Texsox

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Thing is, if a lender gives out a bad loan they do pay for it. I don't think the government should use tax dollars to bail out bad lenders. They also shouldn't bail out greedy or stupid borrowers. I heard a recent Dem plan of the government buying out all these bad home loans, and then refinancing them for people... a horrible idea. The lender and borrower should pay, not tax payers who had nothing to do with these ridiculous deals. If someone bought a home they cannot afford, they are going to lose it. Time to rent something they can actually afford. Sounds cold hearted, but really the best solution. Kap pr SS could respond better, but what would the effects be if dozens of banks and lenders went bankrupt?

http://cbs5.com/local/auto.loan.defaults.2.645976.html Sounds like she took personal reponsibility and was able to return the car, at some price. I'm guessing she lost most of her savings. She went in to look, not to buy. The salesperson's copy is different then hers. $8600 was beyond what she expected to be making without the disability.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) Then she better ask someone what they think if she doesn't know. Young and old, there's plenty of people to help. If you make the decision, you screwed up and will have to pay the consequences. That's ok... it's all ok, because that way, I can pay for everyone's mistakes because my government will take care of EVERYONE except me, because I won't sit around and wait for them to take care of me. Somewhere between the two is the balance. Believe it or not, there are victims, or else we would not have people serving time for fraud. We go to experts and get fraudulent advice. So lawyers, stock brokers, CPAs, and etc, find themselves in jail. Do you hire a CPA to check your CPA? Hire a car dealer to go with you to the car dealer? We want the government to protect us all the time. We do you want to drop the FDA and food inspections. We do not want to drop product liability laws and let everyone decide on their own if that machine is safe?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) Where in the hell does common sense take place? Let me see, college kid, no income, OH HELL YEA, I CAN SPEND $100K on a car!!! WTF is wrong with people? Or, I make $40K a year and OH HELL YEA, I CAN SPEND $750K on a house!!! Again, WTF is wrong with people? For all we know she has never entered into a contract before. She may have seen one of those car ads that advertise $400 lease payments and by the time you get to the contract, it's $1000. There are very few industries that are sleazier than cars and car repairs. My grandmother was very close to buying a time share "investment" that she could "leave for her kids". She had never bought anything like this before, my grandfather made all those decisions. You and I know that committing 75% of your savings and 30% of your fixed income on a time share was a huge mistake, but this was a "very nice man" who sounded "very trustworthy" and the expected profit was better than her CDs. Was she stupid? In this area, I guess so. Kap would say she had no PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Ultra-conspiracy theory: Isn't Clemens a Texan? Isn't our President a Texan? Isn't he also a Republican? Heck, didn't he even have ties to the Rangers at one point? Wow, hand me Kaps sig but that makes some sense. That scares me.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) Don't get me wrong, the dealership was dead wrong. But so is the stupid person. Either stupid or terribly gullible and trusting. I wonder if she had ever bought a car before.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Here's mine: 1. The dealer, who wrote a fraudulent loan 7. The lender, who doesn't bother verifying income 8 or lower. The person who is stupid. If, however, the buyer lied about her income directly, without any influence by the dealer, in that case I'd jump her from 3 to 1. And mine as well. Based on what we've read, I am positive The dealer knew this person should not be buying this car. They sell cars all the time and have the most knowledge. They also have the most to gain. The numbers changing like they did seems to implicate the dealer. Again, without knowing the buyer, we are all making assumptions regarding her financial IQ, and her ability to make a judgment on the salesperson's truthfulness.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) Like I said, they're BOTH in the wrong, but the woman is not, in any way, shape or form, a victim. The application was allegedly changed after the fact. Without specific knowledge of the woman, I can't say if she is or is not a victim. If she held a Harvard MBA, not a victim. If she has an IQ just below room temperature, was made promises and convinced by the salesperson, mislead, lied to, etc. I can easily see she was a victim.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) If a college student walked in to a BMW dealership, declared no provable income, and the dealer leased him a car anyway, who is responsible there? Why is there no responsibility on the lender to verify these things? Yes, she was clearly wrong. But If I walked in to a BMW dealership 8 years ago and tried to lease a car, I'd have been laughed out of the place. Why isn't it the job of someone above them to actually verify income levels before giving out a loan? This exact same thing was done all the time in the mortgage business, people would just ask a person for a number, and sometimes even suggest an income level in order to give them a loan. Should that be ok? She was wrong because she did not know how much it would cost to lease that car? What should have happened is she walks in and is told how much it is. She provides her income and down payment and is turned down and goes home. That is how our system works. Again, I am rememebring an old Sun-Times investigative piece where retirees where billed 10X what something should cost. The business made up b.s. stories, scared them, and made the sale. There has to be a balance between open season on consumers and the government bailing everyone out.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Tex, you have to see the difference between your furnace breaking and someone on a small fixed income with little savings leasing a $100,000 ultra-luxury sports car. She wasn't bilked out of this. She went into the BMW dealership herself and decided to lease a car that costs more than three times her annual income. She could not afford it and the dealer committeed fraud to get her the loan. If we learned she had an IQ of 75 or was 85 years old would your opinion change? My example is the furnance isn't broke, just needs a filter change and the contractor charges the victim $5,000. She should have known, she should have taken personal responsibility.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Screw personal responsibility! It's the government here to save the day! Not in all cases, you would also be saying the retiree who gets bilked out of their life savings by an unethical contractor should be on their own as well. And I know you would not believe that. Screw corporate responsibility and lets have an open season on anyone who can get swindled or talked into a bad deal? Is that in our nation's best interest?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) She agreed to the figures, at least implicitly when she signed the paperwork verifying her personal information. Even if it was just because she didn't review the information put down, she is still considered an accessory to the crime. I didn't read the article that way. We don't know what she knew and when. I don't like the conclusion that someone is not responsible, but then I think of retirees being bilked out of their life savings and see some similarities to this. If we say, she's an idiot and should have known better, should we not also say that old person should have known her furnace would not fail three times in three weeks requiring $10,000 in repairs each time? IIRC banks and lenders have restrictions from making questionable loans, who is that designed to protect?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) Or the first sentance, even. I believe it was lifted from the Mission Statement

