Unsophisticated People

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:04 pm

Over the weekend I was listening to a radio show interviewing people caught up in the housing “crisis and who were losing their homes (a term used loosely). One woman had purchased a home with a mortgage payment equal to $26,000 a year. Here gross income was $24,000 a year.

She acknowledged the mess she was in was her fault and she wished she was still paying the $400 subsidized rent she had before buying a home. One can speculate under those conditions whether she actually ever purchased anything.

Today in the Wall Street Journal © David Wessel comments on the problem in “Lessons from the Housing Bubble He writes in part, “But regulators failed to protect unsophisticated consumers from mortgage loans that they simply couldn't afford or didn't understand¦ “Unsophisticated do you think? I would be a bit harsher in my judgment. If a person who takes a loan with a payment $2,000 more than her gross income is unsophisticated, then I am a nuclear physicist. The only person dumber than the borrower was the lender. :-5

I don’t care if there were shady mortgage people out there or not, shouldn’t we hold people to some minimal standard of common sense? Take a piece of paper, add up your expenses, look at the taxes you will pay and figure out what you have left for a mortgage¦simple math. I know I seem a bit intolerant; guilty!

But give me a break these unsophisticated people vote. These are the people who vote for other people who promise to help them, to protect them, to have the government do things for them and where does this all lead? I am trying to be reasonable here, but it is difficult to accept that we continue to lower our standards to the lowest common denominator.

Exactly where does individual responsibility end and society begin? :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:53 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;877460 wrote: Over the weekend I was listening to a radio show interviewing people caught up in the housing “crisis and who were losing their homes (a term used loosely). One woman had purchased a home with a mortgage payment equal to $26,000 a year. Here gross income was $24,000 a year.

She acknowledged the mess she was in was her fault and she wished she was still paying the $400 subsidized rent she had before buying a home. One can speculate under those conditions whether she actually ever purchased anything.

Today in the Wall Street Journal © David Wessel comments on the problem in “Lessons from the Housing Bubble He writes in part, “But regulators failed to protect unsophisticated consumers from mortgage loans that they simply couldn't afford or didn't understand¦ “Unsophisticated do you think? I would be a bit harsher in my judgment. If a person who takes a loan with a payment $2,000 more than her gross income is unsophisticated, then I am a nuclear physicist. The only person dumber than the borrower was the lender. :-5

I don’t care if there were shady mortgage people out there or not, shouldn’t we hold people to some minimal standard of common sense? Take a piece of paper, add up your expenses, look at the taxes you will pay and figure out what you have left for a mortgage¦simple math. I know I seem a bit intolerant; guilty!

But give me a break these unsophisticated people vote. These are the people who vote for other people who promise to help them, to protect them, to have the government do things for them and where does this all lead? I am trying to be reasonable here, but it is difficult to accept that we continue to lower our standards to the lowest common denominator.

Exactly where does individual responsibility end and society begin? :rolleyes:

How about the banks responsibility to the shareholders? Has anyone, anyone at all, lost their jobs for approving a loan like this. How about the twit that came up with the concept of these ninja loans in the first place and the even bigger twits that thought great idea when it was put to them. Did no one in the banks have any common sense? A half wit on a bad day could work out what the most likely consequence would be. If you replaced all the present crop of bankers and economic experts with cardboard cutouts would anyone notice a difference?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 6:06 pm

I agree with Quinn, as usual.

gmc, this is for you:

Pressure at Mortgage Firm Led To Mass Approval of Bad Loans

By David Cho

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, May 7, 2007; A01

Maggie Hardiman cringed as she heard the salesmen knocking the sides of desks with a baseball bat as they walked through her office. Bang! Bang!

" 'You cut my [expletive] deal!' " she recalls one man yelling at her. " 'You can't do that.' " Bang! The bat whacked the top of her desk. As an appraiser for a company called New Century Financial, Hardiman was supposed to weed out bad mortgage applications. Most of the mortgage applications Hardiman reviewed had problems, she said.

But "you didn't want to turn away a loan because all hell would break loose," she recounted in interviews. When she did, her bosses often overruled her and found another appraiser to sign off on it.

