patrick.net

What people really need to understand and understand well. Like Russia. This is a co-op government. I know this can get tricky of course. Hard to understand for some.

It's for the people and by the people. Which means it is a co-op government. The short side of that is you elect a representative. That makes all of your co-op decisions for you. Thats not exactly smart.

Co-op means that you agree to the laws in a co-op way. Running a red light is dangerous. See.

The laws have no force in themselves. It is only that everyone or majority which takes it one step further even. Is agreeing that everyone needs to abide by that law. So it goes even further.

You have further agreed to have policeman in a cooperative manner. IE a milita. The police have no authority. Except for the fact that everyone in some cases imbued and suggested has agreed that some need to be selected to insure safety. So the authority is an ageed upon thing and not actual authority. For the people and by the people. It is not communal. It is co-op.

Most people that live in a city can tell you nothing of any real danger happens. What you will discover is that these police. Which started as a protection for the people. Actually in many cases protect the property of the well, interest bearing people. In my opinion its gone way to far. People have agreed on things cooperatively that police seem to ignore. It's just the police not cooperating in what everyone agreed to. It is mostly all in favor to the people. That have the municple bonds and other projects that the city owes on. Usually always. So its nothing more than a city in debt in most cases. There is no point trying to reason with people in debt. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. The people you have put in charge by cooperation. Are always going to side with the debt merchants. Why because THEY ARE the property owners.

Has to do with loans. Has to do with subdividing. People agreed to. Again representative is not always wise. Subdividing. Anyone with a loan and a house may be JTWROS joint tenants with rights of surviorship. If you have a loan. You don't own that house. That is plain because they can toss you out. Your actually in a tenancy. Until that loan is paid off. I have a lawyer he can tell you this in a small rendering as he has me in certain situations.

So the people are in one big cooperative. For the people by the people. The failure in all of this to me. Were the governments and the government getting in debt to some really slick people that have been operating as debt merchants for a long, long time.

elliemae says

There are no easy answers, honey. Ya gotta be flexible in your view of the world, or you dry up.

I think we ought to just see life for what it is. One giant greed fest, nothing noble there.

seaside says

They bought 800K home w/ very small down payment, Right after they bought the home, they took a loan against it, opened coffee shop business. The business was not successful, so they decided to get the hell out of both business and the house

While I can certainly understand, even feel sorry for someone that purchased a house at the height of the market that they can afford to make the payments, it does not give them the right to walk away from there obligations. If there are no repercussions for this type of behavior, what prevents others from doing it in the future?

It's kinda like saying, my kids are grown up and out of school, why should I bother to pay school taxes anymore. How does it benefit me?

Or placing a roulette bet, but soon as you see the little white ball doesn't land on your number, you quick take back your bet before the dealing can sweep them away. Oops, sorry didn't mean to place that bet, I only leave the chips on the table when I win.

futuresmc says

You want to see a deadbeat, find a Bank of America branch.

While Bank of America and other banks received a HUGE bailout from the government, it's important to note this the bailout is a LOAN, not free money. When you walk away without repercussions, your stealing money plain and simple.

Armando148 says

Evidenced by the fact they have saved in the six figures.
It's also good they are happy, why shouldn't they be?

Are they gaming the system? Perhaps they are perhaps not it's in the eye of the beholder.

Your joking right? The Bank is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on this deal. These people get a loan from the bank to buy a house, lets assume for a minute there income is actually enough to make the payments on the house. They take yet another loan against the house (probably with another bank), it's not BoA fault another bank decides to give these people more money weather or not they can afford to make the payments. The business fails and they decide not to pay there mortgage anymore. Who loses? The bank they are not getting income on money they lent out, it's not there fault the housing market tanked and the property is worth less today than yesterday, they put up the money to buy the house, it's your responsibility to make sure the price is a good deal for you. They will also have spend thousands to foreclosure and kick your deadbeat ass out of the house. The bank that made the second mortgage (home equity) is out all of there money.

So just who is the bank anyway? Some faceless greedy corporation? Well the bank is owned by investors, some of there investors are 401k mutual funds, if you have money in your 401k, anything to do with financial, chances are you own a small part of the bank.

