# Loans and Banks



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Last week a group of banks got fined for dealing bad morgages. So my question is how is it the banks fault? No one makes you sign a loan. You know how much you make and its right there on the paper, the break down and everything.

Where are these banks that force people to sign loans, because I thought people tricked people out of money not into it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... anks-fined



> "After 18 months of negotiations, an agreement should be signed on Thursday between 40 U.S. states and five major banks, ie Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Financial and Ally. California, Nevada and New York would, however, refused to compromise......This agreement is expected to compensate property owners whose property was wrongfully seized and end a series of investigations related to questionable practices of banks. They were accused of such documents validated entry and verification without having to sign documents without the presence of a notary yet mandatory....."


One in five home loans are upside down in value. The banks are carrying full value instead of writing down the loans to save their "assets".


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Ah so I understood what was happening wrong. I suppose lack of sleep during calving lead to that.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

when I got my mortgage in 2005, our "banker" was extremely helpful.

To the point, the appraisal on a $150,000 house showed $210,000 in value.

I asked a law firm to go over the documents with me in town and make sure everything I was signing was on the up and up. "you'd be better off just signing the document" was the advice I was given.

Alot of people in the real estate business knew they were in a rather interesting place in the market.

We didn't foreclose because of a bad deal, we foreclosed because of a bad divorce. But there is STILL a lot of shady actions that occurred even in my own mortgage at that time.

Mis-stated income, upside down mortgage.

My banker AND my own dad's advice. "Buy what you can afford on your salary after 5 years."

Never again.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Sadly it seems most peoples wants overshadow their common sense when it comes to getting a loan and the banks feed on that. They are like used car salesmen. Their job is to "sell" you a loan. Just because you are eligible for a loan does NOT mean you can afford it..........


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

There is an interesting movie called 'Inside Job' that paints a pretty clear picture in how we all got into this mess.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bad Dog said:


> There is an interesting movie called 'Inside Job' that paints a pretty clear picture in how we all got into this mess.


Good call. :beer:

Probably one of the best short reads about the whole mess. Thank you Congress!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

Part I: How We Got HereThe American financial industry was regulated from 1940 to 1980, followed by a long period of deregulation. At the end of the 1980s, a savings and loan crisis cost taxpayers about $124 billion. In the late 1990s, the financial sector had consolidated into a few giant firms. In 2001, the Internet Stock Bubble burst because investment banks promoted Internet companies that they knew would fail, resulting in $5 trillion in investor losses. In the 1990s, derivatives became popular in the industry and added instability. Efforts to regulate derivatives were thwarted by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, backed by several key officials. In the 2000s, the industry was dominated by five investment banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns), two financial conglomerates (Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase), three securitized insurance companies (AIG, MBIA, AMBAC) and three rating agencies (Moody's, Standard & Poors, Fitch). Investment banks bundled mortgages with other loans and debts into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which they sold to investors. Rating agencies gave many CDOs AAA ratings. Subprime loans led to predatory lending. Many home owners were given loans they could never repay.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Banks dont loan Money for mortgage transctions.
They have NO Skin in the game.

Banks service loans for Investment trusts, (Pools of Investors from all over the world, Multiple INVESTORS!!) which nulls and voids the transaction, as it securitizes the transaction ie seperates the security instrument (note) from the mortgage.
Banks offer credits/credit. And are paid a premium for their part in this sham.

'Mortgage' in Latin has an interesting meaning.
Mort = Death
Gage = Pledge

I think Thomas Jefferson said something about a Central Bank being more dangerous to our Liberties than Standing Armies..

*'It is well enough that the American people do not understand our Banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe that there would be revolution before tomorrowing morning.'
-Henry Ford*

The average lifespan of a Fiat (Worthless Paper) currency 42 years. 
America is now at 41 years, since Fed Reserve Chairman Milton Freedman (and Nixon) took us off the Gold Standard. 
Do the math.

The point of my post in relation to the original posters question, is that Subprime Loans (Liars loans) while crippling, were only 15% of the entire mortgage market. 
85% were FHA & Conventional loans, underwritten to high standards. 
Subprime per se, did not cause the mortgage meltdown. The economy did. 
1 in 3 Manufacturing jobs left this country under Bush, or since 2000.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Duplicate


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Food for thought.



> "Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing"
> - Ralph M.
> Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury
> 
> ...


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

There may be a few reasons, but for me it boils down to the idiots who took out loans they couldn't pay back. Now it is ok to walk away from damn near any loan. What a joke!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Savage260 said:


> There may be a few reasons, but for me it boils down to the idiots who took out loans they couldn't pay back. Now it is ok to walk away from damn near any loan. What a joke!


Wrong.
1 in 3 Manufacturing jobs LEFT America since 2000. One cant pay a mortgage with no job, or underemplyment.










The loans you describe (Stated Income, NINA Subprime Loans), were only 15% of the mortgage market. 
We are not in this mess from Subprime loans failures, but from the Lending policies enacted by the FED and Congress.

The other 85% of the mortgage market, was FHA and CONV loans, ie Underwritten to difficult and normal standards, NOT stated loans in any way, shape or form.

Wall Street BET against the very mortgage instruments they created via derivatives, and lost heavily, to the tune of Trillions of dollars, and Joe Taxpayer was told by Bush, Greenspan, Paulson et al, to BAIL them out, or there would be Martial Law in the streets. 
Some Wall Street companies like Goldman made fortunes off of derivative trading, as they KNEW the market, they created it.

Yours is overly simplistic, and a superficial and flawed analysis. 
Turn off your radio and TV and read whats really happening.
Theres a whole nuther world outside on Main street.

And if you gripe about Joe Taxpayer walking away from a mortgage 'death pledge' he came never recover from, why is he not entitled to the same Bailouts that the too big to fail banks were? 
You do understand that with the money stolen from US Taxpayers to pay these banks their bonuses and bailouts, every homeowner in America could have his home paid off? Talk about stimulating the economy..

And I dont want to hear about Too Big to Fail...theres no such thing. 
We either have a Capitalist system or not.
And there are another 6000 Banks to take the places of the Wall Street criminal bankster banks that we just Bailed Out.

In essence it was another wealth swindle. The rich get richer, the middle class get wiped out, the poor get poorer.
Money isnt lost, it just changes hands.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 1 in 3 Manufacturing jobs LEFT America since 2000. One cant pay a mortgage with no job, or underemplyment.


Was that because people were leaving the manufacturing jobs to jump into the Real Estate game? Ie becoming realtors, appraisers, builders, contractors, land developers, loan officers, mortgage processors, home inspectors, etc

Now which president made into the law to loosen the restrictions of getting home loans? What president pushed for lower interest rates? What president pushed for low income people to own homes?



> In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[18] Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.[18]





> In essence it was another wealth swindle. The rich get richer, the middle class get wiped out, the poor get poorer.
> Money isnt lost, it just changes hands.


Do you think that the people making the decisions to expand these loans to the low and moderate income people are not rich trying to get richer? Look at the Clinton's net worth!!!



> Wall Street BET against the very mortgage instruments they created via derivatives, and lost heavily, to the tune of Trillions of dollars, and Joe Taxpayer was told by Bush, Greenspan, Paulson et al, to BAIL them out, or there would be Martial Law in the streets. Some Wall Street companies like Goldman made fortunes off of derivative trading, as they KNEW the market, they created it.


WHO BAILED OUT THE BANKS???? Wasn't it on this presidents term? Wasn't it a Democratic controlled house and senate?



> And if you gripe about Joe Taxpayer walking away from a mortgage 'death pledge' he came never recover from, why is he not entitled to the same Bailouts that the too big to fail banks were?


So you are saying people should not take personal responsibility? People are walking away from loans that they can pay. Yes this is happening everyday. People who can make the payments on time are not financially strapped are walking away from loans. They will just take a credit hit for 3-5 years. They are walking away from a $300,000 home that is now worth $200,000. How do they know that the market might not rebound in 5 years? Is it right for them to do so?

I agree totally that the bail outs were a bunch of BS. The bail outs did nothing for the people. There were also banks ready to swoop in and buy up the assests of the bailed out banks. Then the goverment stepped in and bailed them out....so capitalism could not happen.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> Was that because people were leaving the manufacturing jobs to jump into the Real Estate game? Ie becoming realtors, appraisers, builders, contractors, land developers, loan officers, mortgage processors, home inspectors, etc


No, Service Sector jobs didnt grow by 33%. 
But Manufacturing Jobs Lost 1 in 3 jobs during Bushs tenure. Its called Offshoring, primarily due to IRS (Fed Reserve) Tax Laws and Slave Labor. Yours is really a silly question.



> Now which president made into the law to loosen the restrictions of getting home loans? What president pushed for lower interest rates? What president pushed for low income people to own homes?


The Repayments on Loans to Minorities made under that President (Carter/Clinton) were Excellent Loans that performed quite well, in truth as far as performance goes, It had to do with Discrimination (Not lending in Black Ghetto areas and Redlining), NOT stated income Liar loans. You listen to too much Rush Limbaugh..
Again, only 15% of loans were aggressive type loans. 85% were FHA & Conventional loans-ie Tough Loans.



> In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.
> Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans


 And all of these loans performed. They were not Subprime Garbage we saw under Bush.

Meet the Founder of The Subprime Loan-*Roland Arnall.* Subprime Founder, Bush Appointee to the Netherlands, Holocaust survivor and Multi Billionaire.











> Do you think that the people making the decisions to expand these loans to the low and moderate income people are not rich trying to get richer? Look at the Clinton's net worth!!!


 CLinton is chump Change. A Puppet worth a few million.
The Founder of the Subprime Mortgage was Roland Arnall, Holocaust Survivor, Bush Appointee to the Netherlands, and Multi Billionaire. Now deceased. See above. He sure Looks trustworthy to me?



> WHO BAILED OUT THE BANKS???? Wasn't it on this presidents term? Wasn't it a Democratic controlled house and senate?


 Bush, Paulson and Bernanke called for the Bailouts. 
And the lackey politicians on BOTH sides, including Speak of the House and Repubicrud WHIP-Supported the Bailouts. Ron Paul did not.



> So you are saying people should not take personal responsibility? People are walking away from loans that they can pay. Yes this is happening everyday. People who can make the payments on time are not financially strapped are walking away from loans. They will just take a credit hit for 3-5 years. They are walking away from a $300,000 home that is now worth $200,000. How do they know that the market might not rebound in 5 years? Is it riht for them to do so?.


The Bailouts PAID for the Loans! The Banks have BEEN Compensated for defaults.
The crisis was caused BY the Banksters, Not by Joe Q Public.
The Banksters KNEW the loans would default in 1-5 years and insured them 30x over, ie they receive $3 Million for every 100,000 loan that defaults. They have NO interest in keeping people in their homes.



> I agree totally that the bail outs were a bunch of BS. The bail outs did nothing for the people. There were also banks ready to swoop in and buy up the assests of the bailed out banks. Then the goverment stepped in and bailed them out....so capitalism could not happen.


 We agree on something, then.
Next to the Federal reserve and Current Disasters in the Middle East, This is the biggest Fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Companies ship jobs over seas because, A tired of all the laws and regulations or B, because of the unions.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

blhunter3 said:


> Companies ship jobs over seas because, A tired of all the laws and regulations or B, because of the unions.


Neither.
Slave Labor in China...No benefits, work them 7 days per week, 14 hour days for peanuts.

GM was Americas Largest Employer through the 1930s/40s/ 50s/60s. And most profitable companies.
Its Union started in 1934.
America built the best cars in the world in that time, with the possible exception of Germany.
GM shipped jobs offshore WHILE reporting record profits, just recently.

Globalists wants slaves, Not workers rights or jobs at home.
From the coal miners who had Bombs dropped on them and their families by President Wilson and the US Air Force in WV Miners Wars, to Present day Offshoring, its all the same. 
And parrots Parrot the talking head talking points, which are nonsense.










Blair Mountain West Virginia Miners Wars where US Army fired on, Bombed and killed US Civilian workers who wanted child safety laws, fair pay, workers rights like a 40 hour week, Compensation and Not Script which was loansharking for pay, an Overtime.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

BT, all I am hearing from you is Bush bashing. You cut and paste other people's ideas, but never say any thing of your own. You seem to be so smart, but you have yet to say any thing about how you will make things better. Pretty funny that you include quotes from as far back as James Madison, but yet every thing is Bush's fault. These problems are much bigger than Bush and as you have pointed out, started long before.