Hardiman's account is one of several from former employees of New Century that shed fresh light on an unfolding disaster in the mortgage industry, one that could cost as many as 2 million American families their homes and threatens to spill over into the broader economy.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:28 am

Accountable;877645 wrote: I agree with Quinn, as usual.

gmc, this is for you:

Pressure at Mortgage Firm Led To Mass Approval of Bad Loans

By David Cho

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, May 7, 2007; A01

Maggie Hardiman cringed as she heard the salesmen knocking the sides of desks with a baseball bat as they walked through her office. Bang! Bang!

" 'You cut my [expletive] deal!' " she recalls one man yelling at her. " 'You can't do that.' " Bang! The bat whacked the top of her desk. As an appraiser for a company called New Century Financial, Hardiman was supposed to weed out bad mortgage applications. Most of the mortgage applications Hardiman reviewed had problems, she said.

But "you didn't want to turn away a loan because all hell would break loose," she recounted in interviews. When she did, her bosses often overruled her and found another appraiser to sign off on it.

Hardiman's account is one of several from former employees of New Century that shed fresh light on an unfolding disaster in the mortgage industry, one that could cost as many as 2 million American families their homes and threatens to spill over into the broader economy.

And these are the sorts of people you feel should have more than one vote when they are successful? You don't see them as fraudsters?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:20 am

rjwould;877615 wrote: Was that the original loan or what it ballooned to after the initial interest rate expired? There is no way to verify this story I suppose.

In the conversation there was no mention of balloon, but does it really matter? If you earn $24,000 a year, you can't afford a thirty year fixed mortgage on a dog house. And you should know that, shady mortgage dealing or not. :-2

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:45 am

Unsophisticated or sophisticated it doesn't matter this has crossed all lines and is a disgrace to this country that so many hardworking American's have lost their dream of Home ownership.

I know several very sophisticated educated people who were taken in by this and are now living with Upside down Mortgages or have had to walk away. There is enough blame to go around here and the Mortgage Companies were deceptive period.

If you get told over and over again, that you can do this by shady Mortgage companies you will start to believe it. Doesn't matter how educated you are we can all be talked into something we shouldn't have done. :-5

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 31, 2008 11:20 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;878819 wrote: In the conversation there was no mention of balloon, but does it really matter? If you earn $24,000 a year, you can't afford a thirty year fixed mortgage on a dog house. And you should know that, shady mortgage dealing or not. :-2

So when someone agrees to a loan they can't afford they are stupid. What do you call it when someone approves a loan for more than a house is worth to someone with no job? One is unsophisticated what is the other?

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:50 pm

These observations are the flaming difference between the analytical mind. and the creative mind... or the mind of a dreamer. There are people who, to realize their dream, will go into a situation that they know is over their head, because they dare to dream. They believe that they can rise to the ocassion, make things better, become progressively more successful, and succeed, Dont worry though, whether it be unscrupulous lenders, or ignorance on the part of the borrower... when they lose their homes, the punishment is harsh enough to destroy their morale, and stop them from dreaming ever again. The lenders, by the way, know exactly what they are doing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:48 pm

weeder;879024 wrote: These observations are the flaming difference between the analytical mind. and the creative mind... or the mind of a dreamer. There are people who, to realize their dream, will go into a situation that they know is over their head, because they dare to dream. They believe that they can rise to the ocassion, make things better, become progressively more successful, and succeed, Dont worry though, whether it be unscrupulous lenders, or ignorance on the part of the borrower... when they lose their homes, the punishment is harsh enough to destroy their morale, and stop them from dreaming ever again. The lenders, by the way, know exactly what they are doing.
But shouldn't even the dreamers be held responsible for their own actions? They're not less competent. The predatory lenders are not responsible for the dreams, are they?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:11 pm

rjwould;878875 wrote: cute! What was the language, Quinn? Was it "resetting" by any chance.....I just love how you did that....

None of the women being interviewed (on an NPR radio show) mentioned anything about the type of mortgage they had.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:14 pm

gmc;878868 wrote: So when someone agrees to a loan they can't afford they are stupid. What do you call it when someone approves a loan for more than a house is worth to someone with no job? One is unsophisticated what is the other?

