Texsox

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) Thats what I'm trying to get at, a bail out will only encourage more shady activity. At the time, having thousands of Savings and Loans going out of business was judged to destroy our economy. Again, Kap, SS, or Bureau may be better at answering that.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:12 PM) The US auto industry is still in trouble, basically we just paid them to keep making bad decisions. I'm not really familiar with Savings and Loan deal, but hey, we got another big Loan scandal. Is it really the best way to deal with it to bail em out again? and what about next time? Chrysler was in 1979 and they paid back the loan a couple years ahead of schedule.

At first I thought it was odd we went from the stimulus checks to kids cartoons, but then again, maybe it isn't that far of a trip.

No personal responsibility

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) I don't think that will happen, and if some do, that happens when a company makes poor decisions. If there is a bailout it will only serve as encouragement for more bad practices. Chrysler, Savings and Loan. Seems like it worked before.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) See, you are taking it to the extreme. If Kap is against a government bailout of bad loans, it is in no relation to a suggestion of removing the FDA. The government serves a purpose in protecting us from certain things, but not everything. If someone buys a bunch of junk on a credit card and don't pay, I sure as hell don't want to bail them out. They get bad credit, because they are a bad borrower. The borrower gets stiffed on the money they gave out because they made a bad credit decision. Having the private sector work this out is a much better solution. I think having a reasonable look at changing the loan process in the country could be useful, but those bad loans are done and the parties involved need to deal with them. fair enough

QUOTE(shipps @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) I didnt see the hearings but I heard that there was a rep from Indiana that was an embarrassment.That he was pretty much the lead coordinator to the Roger Clemens fan club and was obnoxious and belligerent in scolding Mcnamee and praised Clemens as being a "titan".It seems as if this hearing went nothing like I was expecting. Post 108, Chaos gave a report on the guy.

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.