by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:10:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'Y')our completely misunderstanding the argument.
Did the finance companies force people to borrow money? Yes or no?
No.
Its that simple.
There is never one side to an argument. Did the people force the finance companies to lend them the money? Then when the finance companies find that people are able avoid some debts through bankruptcy, they now say that was unfair and get the rules changed.
Why are the finance companies worried? Because they have run out of people to lend to, so to support themselves they've adopted riskier and riskier schemes, then realised they have overdone themselves so need the law changed to protect themselves.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:13:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'Y')our completely misunderstanding the argument.
Did the finance companies force people to borrow money? Yes or no?
No.
Its that simple.
There is never one side to an argument. Did the people force the finance companies to lend them the money?
Nope. Finance companies are not required by law to lend you money. That simple. By the same token, consumers are not required by law to borrow money.
Since it was a willing agreement by both parties the contract is binding.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen when the finance companies find that people are able avoid some debts through bankruptcy, they now say that was unfair and get the rules changed.
And well they should! The money was loaned in good faith and as stated above was a legal binding contract entered into willingly by both parties.
If i sign a contract to mow your lawn once a week and mow it once a month and charge you full price would you pay? Of course not.
Well, the finance companies loaned money and now people arent paying. And they should be.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are the finance companies worried? Because they have run out of people to lend to, so to support themselves they've adopted riskier and riskier schemes, then realised they have overdone themselves so need the law changed to protect themselves.
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:15:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')onsumers accepted the money knowing that if something bad happened to them they could declare bankruptcy. Finance companies knew that bankruptcy was a possibility. Nobody forced the finance companies to lend either. They did so willingly and knowing the risks. Then however they find out that they could buy a law from the government changing the terms of the deal after the fact. This is ex post facto lawmaking of the worst kind. It has also encouraged blatantly irresponsible lending behavior, and will lead to the death of a huge chunk of the U.S. finance industry. To prevent an economic recession the government will print money to refloat the industry, just as it did every time anything bad happened to it since the 1980's.
If the government can print money to save the finance companies, why shouldn't it print money to save regular people from bankruptcy? That's justice, isn't it?
And if something bad happens consumers can still file bankruptcy. They just cant be absolved of the debt, and will still be required to make payments.
Whats the problem? If you file bankruptcy your not forced to pay off all the loans immediately, but neither are you absolved of them.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007
- Expert
-
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
-
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:16:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')onsumers accepted the money knowing that if something bad happened to them they could declare bankruptcy. Finance companies knew that bankruptcy was a possibility. Nobody forced the finance companies to lend either. They did so willingly and knowing the risks. Then however they find out that they could buy a law from the government changing the terms of the deal after the fact. This is ex post facto lawmaking of the worst kind. It has also encouraged blatantly irresponsible lending behavior, and will lead to the death of a huge chunk of the U.S. finance industry. To prevent an economic recession the government will print money to refloat the industry, just as it did every time anything bad happened to it since the 1980's.
If the government can print money to save the finance companies, why shouldn't it print money to save regular people from bankruptcy? That's justice, isn't it?
I need help. I have found myself agreeing 100% to this particular post from Mr Jaws.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:18:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')onsumers accepted the money knowing that if something bad happened to them they could declare bankruptcy. Finance companies knew that bankruptcy was a possibility. Nobody forced the finance companies to lend either. They did so willingly and knowing the risks. Then however they find out that they could buy a law from the government changing the terms of the deal after the fact. This is ex post facto lawmaking of the worst kind. It has also encouraged blatantly irresponsible lending behavior, and will lead to the death of a huge chunk of the U.S. finance industry. To prevent an economic recession the government will print money to refloat the industry, just as it did every time anything bad happened to it since the 1980's.
If the government can print money to save the finance companies, why shouldn't it print money to save regular people from bankruptcy? That's justice, isn't it?
I need help. I have found myself agreeing 100% to this particular post from Mr Jaws.
I dont know how you could possibly agree with him. Hes trying to blame a persons financial problems on finance companies. Its the all too typcial "I'm a victim" card played every day by Americans.
