#OWS Signs

[Truthmatters]

Who was the business person who loaned the money to these "stupid regular guys" you hate so much?

Did those biusiness professionals have ANY responsibility to NOT crash their entire industry?

 

[Lovebears65]

Just because you can afford the house on paper doesnt mean you should get it . Only you know what your true bills are and what your spending habits are

 

[WillowTree]

It's incumbent upon the lender to determine if an applicant is qualified for a loan.

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to determine what you are capable of purchasing. Stop passing responsibility for your decisions off on other people.

So if a doctor tells you you are fine, then you find out that he should have seen your cancer, it's your fault?

you went over the fucking clifff dud.

 

[B. Kidd]

It's incumbent upon the lender to determine if an applicant is qualified for a loan.

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to determine what you are capable of purchasing. Stop passing responsibility for your decisions off on other people.

If a person lacks enough common sense to know what he can or cannot afford, it's up to the lender to set him straight.

Afterall, it's the lender who is ultimately on the hook for the money.

All I can say is bundled derivatives, 0 down subprime loans, and you too can be included in the American dream of being a homeowner, even if you are not capable of purchasing, cause we'll make money off your desires anyways.
Except the lenders (with the aid and abettance of Gov't) played 'hold this brown paper bag for me game', and left us taxpayers with the biggest brown bag.

 

[signelect]

What has happened to persona responsibility. Just like congress and Barry, blame it on someone else.

 

[Mustang]

Who's fault is it those people are STUPID.

Here's a clue, you can't afford something, DON'T GO OUT AND BUY IT.

what a concept eh?

Here's another concept:

If someone can't afford something, DON'T GIVE THEM A LOAN TO BUY IT!

But do you know why they did it anyway? Because they didn't keep and service those loans. They sold those bad loans to unsuspecting financial institutions. It wasn't really hard at all...seeing as how ratings agencies like S&P gave those derivatives the highest ratings. That's what the ratings agencies got paid to do. Ain't unfettered capitalism grand?

 

[Ravi]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

 

[Meister]

Or

"The loan officer should have done his homework and checked my situation more carefully and found that I really couldn't afford the property based on my income and other obligations and turned me down."

So what your saying is that the person applying for the loan is so stupid as to not know how much he/she, or she/he can afford?
Bottom line goes to the responsiblity of the lendee...or it used to. Now it's more like blame the other guy because I take no responsibility for actions.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That sign is the whole banking crisis in a nutshell. Back during the Clinton years HUD changed the rules on those securities. I remember the WSJ being apoplectic about it back then.

 

[Liability]

Or

"The loan officer should have done his homework and checked my situation more carefully and found that I really couldn't afford the property based on my income and other obligations and turned me down."

Nothing like a good excuse to dodge any personal responsibility, there, eh libbies?

I tell you what:

There is blame enough on both sides to go around.

But the bottom line doesn't get erased.

If the borrowers were NOT actually qualified for the loans they were getting, then the fact that ultimately they could not afford the houses they were "buying" is a problem ONLY to the extent that they were denied the ability to retain that which they would never have otherwise had in the first place.

Ownership would be highly desirable if the borrowers could finagle it. But if not, renting is not the most horrible outcome in the known universe.

 

[Mr Natural]

Just because you can afford the house on paper doesnt mean you should get it . Only you know what your true bills are and what your spending habits are

That's true.

But it makes no sense at all for a lender to compound a buyer's stupidity by approving a loan that he knows full well is going to be trouble.

 

[B. Kidd]

I've made some terrible economic descions like most of us have. But most of us do not get ZERO per cent loans from the Treasury to redeem ourselves. If they gave us Zero per cent needed loans to get economically healthy, most of us would have learned from the 'error of our ways' paid them back and would be sitting pretty on profits to boot.....and being spendthrift about our money, sitting on those profits, just like the major banks/investment sectors are doing.

 

[Dragon]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

 

[California Girl]

Or

"The loan officer should have done his homework and checked my situation more carefully and found that I really couldn't afford the property based on my income and other obligations and turned me down."

Or...

"Politicians and Unions should not pressurize banks to lend to those who cannot afford it."

 

[Contumacious]

It probably should have read

. I did not read my contract and got a house way above what I can afford. Why dont you just forgive my loans so I can get this house for free

It should have read:

Thanks to Slick Willy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a house way above what I could afford.

.

 

[McDowell's]

That sign is the whole banking crisis in a nutshell. Back during the Clinton years HUD changed the rules on those securities. I remember the WSJ being apoplectic about it back then.

Sort of. That sign makes an accusation of intentionality that I'm not sure is accurate. There was a logical basis for the way MBS's were structured. However, some of the underlying assumptions were wrong. How you can say that those errors were due to malicious intent rather than normal human error without knowing all the facts of each instance is beyond me. That's what trials are for.

I am sure in at least some cases there was intent to defraud, but that doesn't mean it was that way across the board.

 

[Defiant1]

Got a job? Thank a 1%er.





On the public dole? Thank a 1%er.





Not paying your fair share of $8500 in fed income taxes per person in your family? Thank a 1%er.

 

[Liability]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who's fault is it those people are STUPID.

Here's a clue, you can't afford something, DON'T GO OUT AND BUY IT.

what a concept eh?

It's incumbent upon the lender to determine if an applicant is qualified for a loan.

It's incumbent upon THE PERSON to know if THEY CAN AFFORD a mortgage. I can't so guess what, I RENT.

These people should put the blame where it SHOULD BE. on themselves.

Yeah! Fuck People!

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

You KNEW they didnt know what the sign meant when the first post was a translation and assumed the lady holding the sign was in foreclosure.

Has literally shit to do with the sign