Movers, deputies refuse to evict 103-year-old woman

[sonar1]

Nicely done.

 

[CHUNKYNECK]

There is no argument or justification to kicking a 103 year old out into the street. As stated since they have lived there over 50 odd years they would have paid for that place many times over. As for avoided taxes etc (not that i noted any mention in the story) the same applies. This "civilised" system that claims communities best interest seems an aweful lot like the old way of the strong survive and the weak die imo. The things people do for money! Thankfully some people have the sense to realise what the right and moral thing to do is even if it costs them a dollar! God forbid the banks take a hit on their profits or the shareholders get a smaller return on their money!

 

[Job-Job type Job]

I'm not your son, boy.


I'm not your boy, guy.



I'm not your guy, son.



...

 

[morrow]

There is no argument or justification to kicking a 103 year old out into the street. As stated since they have lived there over 50 odd years they would have paid for that place many times over. As for avoided taxes etc (not that i noted any mention in the story) the same applies. This "civilised" system that claims communities best interest seems an aweful lot like the old way of the strong survive and the weak die imo. The things people do for money! Thankfully some people have the sense to realise what the right and moral thing to do is even if it costs them a dollar! God forbid the banks take a hit on their profits or the shareholders get a smaller return on their money!

Where the hell did you pull this shit out of your ass?
Do you have any idea how many times they could have re-financed against their home's value? How much pocket cash they could have milked out of that home over that time? They could be WAY in the black on their "investment" and it finally caught up to her.
That scenario is just as probable as the one you pulled out of your ass, kiddo.

 

[morrow]

The fact that some of these companies are now being investigated and paying fines for their corrupt practices shows that they were far from practicing ethical business.
On the other hand, the buyers were, in most cases, lied to. So how are the buyers = evil banks exactly?

You're right, no one held guns to their heads. But in business there are laws protecting customers from outright lies (like the old bait & switch), which is what these companies did to attain these sales and re-fi's, and basically what an ARM is.

It has nothing to do with anyone (besides the lenders) making a 'quick buck'. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. Where are the 'quick bucks' that people were making? How did they do that exactly when they were shelling out money to buy a home?

Listen Lunchbox, you're vastly overly stating "predatory loans"---Since the beginning of the industry loan sharks and morgage people have lied to the customers. This is nothing new. An ARM was no secret, people heard what they wanted to hear. The sharks lied to them, they knew it and took the quick buck. The difference was they were able to offer all-time low ARM payments, which was the wrong doing of the banks + fannie/freddie (enabling the banks to do so) and the federal gov (enabling fannie/freddie to do so)
Ever hear the term "if it's too good to be true, it probably is" ?
People ignored that for the sake of a quick buck. When I was buying my condo I was offered an ARM mortgage MANY times. I wasn't a stupid ****ing sheep who said "Durrr OK!!"

There's lots of people including myself that did the responsible thing and got a fixed rate mortgage while all the low interest ARMs were being given out like candy. I personally know 3 people that did that shit within a year of buying my home, and now they're ****ed. They ragged on me for buying a condo when I could have had a house like them. Now they're getting bailed out of their bad decisions, while i'm stuck with my 5.5% 30 year fixed getting no help, other than my property has dropped in value.
Why can't I refinance for free to a 4% interest mortgage?
The programs out, including the good behavior ones, are EXTREMELY limited on who they apply to.
Since when did rewarding bad decisions become so popular?
Why not reward the responsible people that got ****ed-over by all the people buying bad mortgages? And the banks giving out low interest ARMs?

The banks got bailed out, and most of the irresponsible home buyers/refinancers are too. Bailed out by the responsible people, yet again.

Not surprising that you didn't mention that ONCE, Lunchbox.

The banks and loan/mortgage companies are getting investigated due to the massive financial collapse and on-going recession. Blame goes up, not down. People are being pacified by these investigations and creation of new economic laws. We've seen these type of "investigations" many, many times after large public outcry. Those "investigations" are doing great, happening AFTER banks being repeatedly bailed out, huh? Don't be so naive.

Get on that entitlement train! It's been going for the last several years. Where have you been?

 

[CHUNKYNECK]

Where the hell did you pull this shit out of your ass?
Do you have any idea how many times they could have re-financed against their home's value? How much pocket cash they could have milked out of that home over that time? They could be WAY in the black on their "investment" and it finally caught up to her.
That scenario is just as probable as the one you pulled out of your ass, kiddo.

Yeah and they could have robbed a bank or killed someone to buy it in the first place. Maybe they refinanced and blew it all on male prostitutes and coke? They look like they are living the high life thats for sure.
If the bank lends money to people that age knowing full well they can't repay the loan it's only because they see the dollars that can be made! It doesn't make them the victims imo! You better hope you can support yourself if you live to that age or in your world it could be you in the street.

 

[morrow]

Yeah and they could have robbed a bank or killed someone to buy it in the first place. Maybe they refinanced and blew it all on male prostitutes and coke? They look like they are living the high life thats for sure.
If the bank lends money to people that age knowing full well they can't repay the loan it's only because they see the dollars that can be made! It doesn't make them the victims imo! You better hope you can support youself if you live to that age or in your world it could be you in the street.