Why doesn't the bank foreclosure already? Isn't it the banks fault they allowed the people to live rent free for two years. Well the answer is yet. But bank isn't in the position to liquidate the house just yet, the market is weak, and experience has show banks that houses that are unoccupied for an extended period of time get there pipes ripped out by copper thieves and walls kicked in by vandals. If they take the house today, it's could be worth almost nothing by the time they are ready to sell it, true the land is worth something, but if the house is nothing but a tear down, it make even the land less desirable. It's better to wait, sit on it, wait till the market recovers than foreclose.

Actually not foreclosing now is a stroke of pure geniuses. As I said, if there are no consequences to your actions,you will repeat them again. If the banks wait until after December 31st, 2012, the temporary repeal of IRS tax liability expires. So if they purchased the house for 800k, took out another 200k for a home equity loan and the lenders foreclose in 2013, assuming the house is worth 500k, the former home owners are issued a 1099 from the bank for 500k! So lets assume they make about 100k a year, they will be taxes like they make 600k that year. Income over 100k is typically taxed at 35%, that's a 175k tax bill! I hope they saves up a lot of money, cause they are going to need every penny to pay the IRS. And this isn't something you can walk away from, unlike a mortgage. While the bank would rather have there money back, they will get there lesson on consequences. They will not be soon repeating taking a mortgage and walking away again.

ArtimusMaxtor says

For the people and by the people. It is not communal. It is co-op.

I understand your argument but your examples are a bit off. Co-ops are interesting but I wouldn't say that a country is one. If you read some Hobbes and Locke the argument is more about living outside the state of nature.

By and for the people depends on what people. If they don't show up to participate then they won't count. You have to register to vote. You have to show up for jury duty or say why you cannot go..otherwise you get a warrant out for you.

Debt is not good. While the concept of credit can make sense if the terms are laid out but this is not always the case.

Some combinations are not good in the long run. For example an alcoholic at a bar with a bartender with Alzheimer. That's sort of what we've had with housing.

The fact that so many would defend this family as "just playing by the rules and doing what's right for themselves" shows how far we've fallen. When it is considered "smart" to just walk away from your debt obligations, and the system rewards you for doing so by letting you live rent free for years at a time, and you receive the general approval from those arround you.... well, we are in one sorry state. The question we should be asking is this: How does an economy function long term under such a system?

Because this type of behaviour is so far beyond unsustainable it's not even funny. Something is going to give. Whether it is hyperinflation from mass printing, or a deflationary collapse into depression, something is eventually going to blow us all out of the water. A system that allows enormous quantities of debt to be created out of thin air, with the implicit message that said debt may not have to be paid back, is a system on the verge of catastrophe.

Seriously, if this scenario is an acceptable part of a functioning economy, then I don't have any clue how the economy functions. I'm willing to admit that this may be the case. I might be in fact clueless. But as yet, I am not prepared to believe that we can have a recovery that simply forgets about the enormous debts piled up before the crash. I am not yet convinced that we can walk away from that stinking pile of debt without consequences much more severe than we're seeing right now. I hope I am wrong.

I hope it does indeed turn out that I am clueless. No one will be more relieved than I. I'd rather be clueless in a stable, growing economy than "smart" while the whole world is collapsing all around me.

JodyChunder says

They will be millionaires in three years if they play there cards right. Keep quiet and just drag it through the courts.

NOT, when the IRS get done with there ass, they will feel like they were gang raped.

TechGromit says

While Bank of America and other banks received a HUGE bailout from the government, it's important to note this the bailout is a LOAN, not free money. When you walk away without repercussions, your stealing money plain and simple.

Firstly, BOA got more than a bailout. The Fed has continued to prop up their balance sheets with special rules and money printing while robbing everyone holding US dollars of their wealth. Let's not forget lost notes, robosigning, etc. The real theives are the banks, by far.

Those that walk away are NOT stealing. The consequences for walking away are crystal clear in any mortgage. Those walking away are merely taking an out-clause they always had. The banks who made the loan were not duped in any way.