As far as the people who lost their jobs......Yea, it sucks, but they should just be able to walk away from a loan......NO!
If you can't afford your current home, you sell it and move to a place you can afford. I am sick of hearing of these folks that had high paying jobs that are "too good" to take lower paying jobs. They think because they made X before they should always make that much. You do what you need to do to survive and provide for your family.

The people that were too stupid to figure out what they could afford and took the bank's word for how much they could spend......well, you can't fix stupid!

It may be simplistic, but it works for me.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Savage260 said:


> BT, all I am hearing from you is Bush bashing. .


Bush should be in Jail wearing an Orange Jumpsuit. He Lied us into 2 disasterous wars, spent more than any other President before him, and presided over an economic and housing crisis and sent not 1 Bankster to Prison.



> You cut and paste other people's ideas, but never say any thing of your own. You seem to be so smart, but you have yet to say any thing about how you will make things better.


 Everything Ive typed are my own ideas. 
Better? Term Limits, End the Federal Reserve, Gold backed currency, Open Hand counted ballots and transparent voting, making Congress register as a Foreign entity, as they work primarily for Banksters, Wall Street, Israel and Lobbyists.



> Pretty funny that you include quotes from as far back as James Madison, but yet every thing is Bush's fault. These problems are much bigger than Bush and as you have pointed out, started long before.


Bush presided over the worst economic and housing crisis in history. It is just getting started, Round 2. 
We will never recover from this...and that was the plan all along. 
All you Bush cheerleaders need to wake up to reality. Just becuse Bush the Rino had an 'R' in front of his name did not make him a good President, he was one of the worst ever, he has helped kill millions of people, and destroy millions of American lives.
His dad, the CIA director was not much better. Mr New World Order himself.



> As far as the people who lost their jobs......Yea, it sucks, but they should just be able to walk away from a loan......NO!
> If you can't afford your current home, you sell it and move to a place you can afford. I am sick of hearing of these folks that had high paying jobs that are "too good" to take lower paying jobs. They think because they made X before they should always make that much. You do what you need to do to survive and provide for your family.


 The People who lost their Jobs Cant Pay FOR Their Loans! And Wall Street made Fortunes Off of this knowledge, betting against these loans, insuring them for 30xs the value of the property. In reality, the Homeowners OWN their homes, They created and paid FOR their Homes at time of signing at closing. No money was ever loaned.
If you dont understand our banking system, I cant argue with you about this or explain it to you.
Do some homework first.



> The people that were too stupid to figure out what they could afford and took the bank's word for how much they could spend......well, you can't fix stupid!
> It may be simplistic, but it works for me.


Again, Only 15% of the mortgage market was Subprime (Liars Loans, Stated Loans, NINA Loans). This didnt cause the collapse.
85% of mortgages were FHA & Conventional Loans, traditionally underwritten to tough standards in the last decade, and these loans Have Defaulted and are in jeopardy. And its bringing down the country.
With all of the money stolen from the Taxpayers and given to our Socialist banks via Bush, Every Mortgage in the country couldve been paid For, Free and Clear.
Put that in your Pipe and smoke it. Think about that and get back to me.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

You don't think that 33% of those jobs that were lost were also due to people shifting to a different work force? You are blind. I know many people that gave up blue collar jobs and jumped into the real estate profession. Or they left the factory line and went into contracting. Also with the housing crisis..... How about these manufacturing jobs.....making siding, shingles, nails, tools, lumber, etc. Those are all manufacturing jobs that had major cut backs once the housing bubble burst!

Now you were commenting on the FHA loans. The majority of loans made during that time were FHA because the loans were easy to get. People who could get a regular loan when to FHA. Now these same FHA loans are going upside down. Also the Sub prime and interest only loans, etc. Who loosened those...hmmm... Same legislation that I quoted before.

I don't listen to Rush at all. I can't stand the man. He is the republican version of Rachel Madow and Oberman. I can't stand them either. I know this because I work in the industry and warned my fellow colleagues about this. They just passed it off that I was dumb and young. Well some now are saying you were right. History repeats itself....also it was easy to see when home values were rising 50% a year in some market and income was only rising at 5% that something had to give.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I often notice the phrase predatory lending. I often wonder who was the predator and who was the prey. I think some bankers were predators, but so were the people who came in the door for loans they knew they could never repay. The prey was the American taxpayer. The predators were bankers and those taking loans.

blhunter3 your right about why companies left. BT is also right about the cheap labor. If we sit and think a while there are also other reasons, but those are the top ones. Unions made salaries so high in the United States that companies could not make a profit. Cheap labor in other countries at the same time beckoned to U. S. companies.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> You don't think that 33% of those jobs that were lost were also due to people shifting to a different work force? You are blind. I know many people that gave up blue collar jobs and jumped into the real estate profession. Or they left the factory line and went into contracting. Also with the housing crisis..... How about these manufacturing jobs.....making siding, shingles, nails, tools, lumber, etc. Those are all manufacturing jobs that had major cut backs once the housing bubble burst!.


 Job Losses are Job losses, 
If a vacancy is reported from one resigning and leaving for another industry, the lost job is later filled with a Job Wanted ad.
Thats not what happened during the Bush Years.
1 in 3 Manufacturing jobs were Lost, Forever. 
There were no re hires or vacancies filled. Please tell me you understand this......If you dont, youve got serious problems that I cant help you with.



> Now you were commenting on the FHA loans. The majority of loans made during that time were FHA because the loans were easy to get. People who could get a regular loan when to FHA.


Wrong
FHA has some of the more difficult Underwriting guidelines-Credit Score & Credit history is reviewed, job time, Debt ratios etc
They are not easy loans to obtain by any means. No moreso than Conventional loans.



> Now these same FHA loans are going upside down. Also the Sub prime and interest only loans, etc. Who loosened those...hmmm... Same legislation that I quoted before.


FHA loans are defaulting due to economy and job losses,. FHA loans have existed for decades, their defaulting is a Bush phenomenon due to the economy.
The Bush appointee to the Netherlands, Roland Arnall, is the Founder of the Suprime Mtg. He is a Billionaire. He got his cronies in Congress to pass legislation to introduce such products. Wall Street than packaged them as A paper when they were F Junk paper, and made trillions and we covered the losses.
You really should educate yourself before typing, I hate making anyone look this uneducated.



> I don't listen to Rush at all. I can't stand the man. He is the republican version of Rachel Madow and Oberman. I can't stand them either. I know this because I work in the industry and warned my fellow colleagues about this. They just passed it off that I was dumb and young.


 Good, he is a Vietnam Draft dodger, had a cyst on his backside and played it up, now he is a Chickenhawk sellout.



> Well some now are saying you were right. History repeats itself....also it was easy to see when home values were rising 50% a year in some market and income was only rising at 5% that something had to give.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Plainsman said:


> I often notice the phrase predatory lending. I often wonder who was the predator and who was the prey. I think some bankers were predators, but so were the people who came in the door for loans they knew they could never repay. The prey was the American taxpayer. The predators were bankers and those taking loans.
> 
> blhunter3 your right about why companies left. BT is also right about the cheap labor. If we sit and think a while there are also other reasons, but those are the top ones. Unions made salaries so high in the United States that companies could not make a profit. Cheap labor in other countries at the same time beckoned to U. S. companies.


Again, You talk about the small15% of that mortgage market, Subprime. 
NOT the other 85% which was CONV and FHA Loans.
And Not every Subprime loan was a Fraudulent Liar Loan, Most were geared to self employed borrowers with lots of write offs.

The Predators are the Wall Street Banksters who KNEW the loans and economy would default, they insured the loans for 30xs their value, Bet against the same loans they underwrote, invested in Derivatives, Packaged this crap paper as A paper when it was JUNK paper and sold it to overseas investors or pension funds.

And for the record, GM and other Corporations were reporting RECORD Profits when they were moving operations overseas.
Corporations playing the 'broke' card wont work, its not true and its not factual.









Nothing is more Union than the United States of America, a UNION of States.
Those denigrating Unions are simply repeating talking points from Neo CONS and other parrots.
Do you actually believe half of what you write?


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

The talk of Occupy Wall Street and its validity etc is mostly nonsense to distract us, while a private foreign corporation loots this nation of its wealth.
Fiat has a life span of 42 years. USA is at year 41.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> FHA loans are defaulting due to economy and job losses,. FHA loans have existed for decades, their defaulting is a Bush phenomenon due to the economy.
> The Bush appointee to the Netherlands, Roland Arnall, is the Founder of the Suprime Mtg. He is a Billionaire. He got his cronies in Congress to pass legislation to introduce such products. Wall Street than packaged them as A paper when they were F Junk paper, and made trillions and we covered the losses.
> You really should educate yourself before typing, I hate making anyone look this uneducated.


Yes they have existed. But they loosened the requirements don't you get that!!!

I have worked in the industry for 20 years. My family has worked in the industry for 60 years.... I know what I am talking about. So you should not make assumptions about education levels.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

BT, at least you're not bitter or anything. My god, take a deep breath.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

WELCOME BACK RYAN~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> > FHA loans are defaulting due to economy and job losses,. FHA loans have existed for decades, their defaulting is a Bush phenomenon due to the economy.
> > The Bush appointee to the Netherlands, Roland Arnall, is the Founder of the Suprime Mtg. He is a Billionaire. He got his cronies in Congress to pass legislation to introduce such products. Wall Street than packaged them as A paper when they were F Junk paper, and made trillions and we covered the losses.
> > You really should educate yourself before typing, I hate making anyone look this uneducated.
> 
> ...


You dont have a clue what youre talking about.

I managed a Mortgage office for a top 10 Mortgage Lender/Bank. No requirements were loosened with regard to FHA underwriting.

If anything, FHA requirements became tougher, ie Credit Scores were imposed, where, for 15 Years I was in the business prior, Never existed. 
Automated Underwriting became the model, in addition TO the Manual Underwriters Approval on Credit, DTI, Payment history et al.

FHA was lenient regarding prior bankruptcys and similar to VA loans for Vets. Which also have a high default rate.
Its the Economy Mr., and always has been.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

FLOYD said:


> BT, at least you're not bitter or anything. My god, take a deep breath.


If youre not mad, youre not paying attention...

Every time a foreclosure is completed two things happen: a family loses a home and an investor pension funds who might be funding the same family is taking a loss. 
Neither one should be happening since the original debt or obligation giving rise to the supposed mortgage or deed of trust lien has been paid several times over. (Lender was Paid at Closing when the Note was Signed AND Default Insurance for 30xs the loan)

The investment pool is getting these "bad" mortgages thrown over the fence into their pool despite the fact that they have very specific agreements stating that no such mortgages will be allowed into the pool. But that's OK because the creditor - the REMIC or Trust - has probably been paid or settled and doesn't even exist any more.

The Banks and servicers MUST HAVE THEIR FORECLOSURES or else they face a torrent of potential problem arising from the fact that they are in effect still trading on mortgages and obligations that are dead, extinguished, gone.

Your local bank is not your best friend or a public purpose serving charity. 
For instance, when a bank extends a mortgage (a word literally meaning "death security pledge" from the latin root "mortuus" for death and germanic "security pledge") they are not doing you some charitable service to help you buy your home. They are rating your credit risk and evaluating you as a potential profit engine for their shareholders.

That might not be the most pleasant way to think about it, but it is what it is. A bank is not a charity. 
It does not really care if your mortgage results in jobs or happiness for you. Of course, it would be great if this did because that might result in more future business, but the bank does not need these things from you in order to generate a profit. 
It really just wants to manage its risks in a way that helps to generate a profit for their shareholders without excessive risk. Obviously, the debtor finds the mortgage advantageous, but don't confuse this service for charity work. 
It's just good old fashioned profit seeking and offering a service where one is needed (in this case, the debtor being able to obtain money they could not otherwise currently obtain), though NO money was ever put forth-Banks dont loan money, they loan CREDIT.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If anything, FHA requirements became tougher, ie Credit Scores were imposed, where, for 15 Years I was in the business prior, Never existed.


Really..... Hmmm... So why were sub par homes that did not fit the requirements for FHA getting approved? Why then was I as a realtor getting requests from banks to do a BPO/drive by appraisal for FHA among other types of loans? BTW... I never did a one because I told all the banks/lenders that is what an appraiser if for.

