Ok, I've had it with OWS

[Kathryn]

the two statements are supportive of each other.
Those who corrupt the political process, must have money and de facto are part of the group [rich people]. I have never stated the reverse was true {that all rich people are de facto members of the group [corrupters of politics]}, which is what you hinged your original opposition on.


But not corruption of politics. Which was what I was talking about; that and theft of a house. Neither of which I can reasonably assure you you didn't encounter at all levels.

Here's what you actually said (by the way, I am getting a bit bored with having to clearly repeat what you've already said - I wasn't that impressed with it the first go round):

The problem with that idea though, is that the rich themselves are never the combatants, and their muscle are the same as us. 'They' do not outnumber us by any stretch; they simply want to hire peasants to make up for their lack of numbers.

Lots of poor folks get to go overseas and kill foreigners; what if they are presented with the opportunity on home soil? And the targets are the actual humans behind the rules which allow them to take your home from you, or fire you and destroy your ability to feed your family?

Eventually people placed under the conditions you blithely describe, become bloodthirsty and start researching the design for the guillotine on the internet. Seriously I'm all for it. Eventually all tyrannical moguls come to that final scene in their story where they back into a corner of their lavish office because the lights have abruptly gone out, the guard station in the lobby isn't answering the phone and they start looking for a briefcase to stuff cash into before someone comes crashing through the air duct with a shotgun...

Not one mention of political corruption in that rant.

By the way - you've got the theft of a house thing bass ackwards. When you borrow money (and in the case of a house, that can mean several hundred thousand dollars) and then you don't pay it back, YOU have stolen something, not the other way around.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Here's what you actually said (by the way, I am getting a bit bored with having to clearly repeat what you've already said - I wasn't that impressed with it the first go round):

Actually, you were specifically responding to this statement by me, since you quoted it when replying:

Yet it is still true that the behavior being fought most by the Occupy movement, seem to only come from individuals above a certain income level.

Only the rich can afford corruption.

I mean, you quoted it right in the reply.
So, no, you seem to have been responding to THAT statement. If you were responding to my statement on warfare and teh rich, well, maybe you should have actually addressed that post? Now color me unimpressed.


Not one mention of political corruption in that rant.

By the way - you've got the theft of a house thing bass ackwards. When you borrow money (and in the case of a house, that can mean several hundred thousand dollars) and then you don't pay it back, YOU have stolen something, not the other way around.

Well, except for the idea that you also lose all the money you ever did pay into it.
You lose the house, AND all the loan you've already paid back. THAT is theft, on the part of the lender.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The OWS is nothing but a group of cheerleaders for Barack Obama. To say that this group speaks for 99% of the people is dishonest. :sorry1:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Also wrong: I despise Obama. Both political parties are exactly the same, they simply vary their methods in how they screw all the rest of us.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

"Feel free to explain to us all how someone who has no spendable money can corrupt someone else [in the context of politics]. This should be grand."

Everyone scared of this one, hm?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Also wrong: I despise Obama. Both political parties are exactly the same, they simply vary their methods in how they screw all the rest of us.

I saw the OWS shout down candidate Gingrich in Iowa the other day on CNN. When will they shout down the President?

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone scared of this one, hm?

Bored.

A helpful personal aside
If you want other posters to converse, I recommend:
- Be friendly.....or at least civil.
- Don't misrepresent others.
- Cut back on the smugness & self satisfaction. (The latter will make yer knuckles hairy.)
- Give the other side real consideration.

I like some of the commies here.
We treat each other with respect.
Disagreement doesn't require rancor.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I saw the OWS shout down candidate Gingrich in Iowa the other day on CNN. When will they shout down the President?

Already have
Occupy protests: Obama heckled and drowned out in New Hampshire | Mail Online

 

[Kathryn]

Well, except for the idea that you also lose all the money you ever did pay into it.
You lose the house, AND all the loan you've already paid back. THAT is theft, on the part of the lender.

