Hey Libs...why do tax cuts for our most productive suck?

[dave p]

Hers. She knows she can’t afford it. Blaming someone else for your stupidity is laughable.

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

 

[forkup]

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a lie people want to believe.

 

[dave p]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

Tax cuts when the annual deficit is in the billions and the national dept is in the Trillions is stupid. Targeted tax cuts to the middle classes and working poor make sense. Cutting taxes to billion dollar corporations, some of which hire thousands of workers who need food stamps to get by is asinine.

Tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes makes sense? Only in the snowflake la-la land.

Idiot-gram ^^^,

How so?
How exactly does Father Government “cut taxes” for those paying no taxes to begin with?

You ought to study and learn the facts on issues before you post. Your ignorance continues to amaze.

You are echoing the meme income tax cannot be cut for those who earn too little, and the Callous Conservative set complains that the working poor are scofflaws. The working poor do pay taxes:

"In 2017 for example, if you are under age 65 and single, you must file a tax return if you earn $10,400 or more, which is the sum of the 2017 standard deduction for a single taxpayer plus one exemption."

Of course the working poor work must pay for gas - federal and state taxes apply - or public transportation if they don't live close enough to walk. they may not be able to afford housing close to their work place, or they may work two or three jobs, adding to their transportation needs. The may not have enough income to buy health insurance or enough food, and thus must rely on local government to provide aid.

Yet people like you think they have it easy and are too lazy to improve their skills to get a good paying job with benefits. Hence I've coined the phrase Callous Conservative, which describes every person who votes for a Republican.

It is t the working class that conservatives have an issue with. It’s the welfare kings and queens that bother us. Try to be genuine in the conversation. I know it’s tough for you to do because it blows your whole premise.

 

[forkup]

Even when said banks reassures her that she won't have to pay a lot at first,reassuring her that, surely her income would improve, making paying it back possible when her payments go up? If living under Trump has made one thing clear is that people believe ANY lie they want to believe. What you are saying is that the liar isn't responsible for telling lies but people who are dumb enough to believe them are?

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

 

[debbiedowner]

so what about the tax increases? You happy with them?

 

[dave p]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

In fact what you are saying is, that it's not the con artists fault that people get duped but rather the fault of the victims of con artists that they get duped. And the 2008 bank crisis was a con. It was a legal pyramid scheme that wiped out billions of dollars and forced the government to spent tax's payers money to prevent a total collapse of the financial system. Rather then acknowledge that, I see people blaming the victims for it, while bank executives made, and continue to make millions in bonuses with little to no accountability when they screw everybody.

The bank crisis was not a con. My god you are obtuse.

 

[forkup]

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

 

[dave p]

The bank told her she would get a raise? Doubtful. Nice how you figure out how to weave Trump I to a conversation which has nothing to do with him. The responsibility rests with the person. If you can’t afford something, dont buy it, it’s pretty simple. If you are too dumb to understand what you can and can’t afford, you deserve to go bankrupt. There are consequences to ones actions. When your decision doesn’t work out it is your responsibility no one else’s.

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

 

[bripat9643]

I call BULLSHIT right now.
A licensed Loan Officer is in fact a Fiduciary. He/she is regulated by the Department Of Real Estate and is required to adhere to all legal mandates set forth by the DRE.
Further, you’re doing exactly what Lefties do...deflect blame and self accountability.
You wackos will never change.

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone else the correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

 

[forkup]

I see. So you didn't mind bailing out the banks?

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

So you don't see how demanding personal responsibility from a person but having no qualms when a bank gives subprime loans is in fact giving the bank a pass on their responsibility? How am I to take it in any other light? Or do you believe that a bank shouldn't be concerned if they will be capable of recuperating their money?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The thread has been hijacked...this isn’t about mortgage loans. Let’s get back on track.
I do want to state for the record...in the real world, outside of LibTardia, ones signature at the bottom of a legal document / agreement indicates final responsibility for absolute adherence to said agreement.
This is real simple shit folks.