Then also with the FHA offering lower interest loans this also put pressure on other lending institutions to compete?

I hope you didn't work for countrywide or AIG....they were one of the top 10 lending institutions at one time. oke:


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> > If anything, FHA requirements became tougher, ie Credit Scores were imposed, where, for 15 Years I was in the business prior, Never existed.
> 
> 
> Really..... Hmmm... So why were sub par homes that did not fit the requirements for FHA getting approved? Why then was I as a realtor getting requests from banks to do a BPO/drive by appraisal for FHA among other types of loans? BTW... I never did a one because I told all the banks/lenders that is what an appraiser if for.
> ...


FHA requires its own apprisal form and inspection. Always has/had. 
Drive by appraisals do not conform and are not acceptable in any way for FHAor will get funded. 
If you were told this, you were misinformed or you yourself, are misinformed.

There is a remodeling FHA loan that exists with draws for contractors. Its sort of its own animal and seperate from a Residential Owner-Occ Loan.
FHA did not offer lower rates, but Market rates, same as CONV market.

Not every lender is FHA approved, and most Banks do NOT offer FHA loans.
The company I worked for was a Top 10 Private Mortgage Company. 
NOT CWide/BAC-Publically held or AIG-Insurer.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes....FHA had its own appraisal and standards. Home were passing that should have never passed!!!

FHA also allowed the 3% down or had assistance for down payments from programs that were federally funded or were "tax exempt".
Then the IRS ruled these to be illegal.



> Down payment assistance and community redevelopment programs offer affordable housing opportunities to first-time homebuyers, low- and moderate-income individuals, and families who wish to achieve homeownership. Grant types include seller funded programs, the [1] Grant America Program and others, as well as programs that are funded by the federal government, such as the American Dream Down Payment Initiative, or local governments, often using mortgage revenue bond funds.
> 
> On May 27, 2006, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2006-27, categorizing the non-profit seller funded down payment assistance programs (DPA programs) as "scams."[4] The IRS ruled that organizations such as AmeriDream and Partners in Charity are no longer eligible for non-profit status and are not acting as "charitable organizations" as defined by the IRS. This ruling was based largely on the circular nature of the cash flows, in which the seller pays the charity a "fee" after closing. Many believe that the "grant" is really being rolled into the price of the home. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are higher default and foreclosure rates for these mortgages.[5]
> 
> ...


FHA had lower requirements....ie 3% down, lower credit approvals, allowed the assistance programs etc. This was before many of the subprime's came about. FHA loans forced other lending institutions to do the "creative" lending.

If you can't see that when the goverment tried to get into banking it failed.

Also the PMI.....who funded most of the mortgage insurance for all loans?????


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> Yes....FHA had its own appraisal and standards. Home were passing that should have never passed!!!
> 
> FHA also allowed the 3% down or had assistance for down payments from programs that were federally funded or were "tax exempt".
> Then the IRS ruled these to be illegal.
> ...


Church,
You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

FHA has been the most widely used 'Lender' since the 1980s. And around since 1935.

Nothing has changed with FHA underwriting, its repayment on loans even with grants for downpayment was always excellent, same As VA (Veterans), which also has Down Payment assistance and 'grants for money down payment.

No one competed with FHA, its its own animal, stricter underwriting, auto/manual underwriting, credit scoring, credit reviews, etc
The only leniency is for BK, and that is 2 years with good explanantion like medical emergency etc

FHA requires its own appraisal and inspections, no homes can pass unless they meet criteria. No appraiser I know or knew ever engaged in Federal Fraud to pass a property on a $300 appraisal, something about risk/reward...

AIG, Genworth, PMI were all funded by the Fed.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> FHA requires its own appraisal and inspections, no homes can pass unless they meet criteria. No appraiser I know or knew ever engaged in Federal Fraud to pass a property on a $300 appraisal, something about risk/reward...


OMG.....Then how can some of these homes pass or appraise for the value they did??? How did the market become inflated? How can homes rise in value 25-50% in one year? When inflation was at 5% or less? If FHA, Fannie, Fredie, any lending institution pvt or goverment was not doing things shady how did all of this happen?

I am out of this discussion if you can't see that FHA, Fannie, Fredie, etc. Did not contribute to the problem. I am also out if you can't realize that it was not the Bush administration that opened the doors for all of this. I am out of this discussion if you are too blind to see that FHA guidelines were getting fudged by loan processors, appraisers, mortgage originators, etc. I am out if all you can do is call names and call people uneducated when they are proving their points.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> > FHA requires its own appraisal and inspections, no homes can pass unless they meet criteria. No appraiser I know or knew ever engaged in Federal Fraud to pass a property on a $300 appraisal, something about risk/reward...
> 
> 
> OMG.....Then how can some of these homes pass or appraise for the value they did??? How did the market become inflated? How can homes rise in value 25-50% in one year? When inflation was at 5% or less? If FHA, Fannie, Fredie, any lending institution pvt or goverment was not doing things shady how did all of this happen?
> .


Inflation of value is courtesy of loose credit via the FED. A Bubble thats artifically created.
It is not 'subpar housing' as you ascribe or mention. Far from it.

FNMA and FHMC wrote loans that passed Guidelines for Securitization, inflated values came courtesy of the FED.
The repayment on these loans was fine in a good economy, downpayments were required on the CONV loans, again it was the Economy : Unemployment, Job Losses offshore that contributed to Non payment in these loans.



> I am out of this discussion if you can't see that FHA, Fannie, Fredie, etc. Did not contribute to the problem.


The FED controls monetray policy, NOT FHA or Fannie Mae. My pet dog knows at least this much.
They underwrote loans that conformed to every standard, they cant predict default, the Wall Street Shysters (Goldman et al) could and took out default insurance at 30:1 times value of property.



> I am also out if you can't realize that it was not the Bush administration that opened the doors for all of this.


Bush presided over this, Not Clinto. Bush rewarded the Founder of the Subprime Mortgage. Not Clinton. Bush did not send ONE Bankster to Jail. He presided over this entire fiasco. He should be wearing an orange Jumpsuit.



> I am out of this discussion if you are too blind to see that FHA guidelines were getting fudged by loan processors, appraisers, mortgage originators, etc. I am out if all you can do is call names and call people uneducated when they are proving their points.


 Wrong again.
Their guidelines havent changed since Ive done lending in 1990. Ones creidt must be darn perfect, one late payment disqualifies you, a far cry from Subprime loans. In addition, strict DTI ratios, housing inspections, credit scoring et al
Appraisers did their job, they dont make the market, they report what sales are, Sales were inflated due to the policies of the FED. 
Its called a Bubble. Money isnt lost, it just changes hands.

The Banks are the Foxes guarding our Henhouse....
Church likes to blame the victims. Or homeowners out of work that cant pay a mortgage, or heaven forbid, applied for one when they had a job.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

For the Benefit of the readers.
(And to Chuck, who errantly insists realtors that sold houses, or appraisers that appraised houses caused this mess)

•Fannie And Freddie Faced Tougher Regulatory Standards Than The Private Firms. As reported by McClatchy: "One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble." [McClatchy, 10/12/08]

Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis - Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act
October 14, 2011 7:28 am ET

In the four years since the housing bubble burst, triggering a collapse in global financial markets whose value had been propped up through the repackaging and trading of home loans via complex financial instruments, there's been plenty of blame to go around. The Occupy Wall Street protests have called new attention to the root causes of the crisis, and led Republicans to reiterate their claim that government-backed lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the primary villains. The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify. 
Thanks to decades of financial deregulation, capped by President Bush's decision to appoint Wall Street regulators who believed their job was to help banks rather than curb banking abuses, financial giants were able to turn the mortgage market into a high-stakes casino. As investigative reporters and Congress' Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission have all shown, it was deregulation mixed with irresponsible and potentially illegal practices by private firms on Wall Street that caused both the bubble and the collapse.

Facts Show Private Lenders Who Were Not Subject To CRA, Not Government-Backed Ones Who Were, Drove The Subprime Mortgage Market 
Private Firms, Not Fannie And Freddie, Dominated The Subprime Mortgage Market 
2007: The Collapse Of The Housing Bubble And Widespread Defaults On Subprime Loans Triggered A Banking Crisis That Led To A Massive Recession. From Slate: "The only near consensus is on the question of what triggered the not-quite-a-depression. In 2007, the housing bubble burst, leading to a high rate of defaults on subprime mortgages. Exposure to bad mortgages doomed Bear Stearns in March 2008, then led to a banking crisis that fall. A global recession became inevitable once the government decided not to rescue Lehman Bros. from default in September 2008. Lehman's was the biggest bankruptcy in history, and it led promptly to a powerful economic contraction. Somewhere around here, agreement ends." [Slate, 1/9/10, emphasis added]

The Subprime Market Surged From 2004 To 2006. As reported by McClatchy: "Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006." [McClatchy, 10/12/08]

From 2004 To 2006, Fannie And Freddie's Share Of Subprime Market Fell From Almost Half To Just Under One-Quarter. As reported by McClatchy: "But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication." [McClatchy, 10/12/08, emphasis added]

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. [McClatchy, 10/12/08, emphasis added]
2008: The 15 Largest Subprime Servicers Were All Private Companies, Despite Large Drops In The Volume Of Their Subprime Business Compared To 2007. McClatchy prepared a graphic based on Inside Mortgage Finance data showing the 15 largest subprime service companies in 2008:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

i don't care what any of you say. if people would have to put 30% down on the home they are buying they would be able to make the payment. it all correlates to their handling of personal finances. anybody with a half ounce of brains would not make the loans that have been made. also some people should never own their home. they are not smart enough to take care of all the responsiblities that come with home ownership.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

6162rk said:


> i don't care what any of you say. if people would have to put 30% down on the home they are buying they would be able to make the payment. it all correlates to their handling of personal finances. anybody with a half ounce of brains would not make the loans that have been made. also some people should never own their home. they are not smart enough to take care of all the responsiblities that come with home ownership.


Down payment isnt the only issue.
The economy IS.

If you cant work or dont work, you cant pay your mortgage.

The bigger issue is that the Banks dont loan money, they loan credit. 
Many loans made were good loans in every regard. Take away the jobs, and theyre not good loans.
1 in 3 jobs left this country under Bush, permanantly.

Bigger issue is that money isnt lost, it is transferred. 
All of it was transferred. Some say to Israeli and Swiss Banks.

I feel bad for Bernie Madoff though. 
He only got away with $60 Billion. Hes got a nice home in Tel Aviv though, waiting for him.
I predict a 'suicide' or staged death, and closed casket funeral while he basks with young Ukrainian girls, sipping My Tais..


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bill your one in three jobs is BULL SH$$ total employment is around 150 million are employed in the US and about 14 million unemployed or under employed!

Thus this makes all your other claims suspect as to valid!

I was not going to get into this but the reality is that Freddie and Fannie took almost every piece of loan paper that was sent to them. Including those loans written that where basically signature loans. Case in point is a home here in S Fargo. Couple got a loan to build a $475,000.00 home. That loan was granted on her daycare income of $25,000.00 another $6000.00 in child support. Her husband was collecting Workers Comp from ND. NO DOWN AS WELL!!!!

Not written by a local or state run bank, but none the less the company writing the loan knew it could make money on this and sell it off to Fannie and Freddie! That loan should have never been made period! They had no way of ever meeting a mortgage payment.

ND for the most part dodged a lot of the crisis in foreclose because the local banks or ND based banks simply did not lend money when people had no ability to pay it back. I am not arguing that people did lose homes due to loss of jobs, but the deflation that occurred made it impossible for people to sell them.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Bill your one in three jobs is BULL SH$$ total employment is around 150 million are employed in the US and about 14 million unemployed or under employed.
> Thus this makes all your other claims suspect as to valid!.


I stated clearly 1 in 3 MANUFACTURING Jobs were LOST under Bush, (Last decade as reported in the Fiscal Times). This is a FACT and Facts are not up for debate.

*Why Most U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Are Gone Forever*
By MERRILL GOOZNER, The Fiscal Times
February 3, 2012
'But those minor gains come nowhere near *replacing the 5.6 million Manufacturing jobs Lost during the last decade, which is nearly One out of every Three.* 
The wholesale abandonment of entire industries to China, India and Latin America raises serious doubts about whether the manufacturing sector can ever again be the major driver of renewed job growth in the U.S.'