First of all, I'm not simply responding to one post at a time. I am responding to the overall gist of your position. I am capable of recalling and responding to multiple statements you make - though you do not seem to recall many of your own exact words.

As for "losing" money you put into a house -here's how that actually works:

1. If you don't make much of a down payment (and believe it or not, the vast majority of home loans are made without much money down - five percent, or even ZERO percent down, with CLOSING COSTS FINANCED - is more common), you don't really lose anything. Here's why - you're paying to live in a house month to month. If you rented the same house, it would probably rent for the same, or more, than your current house payment.

2. When a house is foreclosed on and sold - the bank only gets what is owed the bank. Any payment above that goes back to the person who bought the house to begin with.

Of course the reality is that the owner didn't make a house payment sometimes for over a YEAR (the foreclosure process is very lengthy). Also, those who aren't making house payments and realize that they are headed for foreclosure often trash the house - even move appliances and light fixtures and plumbing out of it, leaving a devalued home which will not bring top dollar.

If my husband lost his job, we have enough in savings to live on for, oh, about 6 months. Good grief, I do believe the man could find another job in that time. But the first thing we'd do is put the house on the market. We'd keep it in pristine condition during that time. And we'd make that house payment before we made any other payments. Why is that? Because we've got about $100,000 in equity in the house. That's better than money in the bank, or under the mattress. In other words, we truly do have a lot invested in this house.

If I lost my job, by the way, our ability to pay our bills wouldn't be affected. You know why that is? Because we've structured our life to be able to do without my job. We didn't buy a house at the top of our budget, and our debt to income ratio is very low.

But I digress. Back to the house. Say it DID go to foreclosure. It would sell for a decent price because it would be in excellent condition. The bank would get what was owed the bank, and we'd get at least a portion of our equity back. Meanwhile, we would have lived RENT AND PAYMENT FREE for at least a year.

How again is that theft on the part of the bank? My gosh, we owe the bank $190,000. Would it be right for us to simply not pay it?

One more point - nearly all banks have what is called a "work out" program. This program is designed to salvage loans when the borrower loses their job or has some other financial catastrophe which makes repayment under current terms impossible.

Guess what - the bank doesn't want your house, or your car, or your boat, or your backhoe. They just want you to repay your loan. They will work with you - but it has to be a two way street. If you just stop making payments, stop answering your phone, don't respond to mail, and don't communicate, repossession of the collateral is simply the next logical step.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Bored.

A helpful personal aside
If you want other posters to converse, I recommend:
- Be friendly.....or at least civil.
- Don't misrepresent others.
- Cut back on the smugness & self satisfaction. (The latter will make yer knuckles hairy.)
- Give the other side real consideration.

I like some of the commies here.
We treat each other with respect.
Disagreement doesn't require rancor.

Having been doing this for over a decade, I will assure you that any rancor you feel from me is a direct result of rancor shown towards me first; that, or a consistent repetition of false arguments or accusations, already exposed. I almost always never strike first. I simply defend with an eye towards confundity . Truth tends to not make people very happy.
I really do not require any lesson on such from you; though that effort is naturally appreciated if it comes from honest care for the quality of content, rather than say, a droll effort to mock me borne out of frustration.

I like a few of you commies too.

If you would be treated with respect, show some. I can be polite or I can be otherwise, and am a paragon of either. The menu is your choice, not mine.

 

[Kathryn]

Wow, and all along I've thought that we were responsible for our own actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Guess what - the bank doesn't want your house, or your car, or your boat, or your backhoe. They just want you to repay your loan. They will work with you - but it has to be a two way street. If you just stop making payments, stop answering your phone, don't respond to mail, and don't communicate, repossession of the collateral is simply the next logical step.