 

[dave p]

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

So you don't see how demanding personal responsibility from a person but having no qualms when a bank gives subprime loans is in fact giving the bank a pass on their responsibility? How am I to take it in any other light? Or do you believe that a bank shouldn't be concerned if they will be capable of recuperating their money?

Please read my previous post. Look into what really happened and educate yourself on the subject. The person that asks for the loan, accepts the loan and then can’t pay said loan is responsible.. period.

 

[forkup]

What is better for a society. the government putting out rules that prevent mortgage loans being issued to people who can't pay for it? Or not doing so and having to pay out billions of tax payers money when the system goes bust?

The federal government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them, you fucking dumbas.

Lol sure. The government forced banks to issue subprime mortgages. Think this can be categorized as a loan people want to believe.

It's a fact, asshole.

Come back when you grow up enough to talk to me without calling me names. I don't feel the need to teach someone elsethe correct way to talk to a person. I already have a toddler at home, that's enough.

Let me get this straight: you insult anyone who voted for Trump, but you think you're entitled to be treated with respect?

Actually I don't insult everyone who voted for Trump. I defend my positions regardless of who they voted for. This makes me a rarity on this board.
"I don't need to feel anything. I'm pointing out to you the same thing as I pointed out to RDD. Talking about the other side like it is wrong without actually having a meaningful dialogue accomplishes nothing. You were describing RDD's behavior as the "left". I was pointing out that I too represent the left, but was actively challenging the behavior you were describing." From the OP
Why Trump supporters won't listen. An OP which I challenged because I believe in having the dialogue. Can't use quotes since it's closed but I encourage you to look it up. It's a lesson in how political affiliation doesn't have to turn into having blinders on.

 

[forkup]

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

So you don't see how demanding personal responsibility from a person but having no qualms when a bank gives subprime loans is in fact giving the bank a pass on their responsibility? How am I to take it in any other light? Or do you believe that a bank shouldn't be concerned if they will be capable of recuperating their money?

Please read my previous post. Look into what really happened and educate yourself on the subject. The person that asks for the loan, accepts the loan and then can’t pay said loan is responsible.. period.

Brokeloser is right we did kind of hijack his OP. I'm willing to continue but am unwilling to start a new thread since it's almost bedtime. if you want to start one I'll do a couple of posts probably before I turn in.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope.

Ok as long as we are clear. Only private persons have to take responsibility?

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

So you don't see how demanding personal responsibility from a person but having no qualms when a bank gives subprime loans is in fact giving the bank a pass on their responsibility? How am I to take it in any other light? Or do you believe that a bank shouldn't be concerned if they will be capable of recuperating their money?

Government regulators forced banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them. That was the whole point of the CRA. That absolves the banks of responsibility when the loans go South.

 

[dave p]

Nope. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Some of the banks and hedge fund intstitutions went under as they should. The bailout was to save the economy. Try running a civilization without them. People that lost houses because they over extended themselves should lose them when they can’t pay. You are trying to oversimplify the situation to try and support your narrative. Let’s not forget the role that government played starting with Clinton and kept in force by pelosis group that forced banks to lend the money because they wanted a utopia where everyone owns a house.

Of course I oversimplify. As are you when you simply answer NOPE to a question. You were categorical when I asked who was to blame in my example. At no point did you say, the bank shouldn't have issued the loan. So me claiming you don't feel the bank has to carry responsibility is a direct result of your reactions and not an oversimplification.

I gave a simple answer to your simplistic question. Had you put some thought into your stance I would have been more inclined to engage but since you wanted to spout off irrational talking points I realized you weren’t worth the effort. I see you like to deflect from your premise and ignore some of the issues. The idiot asking for a loan he can’t affford is the one that should lose out.

So you don't see how demanding personal responsibility from a person but having no qualms when a bank gives subprime loans is in fact giving the bank a pass on their responsibility? How am I to take it in any other light? Or do you believe that a bank shouldn't be concerned if they will be capable of recuperating their money?

Please read my previous post. Look into what really happened and educate yourself on the subject. The person that asks for the loan, accepts the loan and then can’t pay said loan is responsible.. period.

Brokeloser is right we did kind of hijack his OP. I'm willing to continue but am unwilling to start a new thread since it's almost bedtime. if you want to start one I'll do a couple of posts probably before I turn in.

No need. I’m sitting down to Italian at my favorite place

 

[justinacolmena]

This should be interesting. Liberals were fiercely defending states suing over SALT changes. They want that subsidy back to lower their effective tax rate.

Social Action Linking Together (SALT)

Again, it's for straight and subservient wimmuns & chilluns only. Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, other people who are viciously hated and driven out of jobs, house, and home, need not apply. Probably be charged & convicted on the spot of a SEX OFFENSE for even darkening their doormat.

Condition of those bennies: offer sex for money.

 

[Maxdeath]

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

During the recession my bankruptcy business was booming with people losing homes.

I have to say, in most cases they did it to themselves. Once someone starts using their homes as an atm, its iver. The borrowing against equity caused values to rise setting of a new round of borrowing. After the new furniture is purchased, the vacations taken, the silly investments failed, the properties were refinanced just to make the huge new mortgage payments. That's just about the time the value gets tapped out and the refinance money train stops. Naturally the loss of the home is going to be a disaster.

Or one could question the lack of regulation that allows banks to give out mortgage loans to people without enough income to sustain them? The way I see it, if a bank gives people a chance to own a house in the knowledge that they will get in financial trouble down the line in an effort to pay for that house it is the bank that is at fault. Not for nothing I'm European, my wife is American and in 2007 I personally saw her best friend being capable of borrowing over 200k when she was in a financial situation that would have caused her to be laughed out of my bank in Europe if she would have asked for that kind of money. So who's fault is it that she goes bankrupt? Hers or the fault of a system that allows borrowing like that?

If you are stupid enough to borrow more then you can comfortably pay back? Then you are the one at fault. Even a six year old can understand that you can not pay someone two dollars if you only have one.

The bank can foreclose and sell the house. If you are older then six then do you really feel that you need someone to hold your hand all the time?

The big difference is between a Broker and a Fiduciary. The Broker is a salesperson who wins when s/he makes a sale, even if the product purchased by the buyer is likely not to his or her benefit.

The bank is the broker, and they will make a loan without full disclosure to the buyer. A fiduciary would not omit telling the buyer that real estate is not a sure thing, and the balloon payment due in 5 years might not be able to be payed off if the home has gone underwater.

The bank then will bundle all the likely failures to payoff the balloon payment and sell them, they they profit twice, and screw both the buyer and those who bought the bundle.

Everyone who has purchased a home, and signed the loan papers signs a large number of documents with large amount of fine print, and is rushed to sign them even when they are not sure; and trust the loan officer who is a broker, not a fiduciary.

You seem to think that everyone should have someone to blame. I am sorry if you are unable to read a contract, if you are unable to fiqure out the math necessary to tell if a ballon payment may be too big for you to handle. Those who are adults read contracts, do math, even consider all the alternatives. If you need someone to hold your hand might I suggest you have a parent or adult guardian walk you through all the ins and outs. Have them explain fiscal responsibility to you in simple enough language that you fully understand it.

It is not others responsibility to make sure that you do not do something stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems there’s still lots of whining going on with regard to the tax cuts.
I’m curious, why do tax cuts suck?

First they are not necessary in a strong economy
Second, we raised the deficit to pay for them
Third, the money is pulled from our economy

 

[Lewdog]

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are the most productive. Lots of rich people got their money off the work of their parents or the parents of their parents or the parents of their parents parents.