Technically speaking the one granting the mortgage was going to sell it so they didn't care, the people really stupid are the ones buying and investing in those mortgages without knowing what was backing them up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:57 am

rjwould;879287 wrote: name calling (greedy) is a conservative value.
:yh_rotfl then you're the most conservative Gardener here! :yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:00 pm

rjwould;879052 wrote: The predatory lenders are responsible for their own dreams, but at what cost? Are they not responsible for their actions towards their fellow citizens and to behave honestly?

Which is more irresponsible, to make poor financial decisions through being deceived by others or being the liar? I say it is more irresponsible and reprehensible to deceive others out of their money and purposely making their life more miserable and harder than it already is.
Reprehensible, to be sure. The irresponsibility lies with the person who didn't read the fine print.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:03 pm

rjwould;879091 wrote: Its fairly obvious that the conditions Quinn exploits here, quite deceptively IMO, is after the interest rate reset. Before the reset this lady was probably able to afford her mortgage payment just fine.

This is the type of misrepresentation of stories conservatives specialize in.What, other than your bigotry toward what you've decided to label as "conservative", makes you think Quinn was being deceptive?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:07 pm

rjwould;879100 wrote: So is it fair to say you have never fallen for a financial gimmick that cost you? I have. When I found that it was my own lack of attention for not reading the fine print, I wrote off the loss as tuition to the school of hard knocks.

rjwould wrote: Everyone wants to own a home of their own and when an opportunity presents itself people grab it...Its not a sin, its a mistake.True. Agreed. And people need to accept responsibility for their mistakes, whether it be overextending themselves for a mortgage or building their multi-million on the beach in hurricane country.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:48 pm

Accountable;879425 wrote: I have. When I found that it was my own lack of attention for not reading the fine print, I wrote off the loss as tuition to the school of hard knocks.

True. Agreed. And people need to accept responsibility for their mistakes, whether it be overextending themselves for a mortgage or building their multi-million on the beach in hurricane country.

Crime. When you are faced with losing everything, rob a bank: You are merely being reprehensible, the bank, by falling for your scam or internet fraud or threat of RPG attack or whatever is then being irresponsible. The bank really doesn't care about that since the only crime in business is being caught.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:47 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;877460 wrote: Over the weekend I was listening to a radio show interviewing people caught up in the housing “crisis and who were losing their homes (a term used loosely). One woman had purchased a home with a mortgage payment equal to $26,000 a year. Here gross income was $24,000 a year.

She acknowledged the mess she was in was her fault and she wished she was still paying the $400 subsidized rent she had before buying a home. One can speculate under those conditions whether she actually ever purchased anything.

Today in the Wall Street Journal © David Wessel comments on the problem in “Lessons from the Housing Bubble He writes in part, “But regulators failed to protect unsophisticated consumers from mortgage loans that they simply couldn't afford or didn't understand¦ “Unsophisticated do you think? I would be a bit harsher in my judgment. If a person who takes a loan with a payment $2,000 more than her gross income is unsophisticated, then I am a nuclear physicist. The only person dumber than the borrower was the lender. :-5

I don’t care if there were shady mortgage people out there or not, shouldn’t we hold people to some minimal standard of common sense? Take a piece of paper, add up your expenses, look at the taxes you will pay and figure out what you have left for a mortgage¦simple math. I know I seem a bit intolerant; guilty!

But give me a break these unsophisticated people vote. These are the people who vote for other people who promise to help them, to protect them, to have the government do things for them and where does this all lead? I am trying to be reasonable here, but it is difficult to accept that we continue to lower our standards to the lowest common denominator.

Exactly where does individual responsibility end and society begin? :rolleyes:

In the instance you quote responsibility rests fairly and squarely with the lender for not taking due care when making the loan knowing that, by repossessing the property, he can recover his money at the expense of screwing the borrower.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:59 pm

Bryn Mawr;879496 wrote: In the instance you quote responsibility rests fairly and squarely with the lender for not taking due care when making the loan knowing that, by repossessing the property, he can recover his money at the expense of screwing the borrower.

