The Paul File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Just why should your hypothetical bank receive $21 dollars of reimbursement from the taxpayer?
Suppose the bank wrote down $100 million of loan principal and received $95 million from the taxpayer. Why should that bank receive $95 million?
Which part of this do you not agree with:
BofA will be able to use future modifications made under Hamp towards the $7.6bn in borrower assistance it is committed to provide under the settlement. Under Hamp, the bank will receive payments for averting borrower default and reimbursement from taxpayers for principal written down.
Also, why on earth is that good? Borrowers SHOULD default when they've taken bad loans and Banks should loose when they've made idiotic loans. This is just more of the Central Government trying to mess with the market for the benefit of the Banks in whose pocket they sit.
Oh, I noticed that fat pig Corzine is still stinking up the planet. Yes, some justice department. Not even a slap on the wrist. He should be some biker's prison bitch. Lucky for him he has Obama in his pocket.
Last edited:
That was part of the Obama Bailout targeted to HOMEOWNERS.
The bank SHOULD be getting the $21 from the Homeowner, but under part of the bailout, the Govt is paying down some people's mortgages, so that $21 that reduces the Principle on the homeowner's loan is coming instead from the Govt, most of which comes from the wealthiest 25% of the nation.
BUT that $21 does NOT reduce the bank settlement amount just agreed to.
That comes from the $79 that the bank writes down on it's own, again, reducing the amount the person owes, but also reducing money that the bank will get paid back on the loan.
Why you think reduction by the bank of the principal owed to them is a bailout for the BANKS is beyond me.
It isn't.
It's a bailout for the HOMEBUYERS.
Well it SHOULD get $100 million in Principal and and ADDITONAL amount in INTEREST.
If it writes down $100 million and only get's $95 million the DIFFERENCE is being made up from the Bank's assets.
Of course I agree with this.
That's what the agreement says.
The Govt is using the Bank's assets to fund HAMP.
The Bank is NOT getting a good deal here.
Different issue, but there ARE millions of people who were caught in this who were fairly innocent, they were just buying a house and got caught in the downturn.
Tossing them out on the street is not really a good solution.
Slightly modifing their loan so they can retain their home, which they will be paying off for decades, is actually better for all concerned in most cases.
Actually nothing yet has come out to indicate that Corzine did anything wrong but make some bad investment decisions.
Not something we put bankers in jail for.
OK, this my opinion.
Firstly, stealing from one tax payer to "help" another who made a bad investment decision is immoral. There's a lot of people out there who were saving and they lost out for doing the right thing.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with helping the "homeowner". It's all about propping up bad loans the banks made by trying to keep people trapped in their overpriced homes making payments well into the future. It's called debt slavery and it's sick.
Thirdly, Corzine stealing money from personal bank accounts. Yeah, you're right Arthur, stealing is perfectly moral in today's society. Just look at this big bailout to the banks you're trying to pass off as helping the "homeowner". He won't do time. He's got Obama in his pocket.
Firstly, stealing from one tax payer to "help" another who made a bad investment decision is immoral. There's a lot of people out there who were saving and they lost out for doing the right thing.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with helping the "homeowner". It's all about propping up bad loans the banks made by trying to keep people trapped in their overpriced homes making payments well into the future. It's called debt slavery and it's sick.
Thirdly, Corzine stealing money from personal bank accounts. Yeah, you're right Arthur, stealing is perfectly moral in today's society. Just look at this big bailout to the banks you're trying to pass off as helping the "homeowner". He won't do time. He's got Obama in his pocket.
Last edited:
Buying a house for your family isn't typically considered an INVESTMENT decision Michael.
People don't live in their investments.
People DO live in their houses and they are necessities, and a lot of people got behind in their mortgages through no particular fault of their own.
Secondly, the idea that Progressive Taxes are a form of Stealing is simply absurd.
The Govt provides the basic infrastructure and security that allows businesses to thrive and thus the means for people to make money.
The more you make the more benefit you have received from the infrastructure the govt has provided, and so it is fair that you should pay a progressively larger amount of your income as taxes to support the infrastructure.
Stable home ownership is PART of that infrastructure.
Absolutely it is about helping the homeowner.
Billions have been allocated to helping homeowners stay in their houses, but the choice to do so remains with the homeowner.
Most of us buying homes buy them with 30 year mortgages and we have been doing so for a long time and don't think of it as you do.
You of course are welcome to your opinion and can choose to Rent if you don't like a mortgage, or save money until you can buy a house without a loan. No one forces you to buy a house or take out a loan.
It would be stealing if the money went from the personal bank accounts into Corzine's pockets.
There is no evidence it did.
The fact of the matter (so far) is it appears to have been mainly an accounting problem based on the over-worked nature of the people handling the mass of transactions just prior to filing bankruptcy.
But we haven't yet heard from everyone involved.
But the FACT is, this very well could have happened without Corzine's knowledge of where the Funds were.
Well the big Banks have all paid back the funds lent them.
Indeed, the Treasury made a few bucks on the deal.
This HAMP fund is not a bailout to the banks but is specifically used to make up the Homeowner's behind payments and/or to help them refinance to help the homeowners.
Well again, what's your problem with waiting to find out if there is any evidence that he SHOULD do time?
You know, some actual evidence that he did anything illegal.
Bad investment decisions aren't illegal.
But you go on and on about him stealing with total disregard for the need to produce any facts to support your case.
Are you kidding me? Seriously, do you really believe your own logic?
The home is PART of infrastructure - then why are you stealing that opportunity from people Arthur?
By your logic, everyone should get a home by the State (like a mailbox). You know, that's real stable. Perfectly stable for society. A free home for everyone. How about a Turkey in every pot?
Oh, Oh, but you don't like following your own logic to it's conclusion. You ONLY want those people who were conned by a bank to get "relief". TO be fair the State would have to give every single American a home, NOT just those that took out loans they could not afford. Also, you should only have ONE home - so that everyone can have one. You know, to create business friendly "infrastructure". Welcome to Communism.
I know you do not agree to the logical outcome of your own statement.
See, the truth is this is NOT about infrastructure and is definitely NOT about helping homeowners. It's about propping up home prices (which will put even MORE potential homeowners out of a home) so that banks don't loose on their bad loans. That's all this is.
This skewing the free-market by the hand of the government will only make the total society less prosperous as money is transfers from the poor, to the banking elite.
Last edited:
That must be why I see him in almost every GOP debate.
Here, let me give you a simple example.
John and Marry.
John saves $10K and goes to the bank and gets a loan for a $1 million dollar home which he can not afford. Marry lives in her car. She does the right thing and holds her $10K and continues to save so that one day she can buy a $300K home. She know's Johns home is only worth $300K and he's a sucker. She knows she needs $30K to get a loan whereby she can make her mortgage payments. She works along side John at 7-11 and so she knows he can't afford his home and one day he'll have to sell it for around $300K. Which is what it's worth (or less).
That day comes. Only instead of Marry getting a home, she get's a kick in the teeth and told to go back to her car.
The bank, knowing it's going to loose money on the bad loan, makes a deal with the politicians it's bought off (like Obama). This is the deal: Marry's income tax will be used to "help" John stay in his home. This will allow him to stay in his home and not sell at a loss - or worse, walk away and the crokked Banks loose and loose big-time. Marry is in effect priced out of the market. She will have to live in her car and continue to save until she reaches $100K for a deposit. Which will be years and years from now. Maybe never. Which means she never owns a home. That's fine by the government. It was never out to help "Homeowners" anyway. It was just another free pass to lying bankers who get bonu$es instead of prison time. Mean while, the Fed continues to paper over the whole mess inflating away Marry's savings and helping dishonest John and the dishonest banker.
Oh, and those missions to Mars, those will have to go as well.
So? What happened?
John learned that lying on a form is fine.
The Banker learned that lying on a form is a great way to make money.
Marry learned being honest is a sucker's deal.
America looses it's science and technological edge as it sinks into an ocean of debt.
This is NOT about helping homeowners.
This is NOT about infrastructure.
This IS about BAILING OUT the Banks.
I really don't think you believe your own bullshit. Maybe, but I don't think so.
