patrick.net

Paralithodes says

So…”Spending” the money on Treasuries is no different than spending the money via the general fund on expense items, because otherwise the government would have to sell Treasuries to fund the general expense items? Therefore, just include Social Security funds as part of the general revenue so that it can directly fund government expenses when it runs a surplus? You don’t see a particular fundamental problem with this approach?

You really enjoy putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you? That is not at all how I understood what Mark was saying. In my mind, he was saying that you have to invest the surplus somewhere and US Treasuries are generally considered the safest investment out there...

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

So…”Spending” the money on Treasuries is no different than spending the money via the general fund on expense items, because otherwise the government would have to sell Treasuries to fund the general expense items? Therefore, just include Social Security funds as part of the general revenue so that it can directly fund government expenses when it runs a surplus? You don’t see a particular fundamental problem with this approach?

You really enjoy putting words in peoples’ mouths, don’t you? That is not at all how I understood what Mark was saying. In my mind, he was saying that you have to invest the surplus somewhere and US Treasuries are generally considered the safest investment out there…

What was the surplus spent on: Treasuries or general expenses? You may consider my questions to be rhetorical (i.e., putting words on someone's mouth), but the answer to this will be the determinant of that. If the surplus was put into Treasuries, then I stand corrected and apologize. If it was spent on expense lines, then we will have to ask Mark to clarify what he means.

Paralithodes says

What was the surplus spent on: Treasuries or general expenses? You may consider my questions to be rhetorical (i.e., putting words on someone’s mouth), but the answer to this will be the determinant of that. If the surplus was put into Treasuries, then I stand corrected and apologize. If it was spent on expense lines, then we will have to ask Mark to clarify what he means.

Sorry--that's not at all correct. Read Mark's post again. He never mentions "spending". There's no reason to ask Mark to clarify.

I don't see the difference anyway. The Fed Government spends money raised by Treasuries on general expense items, right? The SS fun got an IOU from the Federal Government too. What they spent it on is largely irrelevent as long as the IOU has the full faith and backing of the US Government.

tatupu70 says
Not really–it has built up a huge surplus of funds to pay for the years in which there is a shortfall in collections. Unfortunately, the Federal Government spent the surplus and Social Security is left with an IOU from the government. It’s not a ponzi scheme at all.

This is incorrect. There is no surplus fund. They have an imaginary "special issue" (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html) bond that pays imaginary interest that is paid out when needed by the Treasury by selling bonds, taxing, or printed directly by the Fed if necessary.

"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"

All the money taken for SS goes into the General fund and is and has been spent for years.

Also SS is indeed a ponzi scheme. It needs a continuing growth in supply of workers to tax to be viable. This is of course impossible, you can't grow the supply of workers forever, at some point either due to lack of food/space/water or simply a protracted economic event (ie. another Great Depression) it'll run out of money. Indeed the gov. has been quite explicit that they plan to run out of money, unless "something" (read: raise SS tax, cut pay outs, or raise retirement age, or some of all that) is done they've already stated that with even 100% tax rates SS will eventually become unsustainable. Just at a fairly distant future date or at least one that is hoped is distant.

tatupu70 says
What they spent it on is largely irrelevent as long as the IOU has the full faith and backing of the US Government.

An "IOU" isn't the same thing as a bond or cash, which I think you understand full and well with that last "full faith and backing" bit. Every one will pretend that IOU's are actually worth something until they can no longer maintain the lie, and then shockingly it'll become obvious that they aren't worth squat and oh we shoulda seen this coming mea cupla mea cupla etc.

tts says

“These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense…. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures

Of course. That's what a Treasury bond is. Do you think if you buy a bond that government puts your money aside in some special place and gives it back when you redeem it?

tts says

Also SS is indeed a ponzi scheme. It needs a continuing growth in supply of workers to tax to be viable. This is of course impossible, you can’t grow the supply of workers forever, at some point either due to lack of food/space/water or simply a protracted economic event (ie. another Great Depression) it’ll run out of money. Indeed the gov. has been quite explicit that they plan to run out of money, unless “something” (read: raise SS tax, cut pay outs, or raise retirement age, or some of all that) is done they’ve already stated that with even 100% tax rates SS will eventually become unsustainable. Just at a fairly distant future date or at least one that is hoped is distant.

Wrong again. You need to learn what a Ponzi scheme is. What is happening is that people are living longer so the orginal assumptions about how much money would be needed has to be revised to reflect the longer payout time periods. Please show me where it says with 100% tax rates SS will be unsustainable. That is just complete horseshit.

tts says

An “IOU” isn’t the same thing as a bond or cash, which I think you understand full and well with that last “full faith and backing” bit. Every one will pretend that IOU’s are actually worth something until they can no longer maintain the lie, and then shockingly it’ll become obvious that they aren’t worth squat and oh we shoulda seen this coming mea cupla mea cupla etc.

You're implying that the US Government will default on it's obligations then? Perhaps, but most people consider government bonds to be about as safe as any investment out there.

tatupu70 says

I don’t see the difference anyway. The Fed Government spends money raised by Treasuries on general expense items, right? The SS fun got an IOU from the Federal Government too. What they spent it on is largely irrelevent as long as the IOU has the full faith and backing of the US Government.

The difference is treasuries are a negotiable instrument that can be sold on the open market, the special bonds can only be redeemed from the general fund to the SS administration. It's a huge difference. The general fund can default on the special bonds pretty much with impunity (other than the very angry unpaid senior citizens who would vote heavily), while defaulting on a treasury would be an international financial disaster for the US that is simply unimaginable. The political incentives to keep treasuries solvent are several orders of magnitude higher.

bob2356 says

The difference is treasuries are a negotiable instrument that can be sold on the open market, the special bonds can only be redeemed from the general fund to the SS administration. It’s a huge difference. The general fund can default on the special bonds pretty much with impunity (other than the very angry unpaid senior citizens who would vote heavily), while defaulting on a treasury would be an international financial disaster for the US that is simply unimaginable. The political incentives to keep treasuries solvent are several orders of magnitude higher.

Yes and no. In that scenario, don't you think the International community would react to the US defaulting on the special bonds? I'd imagine that it would have a pretty similar reaction--US debt would become much, much riskier on the open market.

tatupu70 says

Of course. That’s what a Treasury bond is. Do you think if you buy a bond that government puts your money aside in some special place and gives it back when you redeem it?

If they were buying Treasuries that would be exactly what they'd be doing. They're not though, and given your reply to bob I know its clear you know it. You are being facetious.

tatupu70 says

Wrong again. You need to learn what a Ponzi scheme is. What is happening is that people are living longer so the orginal assumptions about how much money would be needed has to be revised to reflect the longer payout time periods.

Uh they've known that for the well over 20 years now, the changes in the 80's were supposed to fix that problem and yet they haven't.

tatupu70 says

Please show me where it says with 100% tax rates SS will be unsustainable. That is just complete horseshit.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html

tatupu70 says

You’re implying that the US Government will default on it’s obligations then? Perhaps, but most people consider government bonds to be about as safe as any investment out there.

The gov's options are: default, raise taxes, cut spending, inflate (technical default), or some combo of all of that. All these options are bad in their own special way due to the sheer amount of debt the gov. has. A billion or 2 more here or there saved/taxed won't cut it and a straight default is probably not possible.

They're going to have to inflate, and do so massively enough (100% devaluation) that it amounts to a technical default. I suspect you know this well and good, my problem with you (and a few others) is you see it as an actual viable "solution".

tts--

OK--first off. From the article you linked:

To put it another way, Social Security's unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid.

I don't agree with his calculations, but even under his worst case you're only raising taxes by 13%. Far cry from 100%. And, in reality, we could raise the retirement age and eliminate the cap on earnings to make up a large portion of the gap.

tts says

If they were buying Treasuries that would be exactly what they’d be doing. They’re not though, and given your reply to bob I know its clear you know it. You are being facetious.

What I know is that any time you buy a government debt issuance, you are funding the general operation of the Federal Government. You are getting an IOU from the Feds saying they will pay you back with future money for your $$ today.

tts says

Uh they’ve known that for the well over 20 years now, the changes in the 80’s were supposed to fix that problem and yet they haven’t.

Yes, our politicians are good at kicking the can, aren't they? But you admit that it's not a Ponzi scheme, right? It only seems that way because of the demographics. The baby boomer generation skews things.

tts says

They’re going to have to inflate, and do so massively enough (100% devaluation)

Do you mean here that $1 has the purchasing power of 50c or that current FRNs are abandoned altogether?

The former is the general belief, while the latter is just your Toxoplasmosis or whatever talking.