This is generally true, but sometimes banks (not all) don't want the loan repaid....or rather, they conduct their affairs in that fashion.
Sometimes they will seize the opportunity to extort better terms. Among debtors, brokers, bankers & a loan renegotiation consultant
I know, we see different behaviors.
- At the loan renewal date, they increase the interest rate to far above market rates (up to 16%), knowing full well that the borrower
can't refinance elsewhere.
- Banks will refuse to allow a refinance with another lender under more favorable terms. There are legal techniques to deny the loan
pay-off, eg, filing suit against the tenants so that estoppel agreements will scare off other lenders, filing suit against the borrower
to harm credit & borrowing ability, refuse partial release of liens in cross collateralized loans.
- Loan officers will do what takes them the least time & effort, ie, clear one's desk by just handing the project to the attorney.
- Loan officers can become petulant & retaliatory against the borrower.

We should note that even the government is behind such heinous behavior. Despite Obama's promises of help to home owners, I've
not met one who qualifies for his programs. (They appear to have qualifying criteria which disqualify vast numbers of applicants.)
Fannie Mae is a government created lender, & they are often in the news for refusing to work with delinquent borrowers who would
like to pay off their loans & keep their homes.

Socialism in the US is only for politically connected firms who are "too big to fail" according to their friends & beneficiaries in office.
The phrase "too small to fail" just never gained any traction.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

First of all, I'm not simply responding to one post at a time. I am responding to the overall gist of your position. I am capable of recalling and responding to multiple statements you make - though you do not seem to recall many of your own exact words.

That's fine, but it isn't clear when you are responding to one post of mine while quoting a different one. Especially one I didn't even make to you. I made no statement on your ability or lack to multitask; but if you quote one thing and speak to another nobody's going to get that but you.

As for "losing" money you put into a house -here's how that actually works:

1. If you don't make much of a down payment (and believe it or not, the vast majority of home loans are made without much money down - five percent, or even ZERO percent down, with CLOSING COSTS FINANCED - is more common), you don't really lose anything. Here's why - you're paying to live in a house month to month. If you rented the same house, it would probably rent for the same, or more, than your current house payment.

2. When a house is foreclosed on and sold - the bank only gets what is owed the bank. Any payment above that goes back to the person who bought the house to begin with.
I am aware of the process; I simply assert that it should be illegal, as it's rather immoral. And you realize that houses are not selling at their real value these days, right? And that the process of fund settlement is massively delayed for the former borrower, right? If the property must be turned over, the lender should return any money already paid on it. it is a similar problem to returning an item to the store and not getting a refund. Not a precise analogy, I admit, but enough similarity for my feeling on it.

Of course the reality is that the owner didn't make a house payment sometimes for over a YEAR (the foreclosure process is very lengthy). Also, those who aren't making house payments and realize that they are headed for foreclosure often trash the house - even move appliances and light fixtures and plumbing out of it, leaving a devalued home which will not bring top dollar.
I understand this sometimes happens. I would not agree with 'often', but, w/e...

If my husband lost his job, we have enough in savings to live on for, oh, about 6 months. Good grief, I do believe the man could find another job in that time. But the first thing we'd do is put the house on the market. We'd keep it in pristine condition during that time. And we'd make that house payment before we made any other payments. Why is that? Because we've got about $100,000 in equity in the house. That's better than money in the bank, or under the mattress. In other words, we truly do have a lot invested in this house.
And if that were abruptly taken from you, well, I'm sure it would hurt all that much more. No person could do that, but a lender could, and prides itself on doing so as rapidly as possible. It's part of their business model.

But I digress. Back to the house. Say it DID go to foreclosure. It would sell for a decent price because it would be in excellent condition. The bank would get what was owed the bank, and we'd get at least a portion of our equity back. Meanwhile, we would have lived RENT AND PAYMENT FREE for at least a year.

How again is that theft on the part of the bank? My gosh, we owe the bank $190,000. Would it be right for us to simply not pay it?
Again, my argument is that you lose all you'd already paid. Since the bank gets the entire property AND all improvements you ever made, plus the removal of your habits., memories and etc, you should get all the paid money back. Because the bank gets EVERYTHING. You might get something, if you're lucky; in today's market however the house WON'T actually sell for what you borrowed, and to pretend this is some sunny equal exchange in today's economy [or any economy of the past 10 years or so] is simply silly.