You know as well as I it boils down to theft and property rights. The government has NO right to steal from Marry to help John. It only does so because it's in the pocket of the Bankers. Which is why you will not see Corzine do serious time in prison. He owns puppets like Obama and Bush. Which is why America will continue to degrade and Americans will continue to be suckered by silly names like "Patriot Act" or "Homeowner's Relief Bill" or other such nonsense.
You're in the majority Arthur. Not me. Society is a reflection of you. Your ideology. I hope you like what you see because you're leaving it to your kids :shrug:
John and Marry.
John saves $10K and goes to the bank and gets a loan for a $1 million dollar home which he can not afford. Marry lives in her car. She does the right thing and holds her $10K and continues to save so that one day she can buy a $300K home. She know's Johns home is only worth $300K and he's a sucker. She knows she needs $30K to get a loan whereby she can make her mortgage payments. She works along side John at 7-11 and so she knows he can't afford his home and one day he'll have to sell it for around $300K. Which is what it's worth (or less).
That day comes. Only instead of Marry getting a home, she get's a kick in the teeth and told to go back to her car.
The bank, knowing it's going to loose money on the bad loan, makes a deal with the politicians it's bought off (like Obama). This is the deal: Marry's income tax will be used to "help" John stay in his home. This will allow him to stay in his home and not sell at a loss - or worse, walk away and the crokked Banks loose and loose big-time. Marry is in effect priced out of the market. She will have to live in her car and continue to save until she reaches $100K for a deposit. Which will be years and years from now. Maybe never. Which means she never owns a home. That's fine by the government. It was never out to help "Homeowners" anyway. It was just another free pass to lying bankers who get bonu$es instead of prison time. Mean while, the Fed continues to paper over the whole mess inflating away Marry's savings and helping dishonest John and the dishonest banker.
Oh, and those missions to Mars, those will have to go as well.
So? What happened?
John learned that lying on a form is fine.
The Banker learned that lying on a form is a great way to make money.
Marry learned being honest is a sucker's deal.
America looses it's science and technological edge as it sinks into an ocean of debt.
This is NOT about helping homeowners.
This is NOT about infrastructure.
This IS about BAILING OUT the Banks.
I really don't think you believe your own bullshit. Maybe, but I don't think so.
You know as well as I it boils down to theft and property rights. The government has NO right to steal from Marry to help John. It only does so because it's in the pocket of the Bankers. Which is why you will not see Corzine do serious time in prison. He owns puppets like Obama and Bush. Which is why America will continue to degrade and Americans will continue to be suckered by silly names like "Patriot Act" or "Homeowner's Relief Bill" or other such nonsense.
You're in the majority Arthur. Not me. Society is a reflection of you. Your ideology. I hope you like what you see because you're leaving it to your kids :shrug:
Last edited:
Yes.
I'm not.
Never said that.
Creating a society where the vast majority of the households have the ability to afford decent housing, and the roads, schools and municipal facilities needed to support those houses, is clearly part of the infrastructure that the government provides.
To think that they don't is in fact pretty silly Michael.
Not at all.
The Mortgage relief is not buying anyone a home, it's helping them hold onto their home if they are having a rough patch.
No it's not.
For the most part, if a home is foreclosed, it is the homeowner who looses, not the bank, and the percent of homes involved is not sufficient to "prop up home prices".
What BS.
Banks play an important part of our life and our economy.
BS BS BS.
If he couldn't afford his $1 million dollar home before he got the loan, he couldn't afford it after since the monthly payment, with $10k down, would by about $8,000 (Mortgage, Insurance, Taxes).
So when you say John saves 10k, that's got to be less than 1 month of his salary.
Secondly, HAMP is quite limited and is intended to help those who are a BIT over their heads.
All it will do is help you to lower your mortgage payments to 31% of your Gross monthly income.
Your obvious lack of understanding of the issues involving the housing bubble are becoming more and more obvious.
Last edited:
I agree banks do play an important part in our economy. Unfortunately most quit doing what was good for society when they decided gambling on grandma's retirement paid better.
If Obama was serious about reform, he'd have broken the Too Big Too Fail top 5 banks down to smaller banks.
