Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heh, I have a more mixed view. As much as I applaud them going after people who willingly just walked away from debts they could have paid back on the one hand...these banks were very greedy and knew what they were doing on the other.
So overall, I kind of think it's one evil vs. another.
The banks were forced by govt to lend to people who they knew couldnt pay . Every tom, dick, and mohammed had a right to own a home........................lol.
Heh, I have a more mixed view. As much as I applaud them going after people who willingly just walked away from debts they could have paid back on the one hand...these banks were very greedy and knew what they were doing on the other.
So overall, I kind of think it's one evil vs. another.
I didn't see one banker holding a gun to a borrowers head. Everyone lined up willingly. Both lenders and borrowers. and ignorance ( I didn't know excuse) isnt good enough. At any time borrowers could of said no and walked. But everyone wanted to live in a McMansion for the price of a hovel.
The banks were forced by govt to lend to people who they knew couldnt pay . Every tom, dick, and mohammed had a right to own a home........................lol.
True to a point, but I don't think that's the whole story by any means.
I didn't see one banker holding a gun to a borrowers head. Everyone lined up willingly. Both lenders and borrowers. and ignorance ( I didn't know excuse) isnt good enough. At any time borrowers could of said no and walked. But everyone wanted to live in a McMansion for the price of a hovel.
No, they couldn't "of" said no, but many could have said no. Or perhaps they could've said no, but I digress.
I don't disagree here. I'm just not into this whole either/or mindset.
Ultimately, I do believe more responsibility rests with the citizens. If we, the citizens, believe the responsibility for the financial crisis lies primarily "out there" with some other institution (government, the banks, etc.), then we will always be ruled by an increasingly dictatorial elite. That said, the banks certainly have some culpability here. Some legal, and even more, moral.
While the borrowers do have some culpability, by and large, they were sincere and law-abiding.
The lenders, on the other hand, should be brought up for RICO fraud. The loan originators immediately sold the loans to a Wall St investment bank for securitization; they then took those funds and loaned them out all over again - aggressively so, soliciting borrowers to "refinance" - and again sold the loans. They had zero money invested, and lost nothing. The investment bankers made a killing, selling these securities (MBS's) not once, but 2 and 3 times, to investors, who also went into this with clean hands. The loan "servicers", who were not the lenders, aggressively bid for the servicing rights in order to clean up on the fees. The appraisers also played a large part, fraudulently over-stating the value of these properties. MERS was also fraudulent, and denied filing fees for property transfers, to local municpal and county governments. Foreclosures were initiated not by the "lenders" (by then, the investors were technically the lenders, not the banks), but by the "trustees" for the certificate-holders - the Wall St investment banks. Most borrowers had absolutely NO IDEA who their lenders actually were.
In the end, the bankers made off with a big haul, and left the scraps to the borrowers and the investors. Homeowners and security-holders alike were fleeced. Now the vultures are back to pick the scraps off the carcasses. It's not always as simple as, "You should pay your bills..."
I didn't see one banker holding a gun to a borrowers head. Everyone lined up willingly. Both lenders and borrowers. and ignorance ( I didn't know excuse) isnt good enough. At any time borrowers could of said no and walked. But everyone wanted to live in a McMansion for the price of a hovel.
If it were me, I would sue the bank, drag them into court and make them defend their process in which they decided to make a loan to someone who likely did not possess the means to repay it. Or, have them defend financing a loan on a purchase for a property that clearly exceeded a reasonable price.
The very banks who are pursuing satisfaction of these loans never should have made most of them to begin with and need to be held at least equally accountable.
If it were me, I would sue the bank, drag them into court and make them defend their process in which they decided to make a loan to someone who likely did not possess the means to repay it. Or, have them defend financing a loan on a purchase for a property that clearly exceeded a reasonable price.
The very banks who are pursuing satisfaction of these loans never should have made most of them to begin with and need to be held at least equally accountable.
It doesn't appear as though you have a full grasp of the process legally. You can't just sue a bank to have them explain or defend their process. On top of that I hope you have funds to waste on your made up case. I'm also not sure how you can arbitrarily state "most" of these loans shouldn't have been made anyway. Fantasy land I tell you
When will people learn that they must pay what they owe. If you signed a contract with an agreement to pay then you owe that amount. I am against this whole shrugging your shoulders and walking off from your debts. Make the people pay...whenever and whatever they can.
If it were up to me, I'd exempt income up to 300% of federal poverty level from garnishment, but after that, they should be able to take 25% of any income above that amount, for up to 20 years after default or until it is paid off. This way you can't really argue that they were loaned money they couldn't afford to repay. If this still proves unmanageable, they can declare bankruptcy.
At the same time, I think employers should be banned from doing credit checks (or letting someone go for garnishment) unless the position is military or in a sector that requires using personally accessible funds to conduct business.
This way we'd avoid the catch-22/deadlock of no money ----> unpaid bills ----> bad credit ----> no job ----> no money.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,252 posts, read 80,499,367 times
Reputation: 57178
Whether the person could really afford the loan or not is not relevant, they signed the contract. The banks have to follow up and attempt to collect these debts, when they write-off debts the IRS and many states will question this when processing corporate taxes, because write-offs result in less money for the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.