> I was not going to get into this but the reality is that Freddie and Fannie took almost every piece of loan paper that was sent to them. Including those loans written that where basically signature loans. Case in point is a home here in S Fargo. Couple got a loan to build a $475,000.00 home. That loan was granted on her daycare income of $25,000.00 another $6000.00 in child support. Her husband was collecting Workers Comp from ND. NO DOWN AS WELL!!!!


An anomoly.
Strong Assets, Excellent credit scores, job time could all become mitigating factors in any Automated Underwriting module which is what some banks used. 
I dont know what the denial rate was, but I had more than my fair share, and Fraud does happen. And its prosecuted. 
Loans were graded, those that didnt make the grade, were 'penalized' with a slighter higher rate and sold off as such.
Wall Street MADE the market..they were the Wholesale drug supplier and drug pusher.



> Not written by a local or state run bank, but none the less the company writing the loan knew it could make money on this and sell it off to Fannie and Freddie! That loan should have never been made period! They had no way of ever meeting a mortgage payment.


 They filled the market as a conduit to what Wall Street was Buying and guaranteeing.
Wall Strret Made the market and everyone else got a piece. Thats how the scam worked!
Then Wall Street Got BAILED Out when the scam went awry.



> ND for the m unquie iost part dodged a lot of the crisis in foreclose because the local banks or ND based banks simply did not lend money when people had no ability to pay it back. I am not arguing that people did lose homes due to loss of jobs, but the deflation that occurred made it impossible for people to sell them.


ND State Banks are largely their own entity, but If they were FED Chartered, they peddled loans to Fannie/Freddie who sold them to Wall Street (Conduit) who invalidated them, committed Fraud and sold them off to unsuspecting Investors.

Ron, I dont think you could buy a clue. Your blatant dishonesty shows in every post.

CEO's constant push for higher and higher profits to drive up stock price to feed the greed of Wall Street investors, so that he can keep his job and get better salary and bonus. 
My uncles company has been routinely dismissing people while still making a reasonable profit and having a large amount of cash reserves. For those who are still working, including the CEO himself, they have become slaves of Wall Street quarterly reports and quarterly forecasts. 
CEO cares more about the performance of those numbers to please his "masters" than the true well beings of his employees. He would rather spend $200million of cash to buy back stocks to artificially drive up stocks price to please his "masters" while refusing to spend $1million to buy a critical piece of equipment to improve our manufacturing lines and refusing to spend $1million a year to keep some more people on the payroll to sustain the family lives of dozens of people (while making millions of dollars himself).
It absolutely dosen't matter what your job performance is or has been. Total loyalty for 5 years or thirty years. Perfect attendance, made beu-coup bucks for the company. If you are wounded, hurt, got on the bosse's sh*t list. you have no friends in sight, knives will start appearing in your back. 
The higher ups have no regard for you your family or their other employees. Old high up management were WW 2 or Korean war veterans. They knew their workers fought along side them and THEY CARED. That's why things worked. A middle class was formed through the unions and hard work.

My message to them:
Remember one thing you bastards., those you met on the way up will meet you on the way down. If it was up to me I would void the Federal deficit, raise a tarrif of 70% of all goods wanting to sell in the U.S from other countries. The high ups can scream to high heaven. All companies would have two years to re-open in the U.S or forfiet business in America.

German and Japanese companies seem to run in quite different models from US companies. They treasure their employees and don't lay off them as easily as we do. 
Many would work for the same company for many years. While a Japanese employee is rewarded a higher salary for his loyalty to devote his entire career for a single company, a US employee is laid off for his high salary for working "too long" for a company. Germany and Japan are also outsourcing some manufacturing/parts to China, but because of their other strengths, they have been gaining trade surplus from China for many years.

You will never understand the US job mystery until you understand the priorities of US corporate executives:

1. Their own job security, lavish salary, bonus and stock options
2. Wall street investor's insatiable greed


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You have a very pin hole view of what is taking place and you claim to work in the lending field. First and foremost, I have had four homes in my life. The first one was through a lending institute that did not keep any paper, they sold our loan and it got resold over and over until we refinanced. I have required that as part of our loan that it not be sold off. Banks in the private sector could take these loans and dump them on Frannie and Freddie and walk away with a profit. Freddie and Fannie took these loans because of the Fed requirements put forward. Otherwise companies would not have written these loans in the first place if they did not intend to sell them off.

In hard hit places the loss of employment affected housing values, companies now where holding paper on upside down loans of people that where actually paying the mortgage. There was a three headed monster in the housing market that was all caused by the Feds. The first was as stated Freddy and Fannie who took all these sub prime loans they own 90% of the secondary market. So it does not matter where they originated now does it!!!!!!!

Now the third part was also a direct result of the Feds. Low interest rates!!!!!!!

There are a number of other contributing factors Bill, but the fact is that the fiscal policy of these two in regards to underwriting of paper they took is why so many people where up in the air. Banks became creative in loans to get people in because they knew they did not have to hold the paper. Some did hold the paper because it was profitable until valuation of homes dropped. Heck the bank profited if person defaulted when property was rising in value. My Aunt in CA had a single property increase in value by 32% in a period of 6 months simply because it was a sellers market with unlimited cash rolling in to buyers.

We bought our current home in 2000. I put a huge chunk of money down to lower our payments, two years later I borrowed all of that money back and put it into investments because the rate of return was higher than my interest payments. To get this money I had to allow them to sell the paper! GUESS WHO OWNED IT!!!!!!!!!

We took the money out of the market, put it back into our home and refinaced and did this prior to the bust, I have refinaced again since! So regardless of what you want to claim, without them banks would never have been loaning 125% of values because they could not do so and keep the paper!!!!!! Banks can only loan a percentage of their assests and you know that!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> You have a very pin hole view of what is taking place and you claim to work in the lending field!!


Youve demonstrated how little you know Ron. I guess yours is a compliment..



Ron Gilmore said:


> First and foremost, I have had four homes in my life. The first one was through a lending institute that did not keep any paper, they sold our loan and it got resold over and over until we refinanced. I have required that as part of our loan that it not be sold off. Banks in the private sector could take these loans and dump them on Frannie and Freddie and walk away with a profit. Freddie and Fannie took these loans because of the Fed requirements put forward. Otherwise companies would not have written these loans in the first place if they did not intend to sell them off.!


Newsflash..Banks Sell every loan they make. 
They Dont lend money, they lend Credit! You dont dictate the terms and you have no idea if your loan is kept in house or not unless you go to the vault, youll never come close to it...



Ron Gilmore said:


> In hard hit places the loss of employment affected housing values, companies now where holding paper on upside down loans of people that where actually paying the mortgage. There was a three headed monster in the housing market that was all caused by the Feds. The first was as stated Freddy and Fannie who took all these sub prime loans they own 90% of the secondary market. So it does not matter where they originated now does it!!!!!!!!


Fannie/Freedie wasnt really involved in Subprime loans until 2006, but I will concede that much to you. (See article posted for you tat explains this fact) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02111.html
True, FEDS caused the entire mess.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Now the third part was also a direct result of the Feds. Low interest rates!!!!!!! !


Right again, youre on a roll.



Ron Gilmore said:


> There are a number of other contributing factors Bill, but the fact is that the fiscal policy of these two in regards to underwriting of paper they took is why so many people where up in the air. Banks became creative in loans to get people in because they knew they did not have to hold the paper. Some did hold the paper because it was profitable until valuation of homes dropped. Heck the bank profited if person defaulted when property was rising in value. My Aunt in CA had a single property increase in value by 32% in a period of 6 months simply because it was a sellers market with unlimited cash rolling in to buyers.!


Banks havent held paper in 30 years....they dont lend money, they lend credit. 
Wall street made the market and had the players (Banks) take part in the game. Banks were not Creative, WALL STREET WAS. Banks wouldnt make the loan if Wall Street didnt take it off their balance sheets.!!!! Earth to Ron!



Ron Gilmore said:


> We bought our current home in 2000. I put a huge chunk of money down to lower our payments, two years later I borrowed all of that money back and put it into investments because the rate of return was higher than my interest payments. To get this money I had to allow them to sell the paper! GUESS WHO OWNED IT!!


You dont OWN your house, dont pay your propety taxes and you will learn this very quickly.. You have Rights as a Tenant In Common, thats what you are. A tenant who pays property taxes.



Ron Gilmore said:


> We took the money out of the market, put it back into our home and refinaced and did this prior to the bust, I have refinaced again since! So regardless of what you want to claim, without them banks would never have been loaning 125% of values because they could not do so and keep the paper!!!!!! Banks can only loan a percentage of their assests and you know that!


Banks dont loan money/credit on their assets.

I cant debate with the uninformed and illiterate Ron.
Learn the basics of Banking and then we can debate.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

bill just stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some banks do hold and service loans, some do not!!!!!!!!!! SO STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK EVEN MORE FOOLISH!!!!!!!!!!!

You appear to be like our old friend Ryan who is gone. Someone who is either paid or volunteered to push the DNC PARTY LINE!

So myabe just maybe you should quit while you are ahead ! But then again it will be fun to watch another Ryan type go down in flames!


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

ron is right. banks do hold loans. i spoke with a very close friend (who is a bank president) last night about some of the issues being brought up in this forum. i repeat banks do hold loans. oh so much has changed in the last two years.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> bill just stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some banks do hold and service loans, some do not!!!!!!!!!! SO STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK EVEN MORE FOOLISH!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> You appear to be like our old friend Ryan who is gone. Someone who is either paid or volunteered to push the DNC PARTY LINE!
> 
> So myabe just maybe you should quit while you are ahead ! But then again it will be fun to watch another Ryan type go down in flames!


Servicing and Holding means NOTHING as far as ownership.

Sevicing means they collect payment from an undisclosed 3rd party group.
Holding is much the same.

Banks dont lend money, they lend credit.
99% of all mortgages in this country are INVALID.

The servicer (or sub-servicer) does not (presumably) work for the real lender. 
They are hired by the master servicer. The master servicer works with the depositor who creates the Trust. 
Together they (master servicer and depositor) hire the Trustee.

They get you to believe the Trustee (and/or the Trust in some cases) is the "lender", however the "lender" is probably considered the "holders of certificates" that were issued from the Trust. 
The sub-servicer probably does not know who they are. 
To complicate this issue further, some of the "sponsers" (I believe this is usually, but not always, the master servicer) pledged the loan to the depositor and kept their fingers in the cookie jar. 
In most cases 10+ companies that have an interest and who might be considered the "lender" - and that doesn't even include the "holders of certificates". They are all together considered the "lender" and none of them can do anything on their own. 
They state the assignment is/was without recourse but next paragraphs say it is/was with recourse (a security interest, grant, pledge, etc). ITS ALL A SCAM-ITS THEFT, ITS A RACKET.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

6162rk said:


> ron is right. banks do hold loans. i spoke with a very close friend (who is a bank president) last night about some of the issues being brought up in this forum. i repeat banks do hold loans. oh so much has changed in the last two years.


Banks dont hold mortgages anymore with the way lending takes place. If he says he does, he is Lying right to your face.
Your Note was paid for at Closing. YOu created the money with your signature. Ask you banker friend to admit this.
If you could subpoena your Title papers, kept in the bank vault, they would be marked PAID IN FULL.

The truth....Your Banker friend is in on the scam, the fractional reserve, securitized mortgage, pretender-lender racket.
Judges are ruling on this all over the country, Banks have NO Standing to Foreclose on Mortgages they dont own, and they dont own any of them. They are 3rd party Interlopers.
If you sue me for a debt, you better make sure you can prove that I owe you the money. Banks dont own the mortgages.

Almost all mortgages in the last 10 years were places to 3rd party 'trusts' ie MERS, which is a corporation with no employees, and a shell for Banksters to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in recording transfer fees.



> JOHN KORMAN VS. AURORA, et al- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-WEST PALM BEACH-9:11-CV-81163- KORMAN VS. AURORA,GMAC, BANK OF AMERICA,COUNTRYWIDE et al- 10/18/2011.
> The first 135 paragraphs.
> Securitizing a loan, makes it a security, so the loan is unsecured, also all notes were destroyed when securitized, to avoid "double-dipping" according to a bank Lawyer who spoke before the Fl.Supreme Court.
> No note = No Foreclosure.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bill give it up!!!!!!!!! You are trying to split hairs with your argument. A good example is Gate City Bank they hold the paper on a bulk of the mortgages along with servicing them. Otherwise Gate City would not be the ones filing notice of foreclosure since as the servicing agent they are not entitled to do this only the person holding the actual loan can. This is exactly what the DOJ and the courts have stated regarding who is entitled.