One more point - nearly all banks have what is called a "work out" program. This program is designed to salvage loans when the borrower loses their job or has some other financial catastrophe which makes repayment under current terms impossible.
And a point about this I haven't said anything about: they have these programs but don't actively employ them. There are even more incentives now for them to come up with delaying tactics. These policies are decorations and are not really used to any real consistent benefit to the public.

Guess what - the bank doesn't want your house, or your car, or your boat, or your backhoe. They just want you to repay your loan. They will work with you - but it has to be a two way street. If you just stop making payments, stop answering your phone, don't respond to mail, and don't communicate, repossession of the collateral is simply the next logical step.

They want both, my dear. They want their loan paid back, and the opportunity to sell your property, again, at interest with the potential to re-attain and sell it, to someone else. By foreclosing they get exactly that. they really do not care, in any human way, what happens to you.

And, btw, my last conclusion here is apparently fully supported by Revoltingest. A happy day.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Wow, and all along I've thought that we were responsible for our own actions.

smug non sequitur; irrelevant
You are certainly responsible for supporting the injustice of the system. If you want to talk responsibility

 

[Revoltingest]

And, btw, my last conclusion here is apparently fully supported by Revoltingest. A happy day.

Dream on.
The problems I see are with gov't owned/run lenders, particularly The Royal Bank Of Scotland (owned by the British gov't.) Fannie Mae, & Freddie
Mac (US gov't), & with increased gov't regulation which is making it much harder to borrow money or continue using money already borrowed.
Government is the enemy, not the rich.....except for the ones suckling at Uncle Sam's teat. (Sorry for that image, gentle posters.)

Btw, you should experiment with the quote feature so that it works better for you.

 

[Rakhel]

Non sequitur ad hom + strawman. Do you enjoy participating in conversations that exist only in your own head?

let's see,
you said, "...there is no poor thief capable of stealing a house..."
I pointed out that there is a poor thief capable of stealing a house.
your response, "and?" basically saying what they did was okay.
OWS stole a house from a bank.
No strawman, very sequitur and the only ad hom was the one you just committed

 

[Kathryn]

This is generally true, but sometimes banks (not all) don't want the loan repaid....or rather, they conduct their affairs in that fashion.
Sometimes they will seize the opportunity to extort better terms. Among debtors, brokers, bankers & a loan renegotiation consultant
I know, we see different behaviors.
- At the loan renewal date, they increase the interest rate to far above market rates (up to 16%), knowing full well that the borrower
can't refinance elsewhere.
- Banks will refuse to allow a refinance with another lender under more favorable terms. There are legal techniques to deny the loan
pay-off, eg, filing suit against the tenants so that estoppel agreements will scare off other lenders, filing suit against the borrower
to harm credit & borrowing ability, refuse partial release of liens in cross collateralized loans.
- Loan officers will do what takes them the least time, ie, clear one's desk by just handing the project to the attorney.
- Loan officers can become petulant & retaliatory against the borrower.

Hold up, hold up - let's keep mortgages and other types of loan separate, since there are different laws for each.

First of all -anyone who signed a short term mortgage, especially since mortgage rates have been so incredibly low for the past 6 or so years at LEAST - didn't use good judgment.

For many, many years now, it's been quite possible to sign a thirty year note locking in at under 6 percent - if you had decent credit and any sort of real down payment. Those are the only conditions one should buy a house under, by the way. Any other scenario means that you probably shouldn't buy a house.

My point is that most people whose homes are foreclosed on don't have much of an actual investment in the home.

I am a loan officer. I can't speak for all loan officers, or banks, of course, but I do have a different perspective than most people do.