1985's $1 has been inflated down to 0.50c now. The world hasn't ended, even if gas is 2X what it was then in nominal terms.

tatupu70 says

OK–first off. From the article you linked:

Yes now read and understand the rest. There is a reason why the article has the title it has.

tatupu70 says

What I know is that any time you buy a government debt issuance, you are funding the general operation of the Federal Government. You are getting an IOU from the Feds saying they will pay you back with future money for your $$ today.

Incorrect. You're getting a marketable security that you can trade for actual goods or services. The "special issue" bonds cannot be traded for goods or services and are only created after SS tax income is spent.

tatupu70 says

But you admit that it’s not a Ponzi scheme, right?

Nope. Even it takes decades to fall a part its still a ponzi scheme. The time it takes changes nothing.

tatupu70 says

It only seems that way because of the demographics. The baby boomer generation skews things.

Even without the baby boomers SS would've ran into issues eventually.

Troy says

Do you mean here that $1 has the purchasing power of 50c or that current FRNs are abandoned altogether?
...
1985’s $1 has been inflated down to 0.50c now. The world hasn’t ended, even if gas is 2X what it was then in nominal terms.

The former not the latter. If you notice that devaluation was done slowly and took well over a decade to finish. If we get a similar or worse devaluation within a few years in the midst of a global recession while trying to fight a war then this time around will be much different.

Also the world will not end if things play out like I think they will, the US will simply become another shitty 3rd world country. We'll have a huge poor and uneducated lower class, a tiny well educated middle class, and a vanishingly small upper rich class that'll hold even more of the wealth than they do now.

If you view that as acceptable then by all means rejoice in massive technical default via devaluation.

tts says

Nope. Even it takes decades to fall a part its still a ponzi scheme. The time it takes changes nothing.

BZZZT! Wrong!

You need to look up Ponzi scheme. Not everything you disapprove of, or think is some sort of fraudulent conveyance, is a "Ponzi scheme".

Bernie Madoff ran the longest-lived Ponzi scheme. That one fit the bill.

Does Social Security for instance, cast itself as "investing" in some magical secret insider deal? No it does not. Psst hey just for you pally, here's a Social Security card, but keep it on the down low, I've got the inside track on Taking-Candy-From-Baby and we don't want just anyone finding out about it.

Does running an insurance company with insufficient capital to cover a 1,000 year storm constitute a Ponzi scheme? No it does not. Otherwise all the executives of Grandpa Warren's insurance companies that balked at paying out Katrina damages, would be in jail with Bernie.

Social Security is an INSURANCE program. And operates like one. Casting it as a criminal conspiracy, usually results from deliberate and determined ignorance. Changing demographics, and overly expansive payout promises, do not here result from criminal conspiracy but from simple politics. NO "fiscal conservative" bloc is voting to cut benefits, it is political suicide.

I can see it when people say Social Security is "panem et circenses", that at least has some validity. But this Ponzi comparison is just a Cato Institute thing that wormed it's way into common usage. The Cato lot are ultimately Wall Street "fellow travelers" who like casting Social Security as an evil to be abolished. Because they'd rather see that money funneled through the Wall Street casino instead where everyone can pretend we are "investing" money for the future when in fact it's just a means to skim off as much as possible. Yeah sounds great to encourage EVERYONE to save and invest for the future, so why not CD? No, they always end up talking about the wonders of the stock market and the supposed long-term benefits of gambling. An example from one of their official screeds on the topic:

There has never been even a 20-year period in U.S. history during which you would have lost money in the stock market. That remarkable statistic includes the period of the Great Depression, World War II, the “stagflation” of the 1970s, and the bursting of the dot.com bubble.

Much bile is directed against PAYGO like it's an ultimate evil, yet same bile seems oddly absent when talking about other forms of insurance which work the same way. What happens with the car insurance money you paid in this year? You got no benefit and some schmuck who wrapped his Escalade around a tree got your money.

tts says

tatupu70 says
What I know is that any time you buy a government debt issuance, you are funding the general operation of the Federal Government. You are getting an IOU from the Feds saying they will pay you back with future money for your $$ today.
Incorrect. You’re getting a marketable security that you can trade for actual goods or services. The “special issue” bonds cannot be traded for goods or services and are only created after SS tax income is spent.

No, I'm correct. But you are also right that there is a secondary market for Treasury Bills and not for the special bonds that SS gets. If that's your point, then I will grant it. But, it's not what you originally claimed.

tatupu70 says

bob2356 says

The difference is treasuries are a negotiable instrument that can be sold on the open market, the special bonds can only be redeemed from the general fund to the SS administration. It’s a huge difference. The general fund can default on the special bonds pretty much with impunity (other than the very angry unpaid senior citizens who would vote heavily), while defaulting on a treasury would be an international financial disaster for the US that is simply unimaginable. The political incentives to keep treasuries solvent are several orders of magnitude higher.

Yes and no. In that scenario, don’t you think the International community would react to the US defaulting on the special bonds? I’d imagine that it would have a pretty similar reaction–US debt would become much, much riskier on the open market.

Again, there is a big difference. The special bonds don't have redemption dates. Treasuries do. There are several options to technically avoid defaulting on the special bonds. SS payouts could be capped at a level to match SS income, the Fed could monetize the bonds which would essentially create the funds out of thin air (for now), treasuries could be sold on the open market to replace the special bonds, or everyone's IRA could be raided. A treasury is a negotiable instrument with a redemption date, it must be honored, there is no way to dance around it.

Defaulting on a treasury bill would be financial disaster, dancing around a technical default on what is an inter account debt would not. It would be noticed, but would not rock the world financial markets.

Vicente says

BZZZT! Wrong!
You need to look up Ponzi scheme.

There is no time limit on the definition of a ponzi scheme you know that.

Vicente says

Does Social Security for instance, cast itself as “investing” in some magical secret insider deal? No it does not.

Your right it doesn't but then I never said it did. Also Madoff nor Ponzi himself never cast any of thier schemes in that light either.

Vicente says

Does running an insurance company with insufficient capital to cover a 1,000 year storm constitute a Ponzi scheme?

Depends on how its ran. IME the insurance companies only seem to work on the "small things". Whenever there is a big disaster they all seem hell bent on not paying out since it seems they end up bankrupted if they did. That doesn't make them ponzi schemes but in general having had to deal with them and watched others get screwed by them I generally view them as only being a hop, skip, and a jump away from being criminal organizations. Certainly amoral as all hell.

Vicente says

Changing demographics, and overly expansive payout promises, do not here result from criminal conspiracy but from simple politics. NO “fiscal conservative” bloc is voting to cut benefits, it is political suicide.

SS fund isn't managed directly by Congress, and the people running it have known for years (decades really) about this "sudden" demographics shift. Repubs would actually love to cut SS and have said so and continue to say so to this day. Would they actually vote for it? Not explicitly like that I think. If they framed it as "oh we have to fix the budget" or "all these illegals/poor people are moooching" I think they might get away with it.

Vicente says

The Cato lot are ultimately Wall Street “fellow travelers” who like casting Social Security as an evil to be abolished.

Actually I and others have been saying this stuff for years and the Cato Institute and Wall St. can go screw for all I care.

Vicente says

Much bile is directed against PAYGO like it’s an ultimate evil, yet same bile seems oddly absent when talking about other forms of insurance which work the same way.

Other forms of insurance have these "special issue" bonds as "investments" which are of course unsaleable to anyone else other than the Treasury or the Fed?

tts--

From Wiki:

"There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[1]"

You can argue that the longer lifespans will require adjustments to payouts, FICA taxes, or retirement ages. But you can't reasonably argue that it's a Ponzi scheme.

Sure I can.

Before it was "they've got a surplus of special bonds" now its "no no SS is PAYG system". The taxes aren't high enough for it to function as PAYG and there is no surplus. If they crank the taxes high enough to fund it properly OR cut benefits/entitlements enough that current taxes make it financially viable OR do a bit of both, then that would change things.

All those scenarios are politically untenable and not without serious social/moral costs too.

FWIW since I've been doing so much criticizing: my solution to all this would be to crank taxes on the rich (ie. top 3-5% wage earners/wealth holders) to at least double where they are now, massively cut spending on the military, end the Iraq/Afghan wars and close all or nearly all of our overseas bases, institute laws to keep the banks permanently small(er) and put a special "stupid tax" on them that would go to fund the FDIC for future blow ups, institute a UHS (basically a super Medicare for all) and reform it to drop costs in particular on drugs, and finally start a large public program to build up and replace our old infrastructure with new more efficient and hopefully self sustaining energy and water systems.

And while I'm at it I guess I might as well go ahead and give a unicorn to everyone. With rocky road ice cream for the kids too.

tts says

Before it was “they’ve got a surplus of special bonds” now its “no no SS is PAYG system

Both are true. And I agree with all of your solutions except my kids don't like Rocky Road...