In the case of lets use Wells Fargo the subsidiary they have which deals in mortgages is just that, a subsidiary of the actual bank. Country Wide etc.... all are mortgage subsidiary that shopped for a buyer of the loan and are not the same as a bank in how the loans affect assets!

You can parade around and thump your chest all you want, but you are wrong period in your assertion.

I have stock in a ND chartered bank, the end result in the report we get shows exactly what that bank owns in mortgages, farm land loans as well as operation loans and how they reflect against deposits. Now if they do not own them they sure as heck cannot put them on a balance sheet!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Pretender Lenders Lie Every Day Ron! 
They dont hold the paper they claim they do., Its sold off as a mortgage backed security to a trust, with a bank servicing it ie collecting payments for an undisclosed 3rd party that was never part of the transaction!
Banks are being exposed for committing FRAUD every day in court, Judges, attorneys and debtors are learning the truth.

This is Advanced level Banking Fraud Ron...
I dont expect you to grasp it, but/and its why youre a debt slave. 
If you dont know your rights or assert your rights, you dont have any.

Under the contract of the Deed of Trust, and Civil Code Statutes&#8230;ONLY THE LENDER or the HOLDER may initiate a foreclosure proceeding. This is how you use the law to support your case.

NO ONE, has EVER received a loan from a PUBLIC financial institution, be it bank or credit union or etc. As for the money they "give" people for everything from credit cards to mortgages, they never do...

As stated by Uniform Commercial Code Â§1-201(24) and Â§3-104 (the code that governs commerce), it is a person's signature put on a loan application, mortgage application, credit card application, or other promissory note which gives it value i.e. makes it money. The contract signed (promissory note) is converted into a "negotiable instrument" by a financial institution and becomes an asset on the institution's accounting books.

"Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's publication Modern Money Mechanics, on Page 6 wrote: 'Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for CREDITS to the borrowers' transaction accounts.'"

'What is 'monetized debt'?'"
The day you signed your name to that paper buying your home you in that moment bought and paid for that home, it is yours on your signature and you owe no one for it (Law of the Land) and the the banksters tricked you into living a life of debt repeatedly paying them for something that you already own. 
They are making fiat money off of your signature and have been since mortgages came into being."

Typical foreclosure hearing....They ask a woman a simple question: 'Did you get a loan from the bank?' She said 'yes.' 
But She never got a loan from the bank. 
Not only is she a liar, but she destroyed her own case. 
She should have said, 'I never got a loan from the bank. I sold them the Promissory Note, they gave me the credit, I bought the house with the money and I paid them for the loan, but they never gave me the loan.' That would have been it. 
There is one sum certain, one lump of money (in this case, $500,000). Where did it go? It's only one lump sum. You sold them the Promissory Note."

Everyone also has the right to find this out for themselves by innocently asking a few questions and making requests, such as proof of the accounting (proof that they actually loaned you their funds) and asking for "the ORIGINAL instrument of indebtedness in its ORIGINAL form" for whatever public financial institution "you owe", and The title papers (Marked PAID IN FULL). For credit cards, mortgages, etc. the institutions will NEVER produce it, because it no longer exists.

They'll throw everything they can except the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form, including the laughable "certified true copies" (forgeries). Asking for such documentation does no harm whatsoever, and one has everything to gain from doing so.

They will eventually figure out what you're asking for and pull out every stall tactic they can come up with and throw an army of collection agencies and lawyers at you to keep you from seeing your request to their inevitable defaulting end, however, and if you get there in one piece, Sincere Congratulations, you beat the fraud monolith. 
At that point they cannot even go to court, for they will completely and utterly lose, and you're finally free from a debt that never existed.

Case Law : Asset Acceptance v. Proctor
Found this great document which gives numerous examples of case law in debt collection where evidence was thrown out based on Hearsay, Lack of Standing et al


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

The "secret pocketing of money" is no secret amongst those who work on Wall Street. 
To them it was a game and they won and each time a news article comes out missing the point again they have another laugh. Unfortunately the regulators and legislators are buying the spin in the media instead of investigating the facts.

Fictitious "Bonds" (i.e., non-existent) were sold by fictitious "trusts" or "SPV's" (i.e. non-existent) on the CLAIM that each SPV or Trust consisted of a fictitious pool (i.e., non-existent) each pool containing fictitious "assets" consisting of the fictitious (i.e. non-existent) obligations of homeowners who had been "loaned money" from a fictitious company pretending to be a bank or lender. The practice on Wall Street was called "selling forward" which means you are selling something you don't have, like selling short, which is selling a stock before you buy it.

THEN a fictitious transaction (i.e., non-existent) was recorded and reported between the party pretending to be a lender but who was acting, at most, as a mortgage broker (unregistered and unregulated). This was the promissory note and mortgage deed or deed of trust. The transaction described in the note and mortgage never happened and was never meant to happen. All the "securitized"loans were table funded, so none of the "lenders" were creditors. They were fee based servicers. The REAL transaction was never committed to writing or recorded or reported.

The pretender at the closing merely transmitted a flat data file like a spread sheet with various pieces of data that the originator inserted manually. If they changed the date of the loan from the closing date tot eh recording date, they now had a second loan to sell to a second loan aggregator, who knew what was going on because they were giving the orders on what to write, when to write it and who to send it to.

The ACTUAL TRANSACTION between the homeowner and the ACTUAL source of funds was never disclosed to either the lender nor the borrower nor ever committed to writing. Hence the representation that there ever was a secured loan was false, and through no fault of the borrower.

The documentation from the closing was neither lost nor destroyed but often described as one or both. The sole reason they didn't want to produce the original documentation was that it would not conform to the deal proposed to the investor and did not conform to the deal made with the borrower.

Better to say you lost it or accidentally destroyed it than to admit criminal fraud.

The effect was obvious. The investment bank took the money from the investors and the money paid by borrowers and the money paid by third parties through insurance, credit default swaps, and under cover of cross collateralization and over-collateralization kept the money, obscuring the fact that they were neither paying nor allocating money received to the investor who was the payee of the money nor the borrower who was the obligee.

Thus neither one knew the true status of the loan. The investor was kept in the dark about the continuing receipt of money by the investment firm, and the borrower was kept in the dark (a) about the real lender not being paid money that came in and which was required to be paid against the borrower's obligation and (b) about the ALLOCATION or ACCOUNTING for the money that the investment bank was receiving and disbursing in the name of the payor (borrower) and payee (lender/investor).

On an arbitrary basis, computations were made an strategies employed to give the appearance of a normal mortgage market but in fact that was all a fiction. The end result is that the investors and insurers were defrauded out of billions fo dollars on losses that never occurred and paid to parties who had no insurable or ownership interest. The very existence of Notice of Default, Acceleration and Notices of Sale, Complaints for foreclosure was and remains a fiction that cannot be supported by the facts. The strategy employed by the pretender lenders is to use the documents describing fictitious transactions as a substitute for alleging real facts and THEN introducing the documents as proof of those facts alleged.

Judges relying on their law school days or when they practiced law before this historical scheme was developed, are ruling on the basis of presumed facts that do not exist. They are presuming those facts based upon documents that describe transactions that do not exist. The sole hook on which they hang their hat is whether the borrower received the benefit of the loan. But Judges to themselves, the judicial system and most importantly the title recording system a disservice when they presume that the documents are anything more than ink on paper without any value, derived or otherwise.

TRUST ASSET POOLS ARE EMPTY

EDITOR'S NOTE: Here we have the results of hundreds of hours of analysis corroborating everything we have said on this blog about the so-called transfers of mortgages.

In plain language, the claim of the pretender lenders is that the mortgage was legally transferred into an asset backed pool governed by a trust created by the pooling and servicing agreement.

But the PSA (POOLING & SERVICE AGREEMENT) provides restrictions on such transfers and specific requirements as to the steps for transfer.

Both the restrictions and requirements were violated in virtually every loan claimed to be in such a pool. New York Law which governs the ability of the trust or trustee to take action or accept assets states unequivocally that as a matter of law, the transfer never took place unless the requirements of the PSA were met.

As this segment points out the defect is not curable because of the terms of the PSA itself. This is why an analysis of title and securitization is so important in defending fraudulent foreclosures and why I have expressed the opinion that the mortgage is not enforceable by anyone.

Because the MONEY was divided up amongst the securitizers as though the loan was transferred.

Hence, the obligation stated in the note, even if it were somehow deemed valid, was clearly separated from the mortgage or deed of trust in fact by the actual conduct of the parties in handling the money.

Bottom Line: Most of the foreclosures were and are fraudulent and void or voidable.

NEW YORK STATE LAW: Section 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust
Sec. 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.

RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL NOVEMBER 16, 2010 REPORT, SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 125(B)(1) OF TITLE 1 OF THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008, PUB. L. NO. 110-343, EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY AND FORECLOSURE MITIGATION

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/02 ... at-a-deal/

The Note is evidence of a transaction, not the debt itself. 
The debt arises by operation of law and statutes set out in common law, and is technically a private contract or Promise to Pay under certain terms, a certain amount by a specified date. Read Neil's (Living Lies) good article about private contracts opening the door to self-help. However, once a Note that evidences a "loan" has been converted into stock it's no longer an enforceable Note or a "loan", it's a stock. The promissory Note no longer exists.

Once the fetch 'bank' or aggregator receives payment and or a commission, the debt evidenced by the Note is satisfied and the parties named in the Note have finished their business. The banks have just hidden the fact that the Notes have been converted to stocks or equitable shares, and failed to de-recognize these assets or their liabilities on their balance sheets. They introduce copies or even sometimes original Notes in court and demand enforcement of a debt evidenced by the Note that isn't owed to them. This reattaching of the Note to a security instrument in an attempt to collect the already discharged debt is called Adhesion.
Again, 
When a promissory note gets converted to a stock, that promissory no longer exists. Once converted, it is forever a stock. Anyone is possession of a Note that has been used as an asset in the issue of equitable shares in a security is double dipping. (securities fraud) Attempting to reattach it to the Security Deed, Deed of Trust or Mortgage is Adhesion. (and fraud) The Note and Stock cannot exist at the same time. Once the security is registered with the SEC, you can't switch out the asset (The Note). The Notes were supposed to have been destroyed when the security was issued, and the assets and liabilities de-reccognized, but since it was so easy to commit such a huge fraud&#8230;well you know the rest.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

*'It is well enough that people of the nation do Not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a Revolution before tomorrow morning...'

- Henry Ford *


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You can keep spinning Ryan all you want! You are simply splitting hairs to save face. You are so much like other liberals in your assumption of your superior intelligence compared to the commoner!! It is really that arrogance that is your undoing.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> You can keep spinning Ryan all you want! You are simply splitting hairs to save face. You are so much like other liberals in your assumption of your superior intelligence compared to the commoner!! It is really that arrogance that is your undoing.


*'It is well enough that people of the nation do Not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a Revolution before tomorrow morning...'
- Henry Ford *

You are exactly whom Ford was referencing...One of the mushrooms.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bill/Ryan your assumption and arrogance is really your undoing! Get a clue and take some advice if your ego can handle that.

Most people do understand the greater portion of how our banking system works. Most realize that 40% of the failed mortgages where a result of loans that should not have been written and would not had the Feds not allowed such lax underwriting. Most understand that today credit for housing and business loans is tight because those same lenders do not have a Gov sponsored place to dump these loans and make a profit in doing it.

Generalized yes, but accurate! So here is the advice, your attempt to talk down to others with an attitude of superior knowledge and intellect is simply vain! I copied a few of your posts and sent them to friends over the weekend who are in the banking industry. Two replies came in this morning saying your claim is full of SH## as I said before. Your claim only applied to a portion of entities that operated simply as an organization or business that was a middle man in generating the loans. As I stated earlier Countrywide as an example.