Recently I refinanced a line of credit for a business. It was up for renewal after ten years. When they originally took out the loan, they had excellent credit. But now one of the owners had been late on his mortgage repeatedly. His credit score was MUCH lower than the other owners. Consequently, their interest rate went up considerably. It really sucked for the other owner, but maybe one should choose one's business partners more carefully.

(I was able, by the way, to get that rate reduced - it was still higher than it was before, but as a good loan officer, I went to bat for my customers.)

Rates are based on RISK. It's nothing personal. The higher the risk, the higher the rate.

Like I've said before, the bank doesn't want your property. They just want you to repay the loan.

When you are late on payments, your credit rating suffers. Loan interest rates are based on your credit score and credit worthiness - that's it - they're not vindictive.

However, from a banker's perspective, I want to point out something pertinent. A bank is MUCH more open and amenable to working WITH someone with an open line of communication. If a borrower avoids contact with the bank, and simply stops making payments, this does not sit well with the lender.

Let me ask you something. Say you let your neighbor borrow $1000. You and he agree that his riding lawn mower would be the collateral against the loan. He makes 3 $25 payments and then just disappears. You know he still exists, but suddenly he won't return your calls, he won't come to the door when you stop by, he won't respond to your certified mail.

Same scenario - but the neighbor comes over and explains to you that he's lost his job. He offers to pay you $10 a month till he gets back on his feet. Every month that he comes by to give you the $10 he gives you an update on his job search.

One day you look out the window and his riding lawn mower is sitting unattended on the front lawn with the key in the ignition. Under which scenario would you be more likely to go claim your collateral?

 

[Kathryn]

smug non sequitur; irrelevant
You are certainly responsible for supporting the injustice of the system. If you want to talk responsibility

I am responsible for my own credit rating. I am responsible for my own job performance. I am responsible for the manner in which I respond to others on this forum, and in "real life."

That was my point. But you knew that already.

But I notice that you're still on about that class warfare thing. Now, since I work at a bank and am a loan officer, I am one of the baddies. At least in your world, I am.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hold up, hold up - let's keep mortgages and other types of loan separate, since there are different laws for each.

I was speaking only of mortgage loans.

First of all -anyone who signed a short term mortgage, especially since mortgage rates have been so incredibly low for the past 6 or so years at LEAST - didn't use good judgment.

Mortgage loans for commercial property are only short term. It was typically for 10 years before the crash. Now it varies from 2 to 5 years.
When one already owns property, long term & self-amortizing loans are simply unavailable.

For many, many years now, it's been quite possible to sign a thirty year note locking in at under 6 percent - if you had decent credit and any sort of real down payment. Those are the only conditions one should buy a house under, by the way.
Any other scenario means that you probably shouldn't buy a house.

No argument about that.

My point is that most people whose homes are foreclosed on don't have much of an actual investment in the home.

Again, no argument. Although in some cases, it's the result of a drop in value.
I've lost about all equity in my home, even though it was once worth far more than I owed.
I'm in no trouble on this loan, btw.

I am a loan officer. I can't speak for all loan officers, or banks, of course, but I do have a different perspective than most people do.

Your bank sounds like a better one.
I prefer local banks.
But even they get marching orders from gov't auditors, & aren't as independent in decision making as they'd like to be.
(This is a lament of a friend who is a VP at a local bank.)

Recently I refinanced a line of credit for a business. It was up for renewal after ten years. When they originally took out the loan, they had excellent credit. But now one of the owners had been late on his mortgage repeatedly. His credit score was MUCH lower than the other owners. Consequently, their interest rate went up considerably. It really sucked for the other owner, but maybe one should choose one's business partners more carefully.

Partners! There's a learning curve in selecting them. But you don't get the lesson til after you've failed the exam.

Rates are based on RISK. It's nothing personal. The higher the risk, the higher the rate.