The point of the post is this: Is ANY of Mary's tax money in ANY WAY going to support John who made a bad loan? Answer is: YES. That's immoral. It's not fair to take from Mary (leaving her and her kids to live in a car) so John can keep his house. And worse still, Mary's kids are going to get even less as money is sucked out of the economy and over the greedy bankers who conned John into a house he could ill afford. Lastly, this is yet another bailout for the banks. It's only there to keep people in their homes making payment instead of letting home prices fall to the level where Mary could afford one.
You state this is all about Banks renegotiating terms on their loans? They why do they need our tax money? They can do that just fine, any time they want to. Why do they need OUR money? Oh, yeah, they need it to prop up the bad loans they made because they're f_ing bankrupt. This is just another bailout for the Big Banks.
THIS is the exact reason why we need limited government. It pretends to be helping out when in reality it's screwing over the poorest of the poor who end up with their savings destroyed through inflation and no house to live in.
If Obama was serious about reform, he'd have broken the Too Big Too Fail top 5 banks down to smaller banks.
You're quibbling over numbers? :bugeye:
The point of the post is this: Is ANY of Mary's tax money in ANY WAY going to support John who made a bad loan? Answer is: YES. That's immoral. It's not fair to take from Mary (leaving her and her kids to live in a car) so John can keep his house. And worse still, Mary's kids are going to get even less as money is sucked out of the economy and over the greedy bankers who conned John into a house he could ill afford. Lastly, this is yet another bailout for the banks. It's only there to keep people in their homes making payment instead of letting home prices fall to the level where Mary could afford one.
You state this is all about Banks renegotiating terms on their loans? They why do they need our tax money? They can do that just fine, any time they want to. Why do they need OUR money? Oh, yeah, they need it to prop up the bad loans they made because they're f_ing bankrupt. This is just another bailout for the Big Banks.
THIS is the exact reason why we need limited government. It pretends to be helping out when in reality it's screwing over the poorest of the poor who end up with their savings destroyed through inflation and no house to live in.
You can cut the cake anyway you want; government should not be involved in the free market bailing out ANYONE with taxpayer dollars, especially the wealthiest. That is a dangerous path to a plutocracy. Things are supposed to move in cycles, you cannot support something that is dying forever.
Possibly true, but then that's quite different than a short term loan to get your important institutions over a brief bad spell.
Indeed, ALL of the large banks have paid back the loans made to them, with interest.
Nope.
For a workable global economy we need big banks.
And ours are certainly not the biggest.
No, I'm saying your example was pathetic and totally unrealistic.
So come up with an actual real life example and we'll see, because what you came up with was BS.
Again you claim that the housing bubble was caused just by the banks, and that's patently absurd. For the most part the home buyers knew what they were getting into and were doing so willingly.
More BS, this has nothing to do with bailing out the banks or propping up the price of houses. The actual numbers of homes that qualify for HARM are WAY to low to have that kind of impact.
No, the tax money, if it is used at all, is going to the HOMEOWNER's Benefit.
The Bank owns the asset, the house, so it won't come out that bad regardless of the foreclosure or not, but the homeowner stands to lose big time. What you are trying to claim is we shouldn't help the homeowner because there is also a small benefit to the bank.
Which again is just silly.
Oh BS.
The poorest of the poor are on the receiving end of the government taxes, they don't pay them.
The number of homeless as a percent of the population remains very low.
http://www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
We need Too Big Too Fail Banks like we need a hole in the head. Thousands of Bankers went to jail following the S&L crises. The GFC was 70 times larger and what do we see? NOTHING. No justice. Just bitches like Bush and Obama trying to run the clock on the Statute of Limitation. Which they pretty much did. A great example of the Cattle-like mentality that's enveloped what used to be Americans. The banks continue to rape the public with impunity using their political lap dogs as their proxy and fat arsed Americans can barely other a moo moo.
Case in point: Using tax payer money to steal from one Citizen (some of whom live on in rough places, cars, shelters, even on the street, while they try to make do with their job) to give to another Citizen. Americans are so morally bankrupt this now passes itself off as
That's wrong. It's simply immoral to steal. What? You mother never taught you stealing is wrong??? I don't care if YOU think it's "better for society". It's stealing and that's wrong.