They thought your comments funny calling them liars is typical of a person who is so full of themselves that they do not realize they are living in a glass house!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

*DOLLAR DECEPTION:
HOW BANKS SECRETLY CREATE MONEY*
Ellen Brown, July 3rd, 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been called "the most astounding piece of sleight of hand ever invented." The creation of money has been privatized, usurped from Congress by a private banking cartel. Most people think money is issued by fiat by the government, but that is not the case. Except for coins, which compose only about one one-thousandth of the total U.S. money supply, all of our money is now created by banks. 
Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) are issued by the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, and lent to the government. Moreover, *Federal Reserve Notes and coins together compose less than 3 percent of the money supply. The other 97 percent is created by commercial banks as loans.*

Don't believe banks create the money they lend? *Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case,* until they heard the evidence. *First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)* was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script.3 Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan.

*"Consideration*" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. 
The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until *Mr. Morgan, the bank's president,* took the stand. 
To everyone's surprise, *Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice.* "*It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney* amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

*Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. *

The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. 
To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration - without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend - a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled. It was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, an autonomous court system dating back to those frontier days when defendants had trouble traveling to big cities to respond to summonses. 
In that system (which has now been phased out), judges and courts were pretty much on their own. Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

If I let you do that - you and everyone else - it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!5 
From time to time, however, the curtain has been lifted long enough for us to see behind it. A number of reputable authorities have attested to what is going on, including Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . 
Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit. 
Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:

We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.6 
Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:

Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . 
The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money.7 
Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower. 
How did this scheme originate, and how has it been concealed for so many years? To answer those questions, we need to go back to the seventeenth century.

The Shell Game of the Goldsmiths

In seventeenth century Europe, trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. Coins were durable and had value in themselves, but they were hard to transport in bulk and could be stolen if not kept under lock and key. Many people therefore deposited their coins with the goldsmiths, who had the strongest safes in town. The goldsmiths issued convenient paper receipts that could be traded in place of the bulkier coins they represented. These receipts were also used when people who needed coins came to the goldsmiths for loans.

The mischief began when the goldsmiths noticed that only about 10 to 20 percent of their receipts came back to be redeemed in gold at any one time. They could safely "lend" the gold in their strongboxes at interest several times over, as long as they kept 10 to 20 percent of the value of their outstanding loans in gold to meet the demand. They thus created "paper money" (receipts for loans of gold) worth several times the gold they actually held. 
They typically issued notes and made loans in amounts that were four to five times their actual supply of gold. At an interest rate of 20 percent, the same gold lent five times over produced a 100 percent return every year, on gold the goldsmiths did not actually own and could not legally lend at all. If they were careful not to overextend this "credit," the goldsmiths could thus become quite wealthy without producing anything of value themselves. Since only the principal was lent into the money supply, more money was eventually owed back in principal and interest than the townspeople as a whole possessed. They had to continually take out loans of new paper money to cover the shortfall, causing the wealth of the town and eventually of the country to be siphoned into the vaults of the goldsmiths-turned-bankers, while the people fell progressively into their debt.8

Following this model, in nineteenth century America, private banks issued their own banknotes in sums up to ten times their actual reserves in gold. This was called "fractional reserve" banking, meaning that only a fraction of the total deposits managed by a bank were kept in "reserve" to meet the demands of depositors. But periodic runs on the banks when the customers all got suspicious and demanded their gold at the same time caused banks to go bankrupt and made the system unstable. In 1913, the private banknote system was therefore consolidated into a national banknote system under the Federal Reserve (or "Fed"), a privately-owned corporation given the right to issue Federal Reserve Notes and lend them to the U.S. government. These notes, which were issued by the Fed basically for the cost of printing them, came to form the basis of the national money supply.

Twenty years later, the country faced massive depression. The money supply shrank, as banks closed their doors and gold fled to Europe. Dollars at that time had to be 40 percent backed by gold, so for every dollar's worth of gold that left the country, 2.5 dollars in credit money also disappeared. To prevent this alarming deflationary spiral from collapsing the money supply completely, in 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt took the dollar off the gold standard. Today the Federal Reserve still operates on the "fractional reserve" system, but its "reserves" consist of nothing but government bonds (I.O.U.s or debts). The government issues bonds, the Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes, and they basically swap stacks, leaving the government in debt to a private banking corporation for money the government could have issued itself, debt-free.

Theft by Inflation

M3, the broadest measure of the U.S. money supply, shot up from $3.7 trillion in February 1988 to $10.3 trillion 14 years later, when the Fed quit reporting it. Why the Fed quit reporting it in March 2006 is suggested by John Williams in a website called "Shadow Government Statistics" (shadowstats.com), which shows that by the spring of 2007, M3 was growing at the astounding rate of 11.8 percent per year. 
Best not to publicize such figures too widely! The question posed here, however, is this: where did all this new money come from? The government did not step up its output of coins, and no gold was added to the national money supply, since the government went off the gold standard in 1933. This new money could only have been created privately as "bank credit" advanced as loans.

The problem with inflating the money supply in this way, of course, is that it inflates prices. More money competing for the same goods drives prices up. The dollar buys less, robbing people of the value of their money. This rampant inflation is usually blamed on the government, which is accused of running the dollar printing presses in order to spend and spend without resorting to the politically unpopular expedient of raising taxes. 
But as noted earlier, the only money the U.S. government actually issues are coins. In countries in which the central bank has been nationalized, paper money may be issued by the government along with coins, but paper money still composes only a very small percentage of the money supply. In England, where the Bank of England was nationalized after World War II, private banks continue to create 97 percent of the money supply as loans.9

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Bill/Ryan your assumption and arrogance is really your undoing! Get a clue and take some advice if your ego can handle that.
> Most people do understand the greater portion of how our banking system works. !


Banksters rely on peoples ignorance and up to now, its worked. NO More.
They will be tarred and feathered soon enough.



> Most realize that 40% of the failed mortgages where a result of loans that should not have been written and would not had the Feds not allowed such lax underwriting. Most understand that today credit for housing and business loans is tight because those same lenders do not have a Gov sponsored place to dump these loans and make a profit in doing it.


Failed mortgages was the scam the entire time...Wall Street made a killing, now they foreclose (Steal) Property they never owned.



> Generalized yes, but accurate! So here is the advice, your attempt to talk down to others with an attitude of superior knowledge and intellect is simply vain! I copied a few of your posts and sent them to friends over the weekend who are in the banking industry. Two replies came in this morning saying your claim is full of SH## as I said before.


I would expect nothing more from these shysters...Slithering around their corporate offices trying to hide their scam, but the curtain has been pulled.



> Your claim only applied to a portion of entities that operated simply as an organization or business that was a middle man in generating the loans. As I stated earlier Countrywide as an example.


 Wall Street MADE policy via their Lackey Politicians and Banks took that directive to take part in the scam.



> They thought your comments funny calling them liars is typical of a person who is so full of themselves that they do not realize they are living in a glass house!


 Exposing them (and You) as theives, Liars and cons, is my lifes calling...

Banksters have ALREADY Admitited Their Fraud and settled on it for $25 BILLION with the Dept of Justice (Guess you missed the headline??!! Color me shocked). Its just now being sorted out...
Tar and Feathers will be the next settlement

*National Mortgage Settlement: States, Big Banks Reach $25 Billion Deal *

Huffington Post 02/09/12

The U.S. government announced Thursday a $25 billion settlement with five of the nation's largest banks over charges of systemic and widespread Mortgage Fraud, in what is being billed as the largest-ever deal on such charges.

The settlement could potentially help more than 1 million struggling homeowners, according to government officials. It is the largest multi-state agreement since the nationwide tobacco settlements in 1998.

Though the deal does offer some money -- up to $2,000 -- for those who lost their homes during the housing bust, its primary thrust is forward-looking, offering partial loan forgiveness or "principal reduction," to struggling homeowners. More details on the agreement can be found at this government website.

"[The deal] benefits struggling homeowners now, not some time in the future when the help they need may be too late," said Bob Ryan, a senior official at the Department of Justice in a call on Thursday morning.

Officials were careful to note that the deal does not end the government's investigation into the housing bust.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

*The Federal Government, Throwing Families Into The Street To Make Billionaires Out of Millionaires *

June 17th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

"The *largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector* is about to begin. 
The federal government will be *bulk-selling the massive portfolio of foreclosed homes now owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors - Vulture funds.*"

So warned *Roger Arnold, chief economist for ALM Advisors of Pasadena, California, in a column for RealMoney on August 11, *2011, that first lifted the lid on this latest colossal scandal to come out of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

"These homes," wrote Arnold, "which are now the property of the U.S. government, the U.S. taxpayer, U.S. citizens collectively, *are going to be sold to private investor conglomerates at extraordinarily large discounts to real value.* You and I will not be allowed to participate. 
These *investors will come from the private-equity and hedge-fund community, Goldman Sachs (GS) and its derivatives,* as well as *foreign sovereign wealth funds that can bring a billion dollars or more to each transaction."*

Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, obviously, would have no trouble qualifying for the *privilege of bidding in this fire sale for the super-rich*. And the "Oracle of Omaha" appears to be more than casually interested in getting in on the game.
The Wall Street Journal reported on March 20, 2012: "Warren Buffett, considered a sage investor and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an interview with CNBC-TV last month that he would buy up 'a couple hundred thousand' single-family homes if he could do so easily, given the high yields on rental investments."

FOR BILLIONIARES ONLY

And More Depth and background on the fusion of government and the businesses that own our government: (This forms part of the pretext for seizing properties from a private person and transferring them to government/corporate fused entities.)

An Enterprise's failure to effectively manage its contractors' implementation of basic REO responsibilities, i.e., securing, maintaining, repairing, and marketing properties, would place it at considerable financial risk. It could also endanger the stability of the communities in which the properties are located. 
For example, if a contractor fails to secure properties for which it is contractually responsible, then the properties may be broken into, looted, and used for illegal activities. Similarly, a contractor's failure to maintain a property, e.g., remove debris, cut lawns, fix broken windows, etc., can reduce its value and detract from its marketability, as well as the marketability of near-by homes. 
The deteriorated condition of an REO property may cause it to remain on the market and in an Enterprise's inventory for an extended period, thereby increasing the Enterprise's total carrying costs. This, in turn, will reduce the Enterprise's returns on the sale of such properties and, ultimately, increase the taxpayer costs associated with the conservatorships.

AND HERE'S A BIG TELL THAT DEMONSTRATES HOW WE'RE ALL GETTING HOSED HERE BY CONTRACTORS RIPPING US ALL OFF:

Finally, there is also the risk of considerable fraud and abuse associated with the failure to manage Enterprise REO contractors effectively. Under the best of circumstances it may be challenging for the Enterprises to verify that certain types of maintenance and repairs, such as interior painting and plumbing, are being completed in accordance with quality standards and within established timeframes for thousands of foreclosed properties across the nation. Therefore, it is important for the Enterprises to establish effective property inspection procedures and controls to prevent fraudulent contractor reimbursements.

FHFA REPORT

FANNIE MAE SERVICING GUIDELINES

On September 6, 2008, well over three years ago, FHFA exercised that authority, placing the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (together, the Enterprises) into conservatorships. FHFA has since overseen the largest, most complex conservatorships in history.
Two years ago, FHFA sent Congress a letter setting forth the agency's understanding of its conservatorship obligations and how it planned to fulfill those obligations. It is time to update and extend that plan in view of the status of the Enterprises and the country's housing system today.

The two companies have received more than $180 billion in taxpayer support. The benefit to the country from maintaining their operations has been to ensure the secondary mortgage market continues to function. During this time, the Enterprises have completed more than 2 million foreclosure prevention actions, including more than 1 million loan modifications and they have refinanced more than 10 million mortgages. Together they are guaranteeing roughly $100 billion per month in new mortgage production, representing about 3 of every 4 mortgages being originated. But the Enterprises' ongoing operations are entirely dependent on taxpayer support provided through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with the U.S. Department of the Treasury."

Trust me, I run Goldman Sachs..


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Post all the opinion pieces you want, it still does not change the fact that you where wrong and that you have an arogant ideal that you are somehow smarter than everyone else regarding this. Have a nice day Ryan/Bill! Nobody here is going to gravel at your feet in awe!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Post all the opinion pieces you want, it still does not change the fact that you where wrong and that you have an arogant ideal that you are somehow smarter than everyone else regarding this. Have a nice day Ryan/Bill! Nobody here is going to gravel at your feet in awe!


You can call me Ryan, if I can call you Gomer...
I have exposed you as a Liar, Shill and someone incompetant about banking and mortgages. Ive shown you where Banksters agreed to pay a paltry sum of $25 Billion for Looting and Robbing Homeowners of Trillions.
The curtain is being pulled on the money scams, Foreclosure cases and LAW have Proven this, and it is now being practiced in the courtrooms, and its only getting worse for Banksters.