So a person who even seeks such a loan or any loan with her income level has no responsibility? Yikes, an interesting perspective I must admit.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:22 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;879502 wrote: So a person who even seeks such a loan or any loan with her income level has no responsibility? Yikes, an interesting perspective I must admit.

Certainly here it would be (and has been in the recent past) seen as mis-selling and warrant enforced compensation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:00 pm

Clodhopper;879451 wrote: Crime. When you are faced with losing everything, rob a bank: You are merely being reprehensible, the bank, by falling for your scam or internet fraud or threat of RPG attack or whatever is then being irresponsible. The bank really doesn't care about that since the only crime in business is being caught.
What are you talking about?? :-2 The lender broke no law, so there is no parallel with your post. If the lender had broken the law, of course he should be held responsible and be locked up. My posts throughout this thread were under the assumption that no law had been broken.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:05 pm

rjwould;879509 wrote: The story doesn't make a bit of sense unless she was approved for a loan in which she initially qualified for. And then there is that part of one of Quinns posts where he states that the word balloon was never used, He worded that one very carefully.

And yes, I am bigoted towards most conservatives because I'm bigoted towards bigots.

Incidentally, I was a conservative for quite some time. Most of Quinns stories are moral teachings directly from the right.
He worded it exactly as I would have, not having all the information at hand. I would have preferred a link and quotes rather than a flawed memory of half of a conversation, but it never occurred to me that Quinn was being deliberately misleading. My guess why you & I see it differently is that most people assume that other people are just like they are.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:07 pm

Accountable;879578 wrote: What are you talking about?? :-2 The lender broke no law, so there is no parallel with your post. If the lender had broken the law, of course he should be held responsible and be locked up. My posts throughout this thread were under the assumption that no law had been broken.

That depends on which legal system you are working under. The lender has broken English law by mis-selling the product.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:07 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;879502 wrote: So a person who even seeks such a loan or any loan with her income level has no responsibility? Yikes, an interesting perspective I must admit.

In the UK it is up to the lender to check the buyers income. If she falsifies her income it's fraud. They also do a credit search as well to check the credit rating. Unless it's done on a self certification basis in which case it would be coming through a broker. If he were to exaggerate the income beyond all reasonable bounds he is part of a fraud and would find himself in court.

If she wasn't aware the cost would rise at the end of a fixed rate period she's pretty thick or naive and got fooled by the lender.

In the states it seems to have been poor regulation and sheer stupidity obn the part of the lenders

We've go a similar situation here in that some fixed rates are ending and the hike in payment is 50% in some cases. The difference is-depending where you live most aren't in negative equity.

so I'll ask you again

Has anyone, anyone at all, lost their jobs for approving a loan like this.

If you were a bank shareholder wouldn't you want to know what they were playing at?

posted by bryn mawr

That depends on which legal system you are working under. The lender has broken English law by mis-selling the product