But again this goes to my main arguement. There is a serious double standard in the ethics we apply to business default and personal default, and that double standard is a significant reason why people get called deadbeats and take the full, legal consequences of their actions, while outright criminal behavior by banks and financial service organizations is scolded, but never pursued further.

Alistair says

The fact that so many would defend this family as "just playing by the rules and doing what's right for themselves" shows how far we've fallen. When it is considered "smart" to just walk away from your debt obligations, and the system rewards you for doing so by letting you live rent free for years at a time, and you receive the general approval from those arround you.... well, we are in one sorry state. The question we should be asking is this: How does an economy function long term under such a system?

Because this type of behaviour is so far beyond unsustainable it's not even funny. Something is going to give. Whether it is hyperinflation from mass printing, or a deflationary collapse into depression, something is eventually going to blow us all out of the water. A system that allows enormous quantities of debt to be created out of thin air, with the implicit message that said debt may not have to be paid back, is a system on the verge of catastrophe.

Seriously, if this scenario is an acceptable part of a functioning economy, then I don't have any clue how the economy functions. I'm willing to admit that this may be the case. I might be in fact clueless. But as yet, I am not prepared to believe that we can have a recovery that simply forgets about the enormous debts piled up before the crash. I am not yet convinced that we can walk away from that stinking pile of debt without consequences much more severe than we're seeing right now. I hope I am wrong.

I hope it does indeed turn out that I am clueless. No one will be more relieved than I. I'd rather be clueless in a stable, growing economy than "smart" while the whole world is collapsing all around me.

+1

This is my sentiment on the subject, exactly. Yes, this behavior means short-term financial gain. However, I can't see any logical way for this behavior, especially if it keeps becoming more widespread, to lead to anything good for anyone in the long-term. Then again, maybe our entire system has just been one big, unsustainable experiment. Most people think that ~200 years is a "long" time. As far as societies and civilizations are concerned, it is just a flash in the pan. This period will probably end up in history texts after we are all gone, and high school kids will read through and wonder how people could be so incredibly stupid.

Malkovich says

I think each and every one of these fuckers that walked away from their mortgages SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. And their credit should be ruined for 7 years.

It should be ruined for the rest of their life, not a mere 7 years.

zzyzzx says

Malkovich says

I think each and every one of these fuckers that walked away from their mortgages SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. And their credit should be ruined for 7 years.

It should be ruined for the rest of their life, not a mere 7 years.

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

Debtor's prison? Piffle.

And of course, if it benefited the ptb they would reinstate debtor's prisons. They don't, because the system wants you to work, get paid, invest and risk. If the masses are too afraid of the consequences, the system stops revolving, n'est-ce pas?

This is how you absolutely destroy a country and its fiat currency. America has been successful because we had companies and individuals who believed in honesty and not stealing and not gaming the system to their personal advantage. Just because a mortgage company was stupid to lend to you doesn't mean it is morally ok to take advantage of the lender and game the system.

cab says

I guess in the end it comes down to you should just do what feels right to you, no matter what's going on around you

This is exactly how the Roman empire crumbled. And it's exactly what John wrote about in Revelation. Sadly, the evidence suggests that we are on that path with the same predictable consequences.

bgamall4 says

It is not stealing to walk away from a ponzi scam. That word is thrown around incorrectly for social security, etc. But the housing bubble was a ponzi scam because of the massive amount of easy money loans allowed, pushing prices up artificially.

How can you say with any intellectual honesty that social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme and that the housing bubble was a Ponzi scheme? Below are the essential elements of a ponzi scheme:

1. A relatively few investors put in their money at first.
2. Increasingly more investors are recruited to pay the first group of investors.
3. The first group of investors get out more than they invested.
3. The second group gets out less than they invested.
4. It all falls apart because not enough money is raised to pay off the first group of investors.
5. A large group of people are left holding the bag.

Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated. I guess if you have a certain viewpoint you can claim it's not a Ponzi scheme because it hasn't gone belly up yet. But that is merely an illusion: the Social Security trust fund has no money in it- only IOU's in the form of government debt.

bgamall4 says

It has never been immoral to walk away from a scam, a known and provable scam. What you sign means nothing if the counterparty was part of a scam.

Except you can't walk away from social security:-)

bgamall4 says

People always were prevented from getting too much house, at least until the trial run of the S and L crisis and the main event, the housing crisis and crash of 2001-2007. Underwriting is essential to the proper functioning of a bank. But the banks didn't care. The scam was on and they wanted any warm body, like the homeless guy in Florida who "owned" 4 properties. It was all about the fees and the passing on of crap loans to unsuspecting investors.

Hey, look, we found some common ground!

jlw3 says

Increasingly more investors are recruited to pay the first group of investors.

That's where it fails the test. You don't need increasingly more people to fund SS.

repo4sale says

stem, including $billions lost to Obama Campaign Donors... & TRILLIONS TO BE PAID BACK BY OUR GRAND & GREAT GRAND CHILDREN! WTF!
>>
PS:Resume= 700+ Escrows, 114+ Court cases, 13,000 acres bought & sold, $100m bought & sold, 5 passports filled traveling, 4x/wo

you blowin smoke bub

TechGromit says

NOT, when the IRS get done with there ass, they will feel like they were gang raped.

will never happen.. you seem to miss that these folk are what keeping the fragile economy on its hind legs

tatupu70 says

That's where it fails the test. You don't need increasingly more people to fund SS.

sorry but yes of course you do. it is a trust and it does make a small profit but you need more people coming in to the thing always

JodyChunder says

tatupu70 says

That's where it fails the test. You don't need increasingly more people to fund SS.

sorry but yes of course you do. it is a trust and it does make a small profit but you need more people coming in to the thing always

Um, sorry, but you don't. With a stable population and a proper accounting for life spans, it can be self sustaining forever. It most definitely does NOT need an increasing population.

tatupu70 says

Um, sorry, but you don't. With a stable population and a proper accounting for life spans, it can be self sustaining forever. It most definitely does NOT need an increasing population.

Precisely. Many of our government agencies, from the federal down to the city/local level, were abused by politicians who took funds from them, then approved phony balonie accounting measures to cover it up. This was all done intentionally, not only to gain immidiate cash for personal projects or cronies, but also to make sure it appeared as if 'big government' had failed. Americans should always be sceptical and demand accountability from their government, but Social Security is one of the examples where government succeeds better than the private sector. That is why they spread the falsehood that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or that it's broke already. That is why the post office has to deal with special regulations that force it to operate at a loss. The mirage that the private sector ALWAYS does EVERYTHING better than the public has to be upheld, even if you have to sabotage the government agencies that function well to do it.

CL says

Debtor's prison? Piffle.

I'd be OK with that, but I was really thinking more along the lines of ruined credit for life.

tatupu70 says

m, sorry, but you don't. With a stable population and a proper accounting for life spans, it can be self sustaining forever. It most definitely does NOT need an increasing population.

yes I think your slipping ; D just for starters you got mor e bayboomers retiring then what there is of younger generation to put them up. also our goverment keeps raiding the funds. read up

yes one of my people worked at the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE for 40 year. I get my stuff from him

well how many of you would call Donald Trump a deadbeat?
because thats exactly what he has done. and continues to advise people to do if underwater. walk away or stay and squat it out.
Its a "business decision" he calls it
Because hes rich, and perpetrates all kinds of unethical business schemes, hes not a deadbeat, but a "winner"

JodyChunder says

tatupu70 says

m, sorry, but you don't. With a stable population and a proper accounting for life spans, it can be self sustaining forever. It most definitely does NOT need an increasing population.

yes I think your slipping ; D just for starters you got mor e bayboomers retiring then what there is of younger generation to put them up. also our goverment keeps raiding the funds. read up

OK--I think you are just trolling. No need to continue this discussion....

tatupu70 says

OK--I think you are just trolling. No need to continue this discussion....

If i am a troll you are a little squirrel. fair?

you got nothing...