*US Supreme Court* in Carpenter, states that possibility exists; that a Note can be separated from the Deed of Trust/Mortgage, and that it is a *nullity *when it happens.
Banks decoupled the note from the Deed of Trust (Mortgage) = Nullity* = FILE Quiet Title.

**Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, at 274 - "&#8230;while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity". *

Nullity means VOID. Empty. Dead. Unenforceable.
&#8230;.Whether the bank has the original wet-ink paperwork or not (Usually they dont but sophisticated Forgeries via Electronic counterfeit copies-another subject).

Every Homeowner (Current or behind) should Fight the security instrument (Mortgage or Deed of Trust) in a prompt *quiet title* FIRST.
Then you have the time to fight these Note arguments with discovery. These *Note chains-of-title stink*, and the banks are aggressively hiding something regarding them, from us all.
Banking is a Ponzi game.
The mortgages are Null. End the Fed.

CUSIP numbers in Discovery point whether/if the security was transferred to the trust while the loan was still an application and not yet a note, the transfer is either invalid or reflects that the trust possesses ownership rights to an application. 
The application would be worthless and certainly unsecured.

Investors indirectly fund the securitization of a "POOL" of securitized receivables. Thereafter, the pools are combined with other pools and multiple tranches, thus, forming CDOs - which are derived from the securities - which are derived from the receivables - which are derived from individual loans. There is no funding by investors for individual loans - and, therefore, investors can never be considered your "creditor" or "lender."

Overcollateralization is not the "yield spread premium." YSP is the "bonus" paid to mortgage brokers to deliver higher interest rate loans to the purchasing bank.

Overcollateralization is when the face value of the underlying loan PORTFOLIO (Pool) is larger than the security it backs. Banks were able to overcollaterize due to credit enhancement in the pool tranche structure. That is, they were able to sell the securities for less than the value of the pool of receivables the bank owned because the risk to security investors of default was supposedly mitigated by a trance structure in which the higher risk (lower tier) tranches protected the lower risk (higher tier ) tranches. Further, the risk was supposedly mitigated by combining many pools and tranches into CDOs. By not removing loans from pools - when the loan was actually not securitized into that pool or sold upon default- allowed for multiple inclusion of individual loans in separate pools.
You have to go the TILA(TRUTH IN LENDING ACT) and definitions of Creditor (and the TILA Amendment in May 2009) to understand who is considered a lender/creditor to an individual loan borrower.

How the creditor/lender pools loans to pass through income streams is bank's business - but those derivative securities investors are never individually funding any loan - those derivative investors are only interested in a pool -in which your loan may or may not be very fractionally represented.

Overcollateraliztion was to supposed to protect CDO investors from loans that went into default. 
Thus, providing enough money to cover those defaults. The derivative securities, therefore, could be purchased for much less than the face value of the "pool" and multiple "pools". But, the defaults came so fast that the the pool and pool's value collapsed - causing the CDO's value to fall to zero. 
Individual loans were funded by warehouse lines of credit that the purchasing banks provided to originators. This is the missing link in Chain of Securitization that is never disclosed - making any Conveyance of individual loans to any trust - False.

99% of Mortgages in America are Invalid, and we will see this blow up in their faces.

The scam has gone on Far too long and it will soon be over for the Banksters. They forget that they have to come home every evening from work...tar and feathers goes well with pinstripe.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 99% of Mortgages in America are Invalid, and we will see this blow up in their faces.


So you are saying that people will be able to walk away from loans and still own a home??


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

chuck do not feed the troll! I figured this out with all of his cut and paste, just like Ryan did! He is simply trying to split a hair similar to those who claim that you do not have to pay Fed income tax since the bill says it is a voluntary act to pay. To not do so though comes with a fine.

Bill, one last time, I do understand this issue, I am not however the one trying to represent myself as an expert on it and posting garbled opinion pieces. In some cases nullification can occur, but not in the majority or in fact less than what was the figure put out? Less than one percent of one percent!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THE RATE YOU ARE CLAIMING!!!!!!!


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> > 99% of Mortgages in America are Invalid, and we will see this blow up in their faces.
> 
> 
> So you are saying that people will be able to walk away from loans and still own a home??


Why would anyone walk away?
The Mortgage transaction is Void and Null on its face. 
Fight for your home whether current or late, File a Quiet Title, and get Discovery in Court.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> chuck do not feed the troll! I figured this out with all of his cut and paste, just like Ryan did! He is simply trying to split a hair similar to those who claim that you do not have to pay Fed income tax since the bill says it is a voluntary act to pay. To not do so though comes with a fine.
> 
> Bill, one last time, I do understand this issue, I am not however the one trying to represent myself as an expert on it and posting garbled opinion pieces. In some cases nullification can occur, but not in the majority or in fact less than what was the figure put out? Less than one percent of one percent!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THE RATE YOU ARE CLAIMING!!!!!!!


Ron,
You understand as much as a mushroom...kept in the dark and fed lots of crap.

Ive never represented myself as an xpert, though Ive taken on a major bank in a credit card case (Won), and also defeated a 2nd Major Bank-2nd largest Bank in America in court, regarding my mortgage (Death Pledge), after/when I noticed discrepencies and fraud related to TILA and RESPA issues and subsequently filed Quiet Title.
Free and Clear Home.

Yes, Ive cut and pasted some information. 
I hope you dont expect me to remember key legal case precedents and other info regarding securitization, collateralization and finance off the top of my head.

I think the board knows who the Troll is and what he is trolling for. Youre worried about your little bank stocks in your portfolio under performing, now that mortgagees challenge their legal standing and are winning their cases in court. (Not enough yet challenge and fight). 
Ive not yet taken on the IRS or wish to, thats another issue for another time, a few people have had success-its the same Monster created BY the Fed, In fact, Its simply their enforcement arm-but its not for the feint of heart.
I believe that Your consent is voluntary and only when jurisidiction is not challegned, do they have authoroity. 
Id rather not get into this now as its a hijack, nor do I have first hand experience with it, but others do- Ralph Winterowd of RBN Radio has had success and deals with this topic on his show-Internet available podcasts or Sunday PMs from 6-8 est.

One thing we have not discussed yet is Credit Defaut Swaps..

Credit Default Swaps.

Under the terms of the Deed of Trust, it says something like "upon complete satisfaction of the note, the lender/Trustee must reconvey the property back to the homeowner". By this very definition, your loan has been satisfied and your lender does not have the right to foreclose on your loan.

When Wall Street securitized loans...ANYONE (and I mean ANYONE) can buy an insurance policy against a loan in the event that that loan defaults. Under a traditional insurance framework, only a party with a vested interest can buy an insurance policy, but this is not the case in a credit default swap. Let's say you own 1/100th of the loan (meaning you are one of 100 investors in the pool), you can buy a credit default swap policy for the FULL FACE VALUE of the loan....such that in the event that the loan defaults, you get paid in full.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it.
Let's say John Doe works at a fast food joint on a minimum wage...goes out and gets a loan for a $1 million dollars with no money down. The loan gets securitized and is sold to 100 investors. Let's say ABC Bank is the originator and underwriter for the loan and is also one of those investors...in other words, ABC owns 1/100th of the $1M loan....ie. $10,000.

ABC takes out a Credit Default Swap insurance policy through AIG for the full $1M. Because ABC knows full well that John Doe is likely to default on the loan, it is in ABC's interest to insure the loan against the default.
Once John Doe defaults on the loan...ABC gets paid in full for the whole $1M. This $1M goes to satisfy the loan in its entirety.

In other words, the loan has been fully satisfied.
The debt has been paid in full.

Yet...ABC continues to collect on the loan...and even goes to the extent of foreclosing on the homeowners.
Talk about "having your cake and eat it too".
How many times do these people need to be paid to satisfy their greed?! How many bail outs does it take before people start saying "ENOUGH!"
When homeowners go to court and present evidence that their loan has been fully satisfied and paid in full, the banks are backing off..and offering sizable settlements. Of course banks do not want you to know this sort of information and have gone to great lengths to hide it from the public.

Some good legal researchers recently gained access to a vast database of all Credit Default Swaps in the USA. It is my belief that most loans are subject to credit default swaps.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Came across the thread because I haven't been visiting much and only came up with one question. When we got a loan for our home many years ago in the 1980's, I specifically had the contract edited to read that the originating bank could not sell the loan. The bank had no problem with it and never did sell the loan. I recall that the 30 year rate was 10.75% at that time so we paid it off way before it was due. That interest rate was a killer and I hate debt.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

indsport said:


> Came across the thread because I haven't been visiting much and only came up with one question. When we got a loan for our home many years ago in the 1980's, I specifically had the contract edited to read that the originating bank could not sell the loan. The bank had no problem with it and never did sell the loan. I recall that the 30 year rate was 10.75% at that time so we paid it off way before it was due. That interest rate was a killer and I hate debt.


They used your Signed Note to MAKE and create Money.
Your signature paid for the Home at closing. Banks have done it for 100+ years.
You wouldnt know IF they sold it, as long as they continued to SERVICE the debt.

This case greatly inspired me. 
It is actual court transcript from a woman that fought for her home (And Won), not because she couldnt afford it, but because she Could and realized the scam. 
Here is the actual Court record Pre trial transcript.

http://adask.files.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... se-hnk.pdf


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Did some digging and I wanted to Illustrate my point. 
Most Loans funded in the last 10 years were in fact Refinance Loans, (now being Foreclosed on illegally), They were NOT Purchase loans-FHA, Subprime Conventional or otherwise.










And Interesting News today.
It seems that The CEO of Barclays Bank just resigned over his Banks role in Manipulating the LIBOR Variable Rate Market
Id love to fight one of these in court, a Fraudlulent affixed rate to a Fraudulent Loan

*Rigging Interest Rates on $800 Trillion?*

"LONDON-The scandal involving efforts to manipulate a key interest rate continued to tear through the top ranks of Barclays PLC, as its chief executive and chief operating officer resigned a day after its chairman stepped down.

CEO Robert Diamond resigned Tuesday amid intense political and investor pressure over the British bank's involvement in rigging the benchmark, used to set interest rates on an estimated $800 trillion of borrowings and derivatives. Jerry del Missier, who was named chief operating officer last month, also stepped down."

Pressure on Mr. Diamond increased after the bank agreed last week to pay $453 million to settle a U.K. and U.S. probe that showed traders had blatantly sought to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to disguise the high cost of the bank's own funding and to pad the profits of certain traders." (Source)

*The LIBOR and Derivatives*
"In 1984, it became apparent that an increasing number of banks were trading actively in a variety of relatively new market instruments, notably interest rate swaps, foreign currency options and forward rate agreements. While recognizing that such instruments brought more business and greater depth to the London Interbank market, bankers worried that future growth could be inhibited unless a measure of uniformity was introduced. In October 1984, the British Bankers' Association (BBA)-working with other parties, such as the Bank of England-established various working parties, which eventually culminated in the production of the BBA standard for interest rate swaps, or "BBAIRS" terms. Part of this standard included the fixing of BBA interest-settlement rates, the predecessor of BBA Libor. From 2 September 1985, the BBAIRS terms became standard market practice.
BBA Libor fixings did not commence officially before 1 January 1986. Before that date, however, some rates were fixed for a trial period commencing in December 1984.

Member banks are international in scope, with more than sixty nations represented among its 223 members and 37 associated professional firms (as of 2008).....

The LIBOR is widely used as a reference rate for many financial instruments, such as:

forward rate agreements
short-term-interest-rate futures contracts
interest rate swaps
inflation swaps
floating rate notes
syndicated loans
variable rate mortgages
currencies, especially the US dollar (see also Eurodollar).

They, thus, provide the basis for some of the world's most liquid and active interest-rate markets." (Source)

Implications of LIBOR manipulation

"Libor is calculated and published by Thomson Reuters on behalf of the British Bankers' Association (BBA) after 11:00 AM (and generally around 11:45 AM) each day (London time). It is a trimmed average of interbank deposit rates offered by designated contributor banks, for maturities ranging from overnight to one year. Libor is calculated for 10 currencies. There are eight, twelve, sixteen or twenty contributor banks on each currency panel, and the reported interest is the mean of the 50% middle values (the interquartile mean). The rates are a benchmark rather than a tradable rate; the actual rate at which banks will lend to one another continues to vary throughout the day." (Source)
"Libor is often used as a rate of reference for pound sterling and other currencies, including US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Swedish krona, Danish krone, and New Zealand dollar.