If we continue bailing out irresponsible people on the street, that world isn't too far away. We need to stop as it keeps driving us deeper and deeper into debt.

 

[Mike-t]

Why can't the lady rent an apartment? If she was in foreclosure she had at least 3 months to make other arrangements. Government assistance probably would have gotten her a nice place for a couple hundred bucks a month.

 

[WolfeMacleod]

Anyone given any thought to the possibility that the pension/retirement funds disap[eared along with millions of others who also lost theirs when company-whos=name-I-can't=recall went POOF?

Madoff?
Fannie Mae? whoever it was?

tired.. cant brain right now.

 

[lunchbox]

Listen Lunchbox, you're vastly overly stating "predatory loans"---Since the beginning of the industry loan sharks and morgage people have lied to the customers. This is nothing new. An ARM was no secret, people heard what they wanted to hear. The sharks lied to them, they knew it and took the quick buck. The difference was they were able to offer all-time low ARM payments, which was the wrong doing of the banks + fannie/freddie (enabling the banks to do so) and the federal gov (enabling fannie/freddie to do so)
Ever hear the term "if it's too good to be true, it probably is" ?
People ignored that for the sake of a quick buck. When I was buying my condo I was offered an ARM mortgage MANY times. I wasn't a stupid ****ing sheep who said "Durrr OK!!"

There's lots of people including myself that did the responsible thing and got a fixed rate mortgage while all the low interest ARMs were being given out like candy. I personally know 3 people that did that shit within a year of buying my home, and now they're ****ed. They ragged on me for buying a condo when I could have had a house like them. Now they're getting bailed out of their bad decisions, while i'm stuck with my 5.5% 30 year fixed getting no help, other than my property has dropped in value.
Why can't I refinance for free to a 4% interest mortgage?
The programs out, including the good behavior ones, are EXTREMELY limited on who they apply to.
Since when did rewarding bad decisions become so popular?
Why not reward the responsible people that got ****ed-over by all the people buying bad mortgages? And the banks giving out low interest ARMs?

The banks got bailed out, and most of the irresponsible home buyers/refinancers are too. Bailed out by the responsible people, yet again.

Not surprising that you didn't mention that ONCE, Lunchbox.

The banks and loan/mortgage companies are getting investigated due to the massive financial collapse and on-going recession. Blame goes up, not down. People are being pacified by these investigations and creation of new economic laws. We've seen these type of "investigations" many, many times after large public outcry. Those "investigations" are doing great, happening AFTER banks being repeatedly bailed out, huh? Don't be so naive.

Get on that entitlement train! It's been going for the last several years. Where have you been?

And you're vastly over-simplifying the entire situation.

Your view point doesn't take into account homes that were foreclosed on, not because of an ARM or people buying a home they can't afford, but because there are millions of people that lost their jobs over the last 5 years or so and could no longer afford any home, because they can't find any work. Their jobs have been shipped off to Asia in the name of higher profits. (There were at least 8 million jobs lost under Bush, and more have been added to that number under Obama.)

Or the millions of people whose homes have lost significant value and are now assessed for much less than what they paid for it. The banks refuse to re-negotiate, so they walk away.

My co-worker had both of these happen to him: he was laid off, and his house, which he had bought well before the bubble, lost over 50% of its value. He was able to pay his mortgage for a few months out of his savings, but that quickly dried up. The bank refused to re-fi, and then refused to short sale. So he walked away, and it was foreclosed upon. He had no other choice. This has happened to millions of families now. And the banks, which have really lost nothing except on paper, get to keep the homes and sell them again for yet more profit!!

Whatever, we'll just have to disagree. The banks played the world economy like it was a casino, and we have to pay for it. And they've gotten to retain ever single property that families have had to walk away from or be kicked out of. Now they get to sell them again for a huge profit after paying just pennies on the dollar for them from defunct companies like Countrywide.

The only one's that have made a 'quick buck', as you keep saying, are the banks. 99.9% of homeowners caught in the cycle of the last few years have lost money, not made money. That includes you, my friend.

 

[morrow]

And you're vastly over-simplifying the entire situation.

Your view point doesn't take into account homes that were foreclosed on, not because of an ARM or people buying a home they can't afford, but because there are millions of people that lost their jobs over the last 5 years or so and could no longer afford any home, because they can't find any work. Their jobs have been shipped off to Asia in the name of higher profits. (There were at least 8 million jobs lost under Bush, and more have been added to that number under Obama.)

Or the millions of people whose homes have lost significant value and are now assessed for much less than what they paid for it. The banks refuse to re-negotiate, so they walk away.

My co-worker had both of these happen to him: he was laid off, and his house, which he had bought well before the bubble, lost over 50% of its value. He was able to pay his mortgage for a few months out of his savings, but that quickly dried up. The bank refused to re-fi, and then refused to short sale. So he walked away, and it was foreclosed upon. He had no other choice. This has happened to millions of families now. And the banks, which have really lost nothing except on paper, get to keep the homes and sell them again for yet more profit!!