Blah can't agree on anything can we? Oh well, nothing I can do anyways other than ride this boat down the waterfall along with everyone else...

GaryA says

I don’t buy that a regular guy could see that it was a bubble prior to the inventory build.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that someone making 40k a year cannot afford a 600k mortgage.

Liberals, democrats and progressives can never accept personal responsibility. Their motto is: "Its not my fault - someone else is to blame". Its not that they are stupid, they're not, they're simply brain damaged.

Vicente says

GaryA says

Santelli said people who lost in bad mortgages were fools. Santelli is a spoiled shill for CNBC. He is a jerk, a number one jerk. He knows what the banksters did. Shame on him.

Santelli referred to himself in the famous speech as a “follower of Ayn Rand”. Not so much a shill, as an ideologue that is surrounded by people who all tell him he’s right every day, and in a service industry that glorifies the idea that PILES OF MONEY is the be-all end-all. Of course he’s going to blame the peasants, that guy next door that bought “too much house”. He despises them because they took advantage of the system for a few nickels. He doesn’t hate his own people of course, his beloved financial industry which deserves to be demoted a few ranks in terms of it’s share of the economic pie. The very idea that cutting Wall Street and it’s tendrils down to a sustainable size of parasite, is anathema to the way they think.
I read Rand in college, and liked it at first. Until I read more of her and realized she was a nutjob of the Nietzschean variety. Her philosophy boils down to “what is good for me is right” and for example extended to admiring the killer William Edward Hickman for his smug superior attitude to people he killed. So basically sociopaths and their admirers.
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
Yeah that’s what “Randists” always boil down to I think for guys like Santelli. The self-appointed elite view the peasants as dragging them down, despise them, and relish the thought of them being ground underfoot. They despise taxes of all forms, as it ultimately represents the collective bargaining power of the peasants.

Vincent that is so true. Rand was out for herself. I wouldn't call that much of a philosophy.

Honest Abe says

Liberals, democrats and progressives can never accept personal responsibility. Their motto is: “Its not my fault - someone else is to blame”. Its not that they are stupid, they’re not, they’re simply brain damaged.

You aren't honest and you aren't Abe. Abe would have opposed Wall Street shenanigans.

theoakman says

GaryA says

I don’t buy that a regular guy could see that it was a bubble prior to the inventory build.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that someone making 40k a year cannot afford a 600k mortgage.

David Lereah was saying every day that you could afford it. In Feb 2004 Alan Greenspan said you could afford it. They are geniuses. But darkside ones.

Where does it say in the Constitution that we have a right to live rent-free?

Yeah, that's right. I am talking about every single one of you strategic defaulters out there who are currently lawyering up ("find your note") and trying to keep living in your foreclosed home, for free.

There are so many of you scam artists that there's now a "foreclosure freeze," and how this will affect ALL property values and the real estate market we can only imagine the worst.

I want to know how many people have been "fraudulently foreclosed upon" who are still making payments? There is no law anywhere that I am aware of that says you get to keep something that you don't pay for. As far as I am concerned this is like stealing a diamond from a store, or missing payments and keeping your car.

THESE SCUMBAG DEFAULTERS WHO ARE CHOOSING TO DEFAULT IN ORDER TO LIVE RENT-FREE FOR 2-3 YEARS WHILE THEY WAIT TO GET EVICTED ARE ROBBING US OF OUR DIGNITY, OUR SECURITY AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, PEOPLE.

GaryA says

David Lereah was saying every day that you could afford it. In Feb 2004 Alan Greenspan said you could afford it. They are geniuses. But darkside ones

Actually, Greenspan stated "there was no national housing bubble, but its not hard to see there are lots of smaller ones".

First part hit the headlines while the media dismissed the second half of this statement.

ejh says

There is no law anywhere that I am aware of that says you get to keep something that you don’t pay for. As far as I am concerned this is like stealing a diamond from a store, or missing payments and keeping your car.

Except this is not at all like theft. Until they are officially foreclosed upon and evicted the property is theirs. Aside from which theft is a criminal act, whereas foreclosure is simply a consequence of a contract breach. It's still amazing to me that people compare contracts to serious crimes. Do you exaggerate this much and this inappropriately in your daily life?