In the 1990s, the yen Libor was influenced by credit problems affecting some of the contributor banks.
Six-month USD Libor is used as an index for some US mortgages. In the UK, the three-month GBP Libor is used for some mortgages-especially for those with adverse credit history." (Ibid)

Follow the LIBOR Futures
"The Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Eurodollar contracts are based on three-month US dollar Libor rates. They are the world's most heavily traded short term interest rate futures contracts and extend up to ten years. Shorter maturities trade on the Singapore Exchange in Asian time. ...

Interest rate swaps based on short Libor rates currently trade on the interbank market for maturities up to 50 years. In the swap market a "five year Libor" rate refers to the 5 year swap rate where the floating leg of the swap references 3 or 6 month Libor (this can be expressed more precisely as for example "5 year rate vs 6 month Libor"). "Libor + x basis points", when talking about a bond, means that the bond's cash flows have to be discounted on the swaps' zero-coupon yield curve shifted by x basis points in order to equal the bond's actual market price. The day count convention for Libor rates in interest rate swaps is Actual/360, except for the GBP currency for which it is Actual/365. (Ibid)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here is a picture for you to chew on. It's a map of the United States and homes in foreclosure. Now think red state blue state. Also think freeloader and working people. Think about who takes loans they know they can't pay or are to stupid to know they can't pay it. Also think about the type of person who takes a loan planning on walking away later, but they get a good house for a few years. Think about these things and see which states have the highest foreclosure rate.

The dots are current foreclosures in progress
USA 1 in 46 Homes in Foreclosure


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman this post look so much like our former Ryan! Right down to the DNC pitch and points. So is he getting paid to spam on this site again?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I was wondering the same thing.....but what is with all the antisemitic rants? Or is that just to try and make an outdoor website look like a bunch of backwards thinking hicks?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman this post look so much like our former Ryan! Right down to the DNC pitch and points. So is he getting paid to spam on this site again?


That was my first thought too. :rollin: As you may have noticed in the political form I said "Ryan is that you?" I don't know, but I sort of doubt it.

Drama, drama, drama. Remember old Militant Tiger? He came back under four or five names. It sounds more like him. Then we had one old fellow I liked who was booted and recently another. The odd thing is when they get ticked at me they both spell my name planisamn. Then I noticed most of their other misspelled words were the same too. Spelled wrong the same too. I suspect the one still here had a ghost writter. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: Drama, drama, drama.

That's the reason I have advised people not to give out your name or to much information on the internet. Remember swift? Do you see many of his posts anymore? On another outdoor site his name was posted, where he worked, and I think his picture and his wifes picture. Simply tried to destroy their business because he would not agree. Watch your back guys, and be suspicious of those who want more information. Things like - where do you work, who did you work with, when did you work with them, what's your home town or where did you grow up, etc etc...


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Plainsman said:


> Here is a picture for you to chew on. It's a map of the United States and homes in foreclosure. Now think red state blue state. Also think freeloader and working people. Think about who takes loans they know they can't pay or are to stupid to know they can't pay it. Also think about the type of person who takes a loan planning on walking away later, but they get a good house for a few years. Think about these things and see which states have the highest foreclosure rate.
> 
> The dots are current foreclosures in progress


The Dots represent POPULATION Centers, Mr. Obvious.

The Percentages of mortgages and homeowners in Default are pretty consistent across the board-Everyone is Hurting.

Just this week, we learned 2 cities are filing BK, one is Stockton CA and the other a country town Mammoth.

Recession/Depression is affecting all income levels, but hitting the middle class the hardest.


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Plainsman this post look so much like our former Ryan! Right down to the DNC pitch and points. So is he getting paid to spam on this site again?


Never have I touted or spewed DNC talking points, I wouldnt know any to tout. America is a 1 party system.

Ive Said it now a 3rd time. 
I voted for and support Ron Paul, The Consitution and Libertarian principles, including an END to the Illegal and Unconstitutional Federal Reserve.

Dont like the message, attack the messenger, wont work with me..ive got too many facts for you, Ron aka (Mushroom)


----------



## BillThomas (Jun 19, 2012)

Chuck Smith said:


> I was wondering the same thing.....but what is with all the antisemitic rants? Or is that just to try and make an outdoor website look like a bunch of backwards thinking hicks?


I really resent that remark.
No where has there been any ethnic hatred espoused. Certainly not for Arabs or Jews ..Semites.

But it actually is a good point you raise. 
It is a remarkable coincidence that the Banking industry and Obama Administration has so many Israeli dual citizens, given their small minority status in America.



> Benjamin S. Bernanke - Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System
> 
> Donald L. Kohn - Vice Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System
> 
> ...


More successes in GOVT



> Elliott Abrams - Special Assistant to the President (2001-2005), Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005-2008)
> 
> Paul Dundes Wolfowitz - U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005)
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Dots represent POPULATION Centers, Mr. Obvious.


No they do not. I didn't include everything that came with that photo. Here is what it said:



> (The red dots show all foreclosures in process)


It may look like population centers, but it's foreclosures in progress. I guess you think it's a coincidence that the population centers are more liberal. I guess you think it's a coincidence that liberals are more likely to walk away from a loan. There is a correlation, but the dots are not population centers. Are you going to actually argue with the people who compiled the data and produced the map? Sure you are. Don't let common sense get in your way. oke:

I didn't want to litter this post with pictures, but the preceeding ten photos were of individual cities in the United States with red dots for foreclosures in progress. Some were as high as one in eleven homes in foreclosure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I stated clearly 1 in 3 MANUFACTURING Jobs were LOST under Bush, (Last decade as reported in the Fiscal Times). This is a FACT and Facts are not up for debate.


Even if you were right do you think Bush did that, or the liberals in congress constantly making a less than friendly business climate? Now Obama on the other hand has taken more power than our constitution allows for the president. I do blame him for many of our problems. Of course with a liberal senate we can't correct those problems either. Rub your eyes and try see through the fog of hate.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So basically stupid people got convinced to take out a loan and could never pay for it? Some poeple appartnly need to got back to econ classes.


----------



## hak_65 (Jul 17, 2011)

blhunter3 said:


> So basically stupid people got convinced to take out a loan and could never pay for it? Some poeple appartnly need to got back to econ classes.


not stupid people, a lot of people. No one thought the bubble would ever burst, everyone thought they were safe and that derivatives were end all be all savior of the economy.

I don't disagree with a lot of what BT is saying, especially on shutting down the FED, they are simply a criminal organization. There is a lot of shady things going on and the Henry Ford quote is spot on. It wasn't a lot of Fanny/Freddie loans that caused the so called sub prime crisis. I believe the median home value that crashed in the sub prime crisis was like $375,000. It wasn't the poor people that defaulted the most.

One thing Mr. Thomas forgot to mention in his Bush tirade, was the repeal of Glass-Steagall (under Clinton) which opened the door to internal auditing, the ease of stated loans, and the derivative fiasco which may screw everything for generations to come. The dot com failures were a Clinton baby, the shipping of jobs overseas was also a Clinton baby. We are on the borderline of a complete global melt down and most of the blame goes on Clinton. If any president belongs in an orange jumpsuit it's Slick Willy and bride.

To say that unions have not had a role in outsourcing is completely naive. Look around the country at all the brain dead union deals made that have bankrupted local and state gov'ts. I am not necessarily anti union, but a lot of these unions are top heavy and run no different than corporations, they are a big part of the problem.

The only politician that even has the guts to say a word about it is Ron Paul.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It wasn't a lot of Fanny/Freddie loans that caused the so called sub prime crisis. I believe the median home value that crashed in the sub prime crisis was like $375,000.


In the mid west $375,000 for a home would be considered high market. In California this is a lower income level home and many of the FHA/Fannie/Fredie loans were made for these valued homes. I once called one of the lending institutes that were the "predatory lenders". With the amount of income I made which was on the lower side of "middle class". They told me I could get an FHA loan for $275,000. There was no way in H#$% I could afford that much. So I showed restraint and also laughed at that lender. But how many naive people just went with it. That is where the real issue is. Some lending institutions just maxed people out with out following all the guidelines. Even think about a couple in CA where the FHA limit was $700,000 or more on a home. How can two middle class incomes afford that much of a home. That is roughly a $3750 a month payment. Then add in the insurance and taxes on these homes..... plus other bills???? Then add on top of it if one person loses a job or they get a divorce.....which divorce rates in the US is around 50%. Which many FHA loans were going to first time home buyers who are recently married.

If you don't think FHA was a part the problem with of all of this..... Look at this website and see what the lending limits are by state (these are 2012 limits....i am sure they were higher when things were going crazy in the late 90's early 2000's):

http://www.fha.com/lending_limits.cfm

Then add in the fact that all they needed to put down was 3% or Less in some cases. Sometime the bankers did other types of financing for the down payments.

BT is correct with the re-financing loans are another huge problem. People were taking that money and purchasing cars, boats, vacation property, land, going on vacations, etc. Then the market crashes, someone loses a job, divorce, etc. It is maxed out debt that can't or won't be repaid.


----------



## hak_65 (Jul 17, 2011)

It really doesn't matter, my whole point was that it wasn't the poor that caused the sub prime (term loosely, much like so called assault weapons ban) it was everyone. BL has way oversimplified a very complex problem, a problem that has not been changed. I can't vouch for all that BT has said but I know some people that are/were in the mortgage game and they paint about the same picture.

Either way, I don't care what anyone says, BT has some good points and without a doubt the FED needs to disappear.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> my whole point was that it wasn't the poor that caused the sub prime (term loosely, much like so called assault weapons ban) it was everyone.


You are correct. It was over extending the middle class....or the upper lower class. That is what did it.

Here is an easy example. You have a middle class family where two people are making $30,000 each. So you have $60,000 grand total take home income. 2 kids and 2 vehicles (payments on both). So this is an average family. They have a $275,000 home they just purchase. They escrow the taxes and insurance on the place. Mortgage is $1475 per month(30 years @ 5%), Insurance $100 per month, Taxes $200 per month. So that is a $1775 payment a month. Then you add in two car payments and SUV to haul the kids and a pick up. (typical all american family...correct) You are looking at roughly $900 in car payments. So just in vehicle and house payments they are spending $32,100 a year. Then add in food for a year a family grocery bills are $100 a week ($5,200) a year. Auto insurance on both vehicles $1,200 a year. Health insurance (If they are not covered by work) $5,000. Clothing budget for a year $1000-$4000 depending on age of kids and how fast they grow out of things. Cell phone bill $100 a month ($1200) a year. Utilities on the home $200 a month for gas, water, and electric ($2400) a year. Cable or Dish TV $100 a month ($1200 a year). Gas for your two vehicles $100 a week so $400 a month ($4800 a year), Maintance on your vehicles $300-$600 a year.

So lets total this up.... Monthly:
Mortgage........... $1475
Property taxes..... $200 
Home Ins.......... $100
Car Payments..... $900
Grocery bill ...... $400
Auto Ins.......... $100
Health Ins....... $417
Clothing Budget.. $200
Cell Phone........ $100
Utilities......... $200
TV/Cable...... $100
Gas for Vehicles. $400
Vehicle Care..... $50

Grand Total...... $4,642 A MONTH.... When your total income is $5000 per month. Not much wiggle room if something goes wrong....ie Someone gets sick and misses work, Divorce, Someone loses a job, etc.

That is roughly $55,700 a year when your income stream is $60,000.

Then think of other thing you spend money on in a year..... vacations, TV's, DVD's, Computers, School supplies, daycare, Toys for the kids, Toys for the adults, going out to eat, going out to have a beer or two, birthday gifts, x-mas gifts, lawn care, snow removal, any repairs to the home, etc.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Would this have had anything to do with business going to China??? And lots of people losing their jobs??? Oh, sorry this was before Bush II. Didn't mean to pee in anyones cornflakes! :rollin:

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/...p-china-global-trade-regime?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Indeed, end the fed.

Everyone knows that Woodrow Wilson signed the legislation creating it. What most do not know is that Woodrow had an advisor whom he entrusted with more than just small talk. The fate of a nation. His name was Edward Mandell House. I didn't see his name on Bill Thomas' semite list, but Edward Mandell House should take his place in history as a thief in creating the federal reserve.


----------