Scots law as well:D

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:36 am

Bryn Mawr;879620 wrote: That depends on which legal system you are working under. The lender has broken English law by mis-selling the product.
Again, If the lender broke the law the borrower would have her money back and this would not be a conversation ... unless the borrower called a radio talk show instead of the police, which is a whole new level of stupidity.

~~~~~~~~~

As I understand it - and I am completely unsophisticated at this thing, so I'm sure RJ will accuse me of misinformation - The lender plays fast and loose with approving loan approvals, and the agent (whose goal is the commission rather than customer needs) gives the legal minimum amount of information, discosures etc etc being careful to gloss over and poo poo the most important and ugliest parts such as the balloon (which I'm sure they've come up with a new fuzzy-sounding term for).

As soon as the loan is complete, the lender sells the paper to another mortgage company, or even to an individual investor, for the principle plus a nice profit. The new mortgager now owns the property. He can collect a few payments then foreclose at the first opportunity.

The seller gets paid by the first mortgage company; the first morgage company gets paid by the second; the second gets the house (which has hopefully appreciated) to sell.

The buyer gets screwed, no argument, but only because he signed for a loan that was too good to be true. I guarantee it was all there in writing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:58 pm

rjwould;879771 wrote: You probably haven't met many liberals like me, have you? I'm like you conservatives, but with self determination and critical thought. I fight like you do. I'm capable of that and much more.....

I haven't met many people like you. StupidCowboyTricks is about as close to the mark as I can think of.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:26 pm

I may have missed something when reading the thread. I'm not convinced that I did though.

As an American... I preface my comments that way because the argument doesn't work outside of a capitalist system...I'd be desperately keen to take a $26k/a mortgage with a $24k/a income at the beginning of a property market bubble, it would be one of the few ways in which I could set aside a significant pension by feeding loans into the mortgage and getting out before the market turned in, say six or seven years. I might easily make a net profit of a hundred thousand dollars that way and all I need is to build my credit limit by making the regular payments. If I end up with a credit card debt of $80k, repayments of £150k and I get to sell the place for $450k then the net figure's achievable.

What screwed up was the market turning, not the objective. It's a gamble lost but all it costs me is a bankruptcy and how else was I going to make a six-figure sum in that time frame, from a $24k/a income? Give up the day job and become an entrepreneur? My way's more likely to succeed. If that property bubble had covered me from start to finish it was as good as cash in my pocket, that $100k net profit.

All you need in order to take a shot at it is a degree of sophistication and, despite your educational qualifications, a low paid job. There's a lot of that around.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:37 pm

I like what Warren Buffet said ... something to the effect .. . there's a bit of poetic justice in this debacle, in that the people that mixed up this toxic brew were forced to drink it themselves. If only that could happen more often.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:46 pm

rjwould;880277 wrote: The problem is you would never get approved for a mortgage in the first place.I carefully chose the details to fit my exact circumstances when I bought my second house. It increased in value by a factor of ten - exactly, to the penny - before I sold it six months short of the price crash on that cycle. I leveraged the payments on debt initially though my income soon rose high enough to stop having to. As an indication of how and why I started that investment though, it's chapter and verse. The problem, from your perspective, is that I did get approved for a mortgage in the first place, chiefly on the basis of my charm and the mortgage manager's desperation to shift money out of his branch.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:07 am

rjwould;880320 wrote: I guess I missed the part about having the cash.

Which bit? I didn't start out with any, that's why I drew the comparison. It took me three years to raise the 15% deposit. All of it was loan-based, I started with the clothes I stood up in and a $2000 overdraft.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:25 am

These loans were created to get the truly unqualified people into the housing market by offering a loan program that targeted only certain folks. People with good credit scores were not offered these loans because they didn't need them. Its classic bait and switch.

Wait a sec I thought it was supposed to be a good (liberal) thing to get more and more people into their own home whether they could afford it or earned it or not? Yea, this greedy process did not work, but I hardly expect the idea was to get truly unqualified people in to the housing market...or was it?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:31 am

The point of real success (in economic terms) is earning the ability to have something, not having. So, the person driving around in a BMW at the expense of decent housing is not a success, the person with a mega mansion and no furniture is not a success, the person who travels extensively on credit cards is not a success.

The person who lives in a modest home, who pays his bills each month, who drives an 8 year old paid off car and who saves regularly (even a little) is far more successful than a person with the trappings of wealth and only credit to back it up.

You simply do without until you can afford it, but that does not appear to be the American way, at least in the last four decades or so, but I suspect we may be starting to learn that again...the hard way.:-5