Whatever, we'll just have to disagree. The banks played the world economy like it was a casino, and we have to pay for it. And they've gotten to retain ever single property that families have had to walk away from or be kicked out of. Now they get to sell them again for a huge profit after paying just pennies on the dollar for them from defunct companies like Countrywide.

The only one's that have made a 'quick buck', as you keep saying, are the banks. 99.9% of homeowners caught in the cycle of the last few years have lost money, not made money. That includes you, my friend.

Now you're talking about something different, unfortunate people that lost their jobs (and eventually their home). I feel for those people, I have friends and aquantences that happened to...but the solution isn't to bail them out. No one, no business, should get bailed out by the gov. Free market is desperately needed these days, it's been dead for a long, long time.

Unfortunately our terrible gov bailed out the banks (repeatedly) and as you said, none of the banker masterminds behind this have had to walk away from their homes. You can thank the gov for that. The gov is responsible for allowing the banks (and more directly, fannie/freddie) to do this. We need the gov to enforce laws on the banks and stop the corruption.

I agree with everything you last said, but it has no relevance to the OP or previous discussion. A 103 year old woman clearly wasn't working a full-time job anytime recently that was paying for her mortgage, that was most likely a multi-tiered reversal or multi-refinanced, so your scenario doesn't fit at all. It's almost like you shifted the conversation instead of responding.

Again, yes, everyone lost money, including me. This is the time to rebuild. We need a free market rebuild with the gov enforcing laws on the banks. Bailing out people and banks is not the free market and will get us into this mess all over again if it continues.

 

[Joe Bonermaster]

We need a free market rebuild with the gov enforcing laws on the banks. Bailing out people and banks is not the free market and will get us into this mess all over again if it continues.

wasnt for lack of enforcement of the law

failure of regulation

 

[geochem1st]

wasnt for lack of enforcement of the law

failure of regulation

Failure of regulations being enforced basically equals lack of regulations or in many cases no regulations in the practical functioning of the market. There is your free market for you in action.

Predatory Laws that would have protected consumers were appealed by the Banking Lobby.

 

[Joe Bonermaster]

regulatory failure = portions of gramm-Leach-Bliley

 

[morrow]

regulatory failure = portions of gramm-Leach-Bliley

Law enforcement is part of regulation. The banks until recently have had far less law enforcement...as well as many other lobbying big businesses.
Take anti-trust laws for example, all but dead today.

 

[Joe Bonermaster]

if you pass a law to allow commecial banks cross into investment banking to securitize their mortgages, especially when entitlement forces mortgages outside the typical risk profile...banks will follow the law and securitize their mortgages

 

[lunchbox]

Failure of regulations being enforced basically equals lack of regulations or in many cases no regulations in the practical functioning of the market. There is your free market for you in action.

Predatory Laws that would have protected consumers were appealed by the Banking Lobby.

But Ron Paul says that if we remove these overbearing regulations that businesses will follow the letter of the law for fear that people will boycott them and put them out of business. Isn't that enough enforcement there? The magic of the free-marketplace?

 

[morrow]

But Ron Paul says that if we remove these overbearing regulations that businesses will follow the letter of the law for fear that people will boycott them and put them out of business. Isn't that enough enforcement there? The magic of the free-marketplace?

There's a difference between regulation and enforcement of current laws, Lunch. There are a lot of laws (some consider them regulations, maybe so) that aren't being enforced what-so-ever. More laws or regulations isn't going to help that. The government needs to start doing their jobs, rather than looking away and taking a bribe.

Do you think even more laws are going to help?! Of course not! We have to fix the source of our problems first, elected officials. Term limits is a great place to start.

 

[geochem1st]

Massachusetts sues top five lenders

Massachusetts sued the five biggest mortgage companies in the US on Thursday, accusing them of “corrupting” the state’s land records through pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in seizing borrowers’ homes.

Martha Coakley, Massachusetts attorney-general, alleged that the banks illegally foreclosed on borrowers’ mortgages because they were not the actual holders of those mortgages, among other accusations. This was due to their failure to properly review, assign and transfer critical paperwork, she said, adding that the banks “had no legal right to conduct the foreclosure”.

The failure by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial to perform the various legal steps needed to properly foreclose on a mortgage “has adversely impacted titles to hundreds, if not thousands, of properties”, Ms Coakley said.

more.....
Massachusetts sues top five lenders - FT.com

 

[lunchbox]

Massachusetts sues top five lenders

Massachusetts sued the five biggest mortgage companies in the US on Thursday, accusing them of “corrupting” the state’s land records through pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in seizing borrowers’ homes.

Martha Coakley, Massachusetts attorney-general, alleged that the banks illegally foreclosed on borrowers’ mortgages because they were not the actual holders of those mortgages, among other accusations. This was due to their failure to properly review, assign and transfer critical paperwork, she said, adding that the banks “had no legal right to conduct the foreclosure”.

The failure by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial to perform the various legal steps needed to properly foreclose on a mortgage “has adversely impacted titles to hundreds, if not thousands, of properties”, Ms Coakley said.

more.....
Massachusetts sues top five lenders - FT.com

Those buyers should have never bought a home they couldn't afford just to make a quick buck.