Now that their finally getting their feet held to the fire and are forced to act like responsible amture adults they scream foul and lay blame elsewhere.
All the while forgetting they willingly and knowlingly signed the contract of their own free will to have the line of credit extended to them.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:23:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'I') dont know how you could possibly agree with him. Hes trying to blame a persons financial problems on finance companies.
All the while forgetting they willingly and knowlingly signed the contract of their own free will to have the line of credit extended to them.
No, what he is trying to say is that the law was changed to the benefit
one party of the contract
after the contract was signed.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:26:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')I need help. I have found myself agreeing 100% to this particular post from Mr Jaws.
Are you finally wising up to the catastrophic consequences of socialism? It's never the poor that win. Never the poor.
Alas it's the same with capitalism.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:35:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')Alas it's the same with capitalism.
They may still be poor but at least no one is stealing their money to the benefit of those in power. It makes being poor more dignified.
Most people will happily trade dignity for food.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:52:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'I') dont know how you could possibly agree with him. Hes trying to blame a persons financial problems on finance companies.
All the while forgetting they willingly and knowlingly signed the contract of their own free will to have the line of credit extended to them.
No, what he is trying to say is that the law was changed to the benefit
one party of the contract
after the contract was signed.
But thats not true.
The sgined contracts for the credit have nothing in them about bankruptcy filings.
The contracts sgined never changed. Obviously to do so would be breach of contract. Thats against the law, and people could file suit. The monthly minimums can change, just as the interest rate can change. All clearly spelled out in the contract.
The bankruptcy laws affect the bankruptcy process. Those laws, and the changes that come about, are in no way spelled out in the signed contracts.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 19:55:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'I') dont know how you could possibly agree with him. Hes trying to blame a persons financial problems on finance companies.
All the while forgetting they willingly and knowlingly signed the contract of their own free will to have the line of credit extended to them.
No, what he is trying to say is that the law was changed to the benefit
one party of the contract
after the contract was signed.
But thats not true.
The sgined contracts for the credit have nothing in them about bankruptcy filings.
The contracts sgined never changed. Obviously to do so would be breach of contract. Thats against the law, and people could file suit. The monthly minimums can change, just as the interest rate can change. All clearly spelled out in the contract.
The bankruptcy laws affect the bankruptcy process. Those laws, and the changes that come about, are in no way spelled out in the signed contracts.
A contract does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within a framework of current laws.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 20:05:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'I') dont know how you could possibly agree with him. Hes trying to blame a persons financial problems on finance companies.
All the while forgetting they willingly and knowlingly signed the contract of their own free will to have the line of credit extended to them.
No, what he is trying to say is that the law was changed to the benefit
one party of the contract
after the contract was signed.
But thats not true.
The sgined contracts for the credit have nothing in them about bankruptcy filings.
The contracts sgined never changed. Obviously to do so would be breach of contract. Thats against the law, and people could file suit. The monthly minimums can change, just as the interest rate can change. All clearly spelled out in the contract.
The bankruptcy laws affect the bankruptcy process. Those laws, and the changes that come about, are in no way spelled out in the signed contracts.
A contract does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within a framework of current laws.
by rogerhb » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 20:09:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'M')mmm, yes and no.
While you can change the framework around the contract, you cannot change the framework of the contract itself unless the changes (Or ability to change) are written into the original contract.
While the framework around the contract has changed (Bankruptcy laws) the contract itself has not changed.
Now whose needs do you think the gov was responding to when it changed the bankruptcy laws?
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by Specop_007 » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 20:34:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'M')mmm, yes and no.
While you can change the framework around the contract, you cannot change the framework of the contract itself unless the changes (Or ability to change) are written into the original contract.
While the framework around the contract has changed (Bankruptcy laws) the contract itself has not changed.
Now whose needs do you think the gov was responding to when it changed the bankruptcy laws?
The corporations obviously.
So let me ask you this.....Why would the laws need to be changed? perhaps because consumers were taking advantage of them.......
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