Risk is a factor, but I also find that it's a function of getting as high a rate as possible. When a bank sees a captive borrower (already have the
loan, but cannot refinance elsewhere), they can shoot for the highest rate they think they can get. RBS even proposed negative amortization.
For an existing loan which is in distress, there is no additional risk in extending the loan, since the alternative is foreclosure, sale, & guaranteed
major loss. But we have federal regulators requiring foreclosure in lieu of renewal in order to get "bad loans" off the books. So risk isn't necessarily
defined by looking at the situation analytically, but rather from a gov't definition of risk which doesn't differentiate between new & existing loans.
Silly analogy time:
If I'm in a bad part of town, I can avoid the risk of being robbed by burning all my money.

Like I've said before, the bank doesn't want your property.

This appears universally true.

They just want you to repay the loan.

This is sometimes not the case.

When you are late on payments, your credit rating suffers. Loan interest rates are based on your credit score and credit worthiness - that's it - they're not vindictive.

From a company perspective, yes. But individual loan officers are highly variable, even within one company.

However, from a banker's perspective, I want to point out something pertinent. A bank is MUCH more open and amenable to working WITH someone with an open line of communication. If a borrower avoids contact with the bank, and simply stops making payments, this does not sit well with the lender.

True dat.

Let me ask you something. Say you let your neighbor borrow $1000. You and he agree that his riding lawn mower would be the collateral against the loan. He makes 3 $25 payments and then just disappears. You know he still exists, but suddenly he won't return your calls, he won't come to the door when you stop by, he won't respond to your certified mail.
Same scenario - but the neighbor comes over and explains to you that he's lost his job. He offers to pay you $10 a month till he gets back on his feet. Every month that he comes by to give you the $10 he gives you an update on his job search.
One day you look out the window and his riding lawn mower is sitting unattended on the front lawn with the key in the ignition. Under which scenario would you be more likely to go claim your collateral?

My reactions would be the same as yours. I have hundreds of tenants who owe me money & have difficulty paying.
I work with those willing to work with me. No one goes to a collection agency if there's even a remote possibility
that they'll come thru partially. But my perspective is that of a principal, rather than an agent.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Kathryn, many times banks don't even offer 30 year fixed rate mortages.

Some just offer 15 year fixed while others only offer variable rate mortages.

No offense, my experience with banks are if they cannot make themselves a sweet heart deal, they are not interested.

I used to blame myself that my score was not high enough or my DTI was low.

Not any more. I'm close to 800 and my farm is free and clear.

Having my own business, I have to deal with personal credit and business credit.

Perhaps I don't want to pay myself that much to avoid a tax bracket.

Banks have told me they will not finance a second home.

Banks have told me they will not loan in an area where they cannot see comparisons.

If nothing sold in an area in the last few years, its hard to show a comp.

When all is said and done, they always offer me a loan, just not that low interest loan I want.

When I purchase cars and trucks, I always have to use some out of town financing to get the great rate I want.

Local banks used to give me loans on my signature. Not any more. I never paid late or gave them reason not to any more. It is almost like their hands are tied.

The second home I wanted to purchase, they offered me a variable rate starting at 6% and could go up 1% a year. I said thanks but no thanks.

Like I said, they will lend, but on their terms. I always blamed myself before because I was lacking something to get the great deals. I honestly don't see how I could become more qualified than I currently am.

It's no big deal, perhaps my finances are too complex for some people. Perhaps I don't like to show all my business records. Perhaps my tax returns are too big to shift through.

I just get frustrated with the endless requests. The thing is, they are not scared to lend to me, they just want to punk me out for a higher interest rate IMHO.

One time they offered me a 4% loan if I would put up my farm. That will never happen.

If I really wanted the house, it was not that much that I could have paid cash, I just don't want to spread things too thin. I do have to make payroll after all.

People wonder why the economy is so slow. Honestly I don't need another home, I just liked the view of the lake it had and would not mind having it.

I'm at the point in my life where I can take or leave just about anything. I have more than I will ever need already.

I probably just don't understand how banks work. I really don't even need to. I think I may be retiring soon. I'm looking forward to getting out of the rat race.