This is all b.s. the biggest challenge facing the next President is getting himself reelected and more representatives from his party elected during the mid term elections. That's been the same for 200 years. Everything else gets used to achieve that end.

I would have thought that starting pitchers would be the last to be users.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) Yeah at that point "going big" means front row seats to the Wiggles concert. And loving it! I love my kids being mini adults, but I miss those ages as well.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) Its not. And I would be willing to bet that you would see probably Kap ripping Mitt in the GOP thread over that same speech. And most of the people here. Overall, the regular posters here are pretty fair bunch and call both sides out with equal zeal.

I don't like the conclusion this leads to, but my thinking has changed in this particular case. The car dealer committed fraud to get this woman a loan. Phrased another way, the result of their crime was a lender lent money to someone who should not have received the loan ~and~ a woman was given a loan she could not afford. If the car dealer does not commit fraud, she does not get the loan and lose her life savings. Is this much different then an unethical contractor who takes someone's life savings in costly and unnecessary repairs? Again, in case you forgot, I don't like the conclusion this leads to. And perhaps if she was just greedy and not stupid, she got what she deserves. But we do have laws to protect stupid people, and we know she should have known, but it seems the dealer had a greater responsibility.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) I don't know...but if you didn't see who was talking and only heard it...you could identify which party was talking just by their questions and comments. Sounds like they had a strategy before going in, which may be common to avoid overlapping, it may even have been coordinated between the aprties, but that seems really far fetched. From a philosophy point of view that may make sense, by siding with Clemens they are siding with MLB and by siding with McN they are siding with ?? Ideas anyone?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) I really don't understand how this ended up breaking down party lines. That seems strange. Could it be just a coincidence?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) This happened a lot with the mortgages, too, and is why the lenders are under investigation. Still, this woman is not a victim, but a moron. She has a fixed income of $2500. She knew the payments would be $1300. That doesn't even include the insurance on a $100,000 car with 500 HP, which I can only imagine are through the roof. She took out her life savings as a down payment on a LEASE, so she won't ever see that money again. Yes, the delaer fudged the numbers to get the loan approved, but she knew what her payments were. This isn't even like an ARM where they adjusted suddenly. I agree, she's a moron. But I imagine what the dealer did was criminal, or should be.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) The Coins will have to go to the grinder, but that would be a time waster as few people really look at their coins as much as their bills. People like to show of the 9/11 WTC attack on a $20 bill and "Tits of Erica" than do a silly coin trick. ..and since I do alot of my payments by plastic and debit cards, I have the same $20 bills sitting in my wallet for up to weeks at a time. Get yourself a Dremel tool. this is important. So marking those bills do not have too much effect. Maybe you could try an additional approach.

In additional to the ladies mistakes, isn't there some fraud on the part of the dealership? They submitted incorrect information. Seems like that is where the lender was duped, not by offering credit to someone whose correct information would not have qualified them, or at least I hope would not.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) Go back and read my original post as I've indicated which color sharpie I use. I'm not paying for the sharpies, I'm not the only one doing it, and it takes me all of 5 seconds to do. That's a considerable less amount of time than having to wake up early and spend an hour at church every Sunday in one of my previous "hobbies." Are you taking a file to the coins also? What a giant waste of time, but if it makes you feel better. 5 seconds, guess you don't have many bills.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Caption this Photo: He has one finger in my ear and the other in my . . .