Originally Posted By SuperDry And to add to the general issue of mortgage fraud, let me contribute the particulars about one situation with which I'm familiar. I know of a situation where someone needed to close on a mortgage for a home purchase fairly recently - that is, after the sub-prime and Alt-A fiascoes were in full swing. They were completely up-front with the mortgage broker, but then there were problems in getting the loan funded. As I understand the situation, the broker asked the borrower to provide a tax return that overstated the borrower's income in order to satisfy the lender. In order to work around the problem, the mortgage broker reportedly asked the borrower to actually file a tax return that declared the over-stated income, and then after the loan was funded, suggested that an amended return could be filed to restate the income to IRS. This way, the tax return submitted to the lender would be correct at the time it was submitted. Can you believe this? After all that has gone on with residential mortgage lending, there are still mortgage brokers out there suggesting that people engage in deceptive behavior. This is exactly the line of reasoning that has lead us to the current crisis.
Originally Posted By Mr X Absolutely, SD. Imagine the stuff that went on back in the no-doc no-down times!! As far as companies overstating their loses, I don't buy that for a second. I've been watching this situation like a HAWK for the past year, and in each and every case I have seen the companies have been deceptive to the point of outright lying trying to minimize the impact of this issue, until they finally, one by one, went out of business. And yet somehow the ones still standing now are different? Uh huh.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Many in the financial sector aren't big fans of government oversight and regulations" Which were put in place chiefly because of the last round of major bank collapses in the depression. It seems the banks back then kind of screwed things up, too, and so we ended up with regulations. I can't believe people who keep demanding that regulations go away. They were put in place for a reason.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Again, if you want to "prove" me wrong, and others right, then you need to present some evidence, rather than just restating opinion.> As is obvious by the comments of others here, no one's buying your goalpost moving, DD. It was your original assertion that we got into this mess because there was political pressure on lenders to lend more to the poor. The first time that little theory popped up was from you. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory, not on anyone else to disprove it. I actually made no such claim that would need proving; before you posted your little laughable theory in #7, all I'd done in #4 was repost an E.J. Dionne column. So we see again that your call for "evidence" from me doesn't even apply. You, however, did assert strongly that it was political pressure to lend to the poor that led to all this. Asked to show evidence to that theory, you couldn't. Plain and simple. Nor could you show how lending to the poor outside of home mortgages had risen. You then fell back on "well, this bill wouldn't have passed if that wasn't the case." But a). that's pure conjecture on your part, and I gave a more plausible explanation for it, and b). the bill in question happened well after we got in the mess. Oh, and Mr. X, DD is playing semantic games again and claiming you "misrepresented" what he said. I see where that came from; you used the word "forced" as though DD had said the Democrats "forced" lenders to make bad loans; he said they were "pressured" to do so. On the one hand he's right in that he didn't technically say they were "forced" to; on the other hand he clearly said they were "pressured" to and implied that they wouldn't have done so absent this pressure (all without a shred of evidence of this, of course). So because you used the word "forced" he can now whine about being the victim of misrepresentation and get us into the semantic argument of "forced" vs. "pressured into doing something they wouldn't have otherwise done" as a way of trying to divert attention away from the fact that he can not back up what he says.
Originally Posted By jonvn Douglas is just lying. Playing games with semantics like this is basically being a liar. He resorts to this when backed into a corner. It is simply dishonest behavior.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I can't believe people who keep demanding that regulations go away. They were put in place for a reason.<< Exactly. And with all the recent changes making it tougher on individuals to declare personal bankruptcy, which banks and credit card companies backed in a big way, it's all the more ridiculous for these institutions to start looking for government bailouts now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas is just lying. Playing games with semantics like this is basically being a liar. He resorts to this when backed into a corner.> I'm neither lying nor playing semantic games, nor am I backed into a corner. I stated my opinion. If you don't think my opinion is correct, then present some evidence that shows I'm wrong, rather than restating your opinion, or attacking me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Still waiting for proof for the assertion that we're in this mess because of "political pressure" to lend more to poor people, or that any such increase in lending took place outside of home mortgages.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Still waiting for proof for the assertion that we're in this mess because of "political pressure" to lend more to poor people, or that any such increase in lending took place outside of home mortgages.> Why don't you prove that it didn't?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Maybe to a clueless idiot." Do you have like a list of trite phrase written down somewhere thta you simply recite from? This one being trite phrase #4? Pathetic. Someone who actually was able to argue about these things would be immediately able to provide the information asked for. You just come on here, make utterly baseless assertions over and over, and when called on it, you say "I never said that," or "Why should I provide proof." What an empty suit.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you have like a list of trite phrase written down somewhere thta you simply recite from?> No. Do you? <Someone who actually was able to argue about these things would be immediately able to provide the information asked for.> Unless, of course, it's anybody but me. <You just come on here, make utterly baseless assertions over and over, and when called on it, you say "I never said that," or "Why should I provide proof."> No. I give my opinion. It's not my fault that clueless idiots can't follow it, and instead distort what I said, or launch into personal attacks. How pathetic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Still waiting for proof for the assertion that we're in this mess because of "political pressure" to lend more to poor people, or that any such increase in lending took place outside of home mortgages.> <Why don't you prove that it didn't?> Because it doesn't work that way. If person A makes an assertion, particularly a very questionable one, and person B says "can you prove that assertion?" it's up to the original asserter (you, in this case) to prove it. Otherwise, one could just assert any old thing... (just dreaming something up here)... something like "JFK supported the space program because he got major kickbacks on the jobs created... 15 cents of every dollar that was supposed to go to scientists in Houston actually went directly into JFK's pocket!!!" If person B then says "Um, can you prove that assertion?" - a reply of "Can you prove it didn't happen?" is not a sufficient response. Instead, it is laughable, and makes the original assertion look untrue. The same goes for your "Why don't you prove that it didn't?" response here. It is, in fact, very Jr. High.
Originally Posted By jonvn Afraid so. Do you, on purpose, try to make the conservative viewpoint look bad? I have to think that is your goal.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If person A makes an assertion, particularly a very questionable one, and person B says "can you prove that assertion?" it's up to the original asserter (you, in this case) to prove it.> If I had made an assertion, and you were asking me to prove my assertion, then you'd have a point. But I gave an opinion, just as many others have done on this board. I backed up my opinion with reasons, and some examples, just as many others have done on this board. You can either accept my opinion, or disregard my opinion, or show my opinion is incorrect by presenting countering evidence, but I am under no obligation to prove to you something I didn't assert.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you, on purpose, try to make the conservative viewpoint look bad?> Do you, on purpose, try to look like a clueless idiot? I have to think that is your goal.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<As far as companies overstating their loses, I don't buy that for a second.>> I agree. That's a sure fire way to kill your stock price. If anything, public held companies tend to do the opposite.