You must be one of the scumbag defaulters. Here is the legal definition of "theft":

theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person [in this case, THE HOMEOWNER] intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another [in this case, THE BANK] without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

The courts have said: If you don't make payments, you don't get to keep the home. If you don't make payments and you willfully, intentionally stay in the home and delay & stall your way into the home, you are a scumbag and a THIEF.

It's pretty simple.

ejh says

The courts have said: If you don’t make payments, you don’t get to keep the home. If you don’t make payments and you willfully, intentionally stay in the home and delay & stall your way into the home, you are a scumbag and a THIEF.

Really? Do you have the docket# for that case?

Nope, but the main foreclosure judge in Pinellas-Pasco counties, FL. has said so. He has told people (50-100 cases a day) that come before him (in foreclosure cases), pay or get out (of the house).

He used the term scumbag?

NO, he said: If you don’t make payments, you don’t get to keep the home.

You do until your case is heard in court. Until then, it's still legally your house...

I believe that the (property/foreclosure) laws vary by state.

ejh says

If you don’t make payments and you willfully, intentionally stay in the home and delay & stall your way into the home, you are a scumbag and a THIEF.
It’s pretty simple.

And if, for example, a bank forecloses on property it doesn't even OWN... what? By your definition it is also theft. Property seized illegitimately. They are scumbag thieves, should be breaking rocks.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897

Vicente says

ejh says
If you don’t make payments and you willfully, intentionally stay in the home and delay & stall your way into the home, you are a scumbag and a THIEF.
It’s pretty simple.
And if, for example, a bank forecloses on property it doesn’t even OWN… what? By your definition it is also theft. Property seized illegitimately. They are scumbag thieves, should be breaking rocks.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897

Vicente... all 99.99999999999% maybe?

thomas.wong1986 says

GaryA says

David Lereah was saying every day that you could afford it. In Feb 2004 Alan Greenspan said you could afford it. They are geniuses. But darkside ones

Actually, Greenspan stated “there was no national housing bubble, but its not hard to see there are lots of smaller ones”.
First part hit the headlines while the media dismissed the second half of this statement.

Here is the quote from 2004. Greenspan said adjustables were a better deal. Yeah right. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm

ejh says

Nope, but the main foreclosure judge in Pinellas-Pasco counties, FL. has said so. He has told people (50-100 cases a day) that come before him (in foreclosure cases), pay or get out (of the house).

The evidence presented is these cases is phony. This is an example of a bad judge who is destroying due process. I guarantee you that they are not all bad like this.

ejh says

Where does it say in the Constitution that we have a right to live rent-free?
Yeah, that’s right. I am talking about every single one of you strategic defaulters out there who are currently lawyering up (”find your note”) and trying to keep living in your foreclosed home, for free.
There are so many of you scam artists that there’s now a “foreclosure freeze,” and how this will affect ALL property values and the real estate market we can only imagine the worst.
I want to know how many people have been “fraudulently foreclosed upon” who are still making payments? There is no law anywhere that I am aware of that says you get to keep something that you don’t pay for. As far as I am concerned this is like stealing a diamond from a store, or missing payments and keeping your car.
THESE SCUMBAG DEFAULTERS WHO ARE CHOOSING TO DEFAULT IN ORDER TO LIVE RENT-FREE FOR 2-3 YEARS WHILE THEY WAIT TO GET EVICTED ARE ROBBING US OF OUR DIGNITY, OUR SECURITY AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.
WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, PEOPLE.

If the note is in order, "lawyering up" isn't going to help.

You seem to be opposed to the rule of law.

PPete says

Haha GaryA! I had you figured out from the start.
You are a defaulter looking for a way to steal someone else’s home. You are basically grasping at straws, cursing the banks and the world that conspired against you. You are a “VICTIM” right???
Those BANKSTERS all made you cash out REFI and go to Hawaii with your grand kids for 3 weeks - all in 5 star hotels. Then the next refi when you got all new appliances, a pool for the back yard and jacuzzi bathtub for the new expanded master bedroom. Then the final refi where you got Venitian granite floors and counter tops throughout the house.
Oops. I just vomited a little in my mouth. You are a CROOK.

Do you ever bother to read? I said I have a manufactured home paid for completely. Lets argue this from another point of view. If I were an investor in MBS, I would go to court and argue that I never owned the mortgages on the investment bonds I held. So the banksters will need to pay me back my entire lost investment. And fact is, the investors never owned the mortgages because the notes were never transfered to the MBS trusts.

That should fix the banksters