a perfect world over a few beers. In the real world, I would take issue with the idea that technically honest, yet intentionally misleading, sales pitches are "non-fraudulent". In the current sales environment, your Everyman assumes the banker is telling the truth, because the government wouldn't possibly let them lie, would it? If they weren't on the up-and-up, the government would shut them down, right?

You and I know the real answer, but Everyman still trusts the government.

So long as that mindset rules the day, I'm inclined to cut some slack to people who are taken advantage of by being overly trusting in con artists who are officially licensed by the government to perpetrate their frauds.

[littlehawk]

yeah. what he said  ^