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:17 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;881986 wrote: You simply do without until you can afford it, but that does not appear to be the American way, at least in the last four decades or so, but I suspect we may be starting to learn that again...the hard way.:-5You weren't listening, evidently - I was offering first hand evidence there. By getting onto a property bubble - or a stock exchange bubble, come to that - at the bottom and selling at the top, anyone can turn a temporary loan into permanent wealth. It makes no difference at all whether you fund the loan from more and more borrowing or from income so long as you can generate a credit rating sufficient big enough to cover the investment, and you generate a high credit rating by borrowing as much as you can and regularly servicing the loans. Once you sell out you can repay all of it. If you don't use credit that way there are few paths for most people to set aside a large sum. Setting aside a large sum from income's practically impossible, I'd suggest. Given that the bail-out, if the market turns too early, is a pain-free bankruptcy I can easily see why so many of your cash-strapped American middle classes opted for the property market gamble. They had nothing before, they have nothing after, what have they lost?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:34 pm

spot;882008 wrote: They had nothing before, they have nothing after, what have they lost?
Finally! Thanks, Spot. RJ & his ilk have such hard-ons to accuse somebody (called the eeeevil conservative, no matter the guy's real political bent) of exploiting the poor stupid poor folk that they don't even realize how condescending they've become. It's like it's not possible that some went in with eyes wide open. It had escaped me as well. Thanks for the fresh POV.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:29 pm

JAB;879095 wrote: Now who's generalizing?

Bullsh*t.

If she didn't understand what it could cost her after the reset then she was stupid to get into the mortgage in the first place. Like I said, she was seeing her new home through her greedy eyes. And if the lender didn't fully explain it then he's just as stupid.

I think what you are trying to say Jab..................

Is that there is NO accountability left anymore?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:35 pm

JAB;879409 wrote: No where did I say nor imply that most people are greedy. I said that those individuals who want and buy things beyond their means are greedy.

And quit trying to label me because it suits your purposes to see me as a group you despise rather then deal with me as an individual.

You know diddly squat about my upbringing. I understand the so called 'humiliation' (more labeling on your part and quite telling on you as well) only too well. As I've previously stated, I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood as an immigrant to this country so I lived the life of not being able to 'keep up with the Jones'. The general principle of buying only what you could afford was valid in the 60's and is certainly valid today.

Raw Raw....................Jab

You go boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:40 pm

rjwould;879509 wrote: I was a conservative for quite some time.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

FOOD ta PONDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:53 pm

What I know is that any reputable mortgage company - not loan company would have NEVER given the loan. A good mortgage loan is 6-7%. A bad loan is 24%.

I AM GOING TO MAKE A REALLY OFFENDING COMMENT HERE..............stupid people make stupid decisions because they don't KNOW.

Everyone wants their dream but not everyone can afford it. In America - you can't afford your dream unless you CLEAR $30,000.00 a year.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:28 pm

Accountable;882571 wrote: Finally! Thanks, Spot. RJ & his ilk have such hard-ons to accuse somebody (called the eeeevil conservative, no matter the guy's real political bent) of exploiting the poor stupid poor folk that they don't even realize how condescending they've become. It's like it's not possible that some went in with eyes wide open. It had escaped me as well. Thanks for the fresh POV.

Might I go slightly further and suggest that America's economic glory days - the fifties, the sixties, even the seventies and eighties - had a general perception of wealth among the US majority simply because of this inflationary band-wagon, that it was real wealth, real money, as far as each individual among that majority goes, which those loans generated, that that's predominantly the cash which went on the cruises and the foreign jaunts and the new Cadillac rather than income, though obviously income was part of it for most of the majority group that felt wealthy and most of it for part of the majority group that felt wealthy.

The financial health of the US is and has been for our lifetimes dependent on generate-wealth loans for that majority. Switching off the spigot is turning the US into a minority-wealth country and it's doing it fast and it's not only hurting, it's hardening the hearts of your politicians into the bargain. You're reverting rapidly to being a country like Brazil where the peasants are just a nuisance who serve your bagels instead of being the consumer base which drove your economy by buying things.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:44 pm

rjwould;883264 wrote: You have me completely wrong there, fella. I blame the conservatives (generally speaking), not for the actions of the corporate mindset, but for believing that this is the way to a better life for the masses. I know many conservatives and I have respect for real conservatives. The problem is too many conservatives sing the praises of the market, and the market hurts far too many people. The market needs to be fixed through regulation and rules, not by continuing to deregulate it.
Thank you for not offering some empty denial that you see low income-earners and the poor as inferior and stupid, completely incapable of making wise decisions on their own. I could have done without the empty denial you did offer, but at least it wasn't two.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:43 pm

rjwould;883275 wrote: I never said that.Yes, right, read only the words you type and never assume any implication. Got it. :rolleyes:

1 2

btw, I never said you did.