Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan

[daveman]

I get it...

No, you don't.

...you are another that thinks it's just fine to default on a loan and leave a derelict building that the taxpayer's must now pay to remove, if the people in question are Republicans.

Can you point to any law that was broken? NOTE: "Conducting business while conservative" isn't illegal.

Thanks for proving my point. No one is talking about a law being broken, doofus.

Then what's the problem? It hurts your feelings?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan | TPMMuckraker

And in today's "I shit you not" news,

Tea Party aligned Georgia Rep. Tom Graves (R), who castigates Washington for fiscal irresponsibility, reached an out of court settlement Wednesday after he was sued for defaulting on a $2.2 million loan -- which his attorney argued is the bank's fault for lending him the money in the first place.

Graves and his business partner Chip Rogers -- who is the state Senate's Republican majority leader -- took out a $2.2 million loan from the Bartow County Bank in 2007 to buy and renovate a local motel. The project soon went belly-up.

The bank, which has since failed and had its assets taken over, sued Graves and Rogers for defaulting. The two Republicans then countersued, "accusing [the bank] of improperly declaring the loan in default after reneging on a promise to refinance it at more favorable terms," according to Jeremy Redmon and Aaron Gould Sheinin of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution .

I foresee Steve Buscemi in the role of Graves.

Merged

Oh and here is the truth you intellectually dishonest progressive..

Attorney for Graves, Rogers: Bank is at fault  | ajc.com

The bank sued, alleging the two defaulted on the loan. The politicians filed counterclaims against the bank, accusing it of improperly declaring the loan in default after reneging on a promise to refinance it at more favorable terms. Both parties dismissed their claims Wednesday, a day before they were scheduled to attend a hearing on the case in Calhoun.

I love how you progressives only tell one side of the story. ARE WE TO CONCLUDE YOU HAVE TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH? lol

BOTH Graves and Rogers were willing to repay but the bank refused to refinance and reneged because DING DING DING - they were going belly up...

Reading the entire article raises a number of questions:

How was an equitable settlement reached? Did a third party step in and pay the debt? A Tea Party benefactor possibly?

The bank required the principles to sign a note of personal gurantees prior to the loan because the congressman and his pal didn't have the resources to buy the property. A question arises as to the speculators obligations in terms of "personal responsibility" and of course their judgment.

Was a quid pro quo deal between the bank's mortgage loan processor and the congressman part of a 'deal'? Would such a loan have been made if the Congressman was not an elected official?

Who is John Edens and why did the principles transer the LLC to him?

The point of the thread however is quite clear. A member of congress who is a member of the radical Republican coaltion, aka, tea party, was fiscally irresponsible and hoped to aviod personal responsiblity for poor judgment in a speculative endeavor.

Why would a bank forgive or reduce an obligation wherein the debator signed a guarantee on the loan, when to do so would violate the public trust of the institution?

 

[Ravi]

No, you don't.


Can you point to any law that was broken? NOTE: "Conducting business while conservative" isn't illegal.

Thanks for proving my point. No one is talking about a law being broken, doofus.

Then what's the problem? It hurts your feelings?

There's no problem. I'm getting a kick out of watching you nuts defend someone that castigates the government for fiscal irresponsibility while he has been beyond fiscally irresponsible himself.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for proving my point. No one is talking about a law being broken, doofus.

Then what's the problem? It hurts your feelings?

There's no problem. I'm getting a kick out of watching you nuts defend someone that castigates the government for fiscal irresponsibility while he has been beyond fiscally irresponsible himself.

No, he hasn't.

 

[whitehall]

The issue "was settled in an equitable way" for both parties. Now why don't the Soros tax exempt people and the DNC dirty tricks brigade pack their bags and maybe research Jerry Brown's background?