Originally posted by Hugh GlassI can do that for anyone. In fact, you can do it yourself.
I was wondering myself. today i saw a supposed plan that would help you get your credit card payments reduced by 40 % if you owed more than 10K.
Please tell me that is not so??
IF you're 3 or 4 payments behind and you owe $10k, if you call up the company and say "I don't have a penny to my name and you'll never see a dime of that money. However, I have a friend who's willing to give me $6k to pay off this debt. Will you take $6k as full settlement of the debt?" Most cc companies will accept. I've seen cc companies accept as little as 35% of the value of the debt for a lump sum payment.
Originally posted by sh76And since most people are stupid, the vast majority falls into category b).
They were either:
a) expecting to default on their mortgages (as you imply, unlikely)
b) didn't do enough analysis to determine whether they could afford what they bought; or
c) (most likely) figure that their newly purchased houses would appreciate rapidly (after all, that's what houses did) and, when their ARM kicked in and they couldn't afford their ...[text shortened]... onths later at a level they could never afford. This was COMMON, folks, not the exception.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think option c was by far the most popular one.
And since most people are stupid, the vast majority falls into category b).
You didn't live in the US in 2002,2003, 2004, etc. There was a palpable sense that real estate values only moved in one direction- up. The mentality was "buy buy buy." But, hold, flip for a big profit. Mortgage brokers were begging people to buy houses; giving them 12 reasons why they can buy a house they can't afford. The mortgage application process was a joke. Joe the Plumber could have gotten a mortgage big enough to buy Buckingham Palace.
Teaser rates were offered where payments were almost nothing for the first year. The brokers told people they could always re-fi or sell when the tease rates ended.
Were people stupid? I don't know. People bought houses they knew they couldn't afford because the banks were begging to give them money. They figured that if I can't re-fi or flip, I'll just walk away. Big deal? What have I really lost? I lived in a house I can't afford for a couple of years for pennies on the dollar and now I'm back to where I started. And that's the way it worked. Who were stupid? The banks were- for letting the mortgage brokers run amuck. Why did they do it? Because they knew they could go to Wall street and some big investment bank would be happy to buy, dice up and sell their fundamentally worthless notes to greater suckers (for a big fat commission, of course). Read Liar's Poker if you want the inside scoop on how it worked.
I know words may fail rwingett to lament how sad it is for people to be forced to leave the homes they had no business purchasing in the first place; but personally, I think they made out pretty well.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76it's not that these people were stupid - but they were probably less than experts at analyzing the complexities of the modern economy and the modern finance system.
I think option c was by far the most popular one.
You didn't live in the US in 2002,2003, 2004, etc. There was a palpable sense that real estate values only moved in one direction- up. The mentality was "buy buy buy." But, hold, flip for a big profit. Mortgage brokers were begging people to buy houses; giving them 12 reasons why they can buy a house they ca ss purchasing in the first place; but personally, I think they made out pretty well.
Whenever banks make loans to people, the folks running the bank have a LOT more knowledge about the economy and finance than the typical borrower. This knowledge gives the banker a great deal of power of most borrowers. As such, the banker should be obligated to spell out as clearly as possible to the borrower exactly what they're getting themselves into - and to make sure the borrower understands all of this before anything gets signed.
So if the experts were allowed to just give people 12 reasons to buy a house they couldn't afford, those same experts should have to accept the brunt of the consequences for loans that go bad.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe problem is that the disclosures that they have to make are a joke. They bury the disclosures in one of 23 documents that the client has to sign, usually in one sitting. Nobody every reads those disclosures. Heck, I don't read them; and I'm a lawyer.
it's not that these people were stupid - but they were probably less than experts at analyzing the complexities of the modern economy and the modern finance system.
Whenever banks make loans to people, the folks running the bank have a LOT more knowledge about the economy and finance than the typical borrower. This knowledge gives the banker a great de those same experts should have to accept the brunt of the consequences for loans that go bad.
Requiring disclosures doesn't work. The only thing that works is requiring the banks to be responsible in their lending practices in terms of to WHOM they give loans and in limiting to whom they can sell those loans and under what circusmtances. And, yes, that means greater regulation.
Originally posted by monster truckFrom the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/8469347.stm
While I find these ads disturbing, I'm a staunch supporter of free speech and I guess I'll just have to let it go as another case of 'Buyer Beware'.
'Tyrant' German advert is banned
A radio advertisement has been banned by ( the U.K.'s ) Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for implying Germans are tyrants.
Complaints were upheld about a Reed recruitment website commercial, which had an angry boss speaking in German.
The ASA said it could cause serious offence to some listeners and was found to be offensive because it used a negative stereotype.
The advert had sparked 13 complaints from the public, but Reed did not comment on them.
The ASA also said that while the use of stereotypes was "inevitable" to establish a character in a short radio advert, this should not "perpetuate damaging misconceptions".
The watchdog said: "We noted the ad used a German speaker, rather than someone speaking English, to portray the boss as 'a bit of a tyrant' and the humour derived from a stereotype at the expense of German people.
"We considered that the portrayal suggested that German people were more likely to be unreasonable or aggressive to others.
"We concluded that, given the extreme reaction and aggressive tone of the German-speaking boss, the ad reinforced a negative and outdated cultural stereotype of German people as overpowering and tyrannical and therefore the ad had the potential to cause serious offence to some listeners."
The advert was found to have breached rules governing good taste and must not be broadcast again in its current form.
Although Reed has not commented, industry body the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre said it believed most listeners would have found the advert "humorous and inoffensive".
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes.
Did they have a choice?
Instead of using gov. to syphon money from the taxpayer and then allot it to businesses of their choosing let the market correct itself.
Sending the American people deeper into debt via a bailout is no different than the actual problem itself. Sort of a credit card type of politics. Buy now, pay later. Buy some more...and some more....and some more....pay a little...buy some more...and some more....
Sort of like the current SS system or the proposed healthcare plans.😉
It will inevitably come to a crashing halt at some point no matter which option was selected. The bailout is just going to extend the pain a little longer.
Originally posted by monster truckI understand what you are saying, but were 'the people' in a position to decide in any case?
Yes.
Instead of using gov. to syphon money from the taxpayer and then allot it to businesses of their choosing let the market correct itself.
Sending the American people deeper into debt via a bailout is no different than the actual problem itself. Sort of a credit card type of politics. Buy now, pay later. Buy some more...and some more....and s ...[text shortened]... matter which option was selected. The bailout is just going to extend the pain a little longer.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think people can decide for themselves either by voting in elections or in who they choose to do business with. I guess that's part of my problem with the Dem party's agenda to implement social change through taxation.
I understand what you are saying, but were 'the people' in a position to decide in any case?
What I found ironic was the fact that both parties seemed to be in favor of what I deemed a very bad idea- the bailout. Opposite sides, in favor of the policy for opposite reasons, sending the U.S. further into financial calamity.🙄
The fit will hit the shan. It is inevitable.