See, this is how the government solves a problem - it stealing from one group of people to "help" another, when in reality it's just doing a reach around happy-ending with their Banking Buddies.
We're talking about a $40 BILLION dollar fund. BILLION, not million. Another give away to the banks.
Stealing from Mary to help John is immoral.
- It's not Mary's fault John overpaid on his house.
- It's not Mary's fault John can't afford his mortgage.
- It's not Mary's fault John bought 3 cars and took two vacations to European when he should have been saving for a rainy day.
Yeh, Mary lives gets to live in a car while John lives in a house she's been forced to subsidize. In a very real sense Mary is being made to pay for her own enslavement.
The Federal Government is stealing her money through taxation and then stealing it through inflating away her savings by "monetizing" the banks debt.
One would have thought your parents would have made this clear. Stealing is immoral. One wonders why great nations fail. Well, this is the reason why. Instead of spending money on Missions to Mars or developing better School Curriculum, we'll bail out the crooked, unscrupulous, incompetent bankers and their bitch politicians.
Case in point: Using tax payer money to steal from one Citizen (some of whom live on in rough places, cars, shelters, even on the street, while they try to make do with their job) to give to another Citizen. Americans are so morally bankrupt this now passes itself off as
That's wrong. It's simply immoral to steal. What? You mother never taught you stealing is wrong??? I don't care if YOU think it's "better for society". It's stealing and that's wrong.
See, this is how the government solves a problem - it stealing from one group of people to "help" another, when in reality it's just doing a reach around happy-ending with their Banking Buddies.
We're talking about a $40 BILLION dollar fund. BILLION, not million. Another give away to the banks.
If the bank forecloses on houses that are no longer worth what was invested, then yes, they do lose. If it's many houses, then that's big time. Which is what usually happens in a pump-and-dump scam. Only this time the tax payer got screwed and continues to get screwed.
Stealing from Mary to help John is immoral.
- It's not Mary's fault John overpaid on his house.
- It's not Mary's fault John can't afford his mortgage.
- It's not Mary's fault John bought 3 cars and took two vacations to European when he should have been saving for a rainy day.
Yeh, Mary lives gets to live in a car while John lives in a house she's been forced to subsidize. In a very real sense Mary is being made to pay for her own enslavement.
The Federal Government is stealing her money through taxation and then stealing it through inflating away her savings by "monetizing" the banks debt.
You obviously think society is structured perfectly so there's no point trying to explain to you it's immoral to steal from one person and give to another.
One would have thought your parents would have made this clear. Stealing is immoral. One wonders why great nations fail. Well, this is the reason why. Instead of spending money on Missions to Mars or developing better School Curriculum, we'll bail out the crooked, unscrupulous, incompetent bankers and their bitch politicians.
Last edited:
No, taking private property in the form of income tax is stealing - which it is.
Worse, the Cattle are FORCED into using USD which are printed by the Fed wiping out another 3-5% per annum. This is also stealing.
Progressive tax seems to make sense, until you stop and realize the top 0.1% are vacuuming up more and more of the "profit" while training the masses to be good little Cattle. When the Cattle buck, "Terrorists" or "Communists" or probably soon "Aliens" are pulled out of the hat and get the herd back in line. Joe himself was on here harping about how we'd be living in the Stone Age if we didn't bail out the banks. Meanwhile living standards continue to drop, so called day 'care'/day-supervision is the 'norm' for 50 something parents working day and night to pay their mortgage and CC .... and when the rich and powerful do get in too deep.... OH, they're TOO BIG TOO FAIL ....and here's where the stealing is blatant and obvious.
F_CK Corzine just walked right in and stole money directly from people's private accounts and not a slap on the wrist. Nothing. Just a moo mooo moo from the general electorate who are, by now, so dependent on the State and too stupid to see they've been herded into a pen. The kids they let other people raise while they hurry off to be milked are going to have it even worse.
Why is it so wrong to want to change this Arthur?
Name ONE successful country that doesn't use a Progressive income tax.
And it is also explicitly allowed by our Constitution.
Worse, the Cattle are FORCED into using USD which are printed by the Fed wiping out another 3-5% per annum. This is also stealing.
So the answer is to . . . tax the masses more? An odd conclusion.