• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan

Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

It very much pertinent...the teaparty wants to hold everyone to THEIR standards...this guy is just as bad as the walmart worker that took a mortgage knowing they couldnt pay it back..YOU KNOW the people you teaparty lovers on here love to demean as scum for taking those loans..
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Deuce said:
You've missed the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

I've expanded the point of this thread.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Ockham said:
I've expanded the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

... and are apparently criticizing people for failing to respond to a subject that you declare is now the topic. Before you've told them that this is now the topic.
 
Last edited:
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Deuce said:
... and are apparently criticizing people for failing to respond to a subject that you declare is now the topic. Before you've told them that this is now the topic.
Click to expand...

It's one of the ways rightwingers try to derail discussions that make them uncomfortable.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

sangha said:
It's one of the ways rightwingers try to derail discussions that make them uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

It's the way of a lot of people to do that.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Deuce said:
... and are apparently criticizing people for failing to respond to a subject that you declare is now the topic. Before you've told them that this is now the topic.
Click to expand...

No criticism necessary... simply pointing out why no one has responded to that post, and provided a reason why. I've said the topic expanded, as topics do sometimes.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Ockham said:
No criticism necessary... simply pointing out why no one has responded to that post, and provided a reason why. I've said the topic expanded, as topics do sometimes.
Click to expand...

That is a lie. The topic has not expanded. This thread is not about any and every scandal thats ever happened
 
Last edited:
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

TheNextEra said:
Sorry but in this scenario the bank gets a bailout by the government while the person declaring bankruptcy gets a severe hit on their credit And can't even get a gas card for several years while the bank gets to keep operating status quo.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree - the banks should not have been bailed out, nor should the car company's. They should be allowed to fail the same way individuals are allowed to fail. Where that failure goes bankrupt and is sold off will open the market to other businesses to take it's place and perhaps, learn from the mistakes of the others who came before them. What was learned in this bailout was, if you get big enough, you don't have to be responsible or accountable for bad decisions; the government will save your ass. A horrible lesson.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Ockham said:
That has to be ignored you see... this is a tea party hit piece and your information is not in line with criticizing the tea party and making them out to be the evil boogie man (a.k.a. replacement for G.W. Bush as the doers of all things wrong scapegoat to protect this President's performance and administrations failings). By responding and answering such a post would be acknowledgement of wrong doing on the Democratic side and that's just NOT part of the partisan talking points.
Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:
Hey, how about we make a small trip back in time. 1992, bank kiting scandal.

Few names you might recognize followed by the number of checks they bounced. Oh yeah, source : Business | The List: Bickering House Hurts Itself -- Final True Confession Tells Little About Scandal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Richard J. Durbin, D, 12
Barbara Boxer, D, 143
Maxine Waters, D, 5
Henry A. Waxman, D, 434.
John Jr. CONYERS, D, 273
Steny H. Hoyer, D, 3

So...what does that say about Dem leadership?
If you truly want to go down to the mud and be really partisan and affiliate that guy with the entire movement, well there you go and there are some serious leadership names in the above list.
Click to expand...

1Perry said:
The arguement goes that it's only the "right" that demands personal accountability not the "left" so it's understandable those on the list above would write bad checks.

It's just like the excuses when a Dem gets caught with their pants down. eh, they aren't the ones argueing that cheating is wrong.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
I've expanded the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
No criticism necessary... simply pointing out why no one has responded to that post, and provided a reason why. I've said the topic expanded, as topics do sometimes.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
I tend to agree - the banks should not have been bailed out, nor should the car company's. They should be allowed to fail the same way individuals are allowed to fail. Where that failure goes bankrupt and is sold off will open the market to other businesses to take it's place and perhaps, learn from the mistakes of the others who came before them. What was learned in this bailout was, if you get big enough, you don't have to be responsible or accountable for bad decisions; the government will save your ass. A horrible lesson.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about check kiting or bailing out banks that are about to go under. please stop derailing this thread, which is about ONE Teabagger who is trying to blame a bank for giving him a loan.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
You make a good point. Are you consistent with someone you makes 30K a year who took out a $500K mortgage is also responsible for his/her actions.
Click to expand...

They are in equal responsibility with a bank being foolish enough to lend someone more money than they can repay.

Poor people didn't beg banks to create sub-prime loans. Sub-prime loans were invented by banks to take advantage of rising housing prices and sold to people who were higher risk because they were placing a bet that the value of the home would rise quickly and the person would sell the home before the interest rate spiked.

So, yes, the person making $30,000 a year applying for a $500,000 loan is responsible. But so is the idiotic bank that created such a possibility in the first place.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

FilmFestGuy said:
They are in equal responsibility with a bank being foolish enough to lend someone more money than they can repay.

Poor people didn't beg banks to create sub-prime loans. Sub-prime loans were invented by banks to take advantage of rising housing prices and sold to people who were higher risk because they were placing a bet that the value of the home would rise quickly and the person would sell the home before the interest rate spiked.

So, yes, the person making $30,000 a year applying for a $500,000 loan is responsible. But so is the idiotic bank that created such a possibility in the first place.
Click to expand...

The banks who sold the mortgages weren't being foolish. They just didn't care if the homeowner could pay the mortgage back because they knew that they were going to sell the mortgage to someone else, and therefor they wouldn't be on the hook when the homeowner defaulted.

The law used to require the bank making the mortgage to hold onto the mortgage, which was enough incentive to insure that the bank would not give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, but that changed with bank deregulation (thank you republicans). The deregulation allowed banks to group mortgages together and sell peices of these grouped mortgages as securities. Institutions like Lehman Bros, BofA, Goldman Sach etc bought them up like candy. When the housing bubble burst, these institutions were on hook, and were in danger of failing. That's what led to the bank bailout (ie TARP) under bush*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom