age of responsibility

[uscitizen]

usc

too much of the sub-prime loan industry was focused on scaming people

people who were speculating were one problem, but people who were trying to buy a home to live in were lied to

Oh yes and the not as bright ones were sucked in easially.
Like the net scams and such.
It was a scam from its inception

 

[evince]

Desh

It is not just a different style of parenting, but parenting in the face of massive 'must have advertising' and peer pressure
That and a far more complex world with changing technology and a need to keep up with that technology

A person could start training in a field during high school only to discover that the requirements for that field have changed radically by the time they complete their freshman year of college

Even the basic amount of training required to enter the job market changes as a person moves from middle school through high school

You got it Don!

 

[evince]

That is more than "innocent" it is plain stupid. The idea that the market will only go up is the same thing that happened to many 90s tech bubble freakos in the stock market.

One more time, we can expect that they will be responsible enough to realize that they are gambling with their futures. That there can be consequences for their actions. We should not save all these "innocent" people because they were "taken advantage" of by other idiots who should also face consequences for their own stupidity.

Where do you think the mentality comes from to assert such stupid parenting that leaves kids unprepared? Somebody is always going to come save you.

Like I said earlier you can try to punish these people but in doing so you will solve nothing.

If we expect all people to be experts in finance and contracts you will end up with a very restrained economy.

If you regulate the industry in such a way to protect the average Joe from getting spun into these types of scams you end up with a populace who is not affraid to take part in the economy.

 

[Damocles]

Like I said earlier you can try to punish these people but in doing so you will solve nothing.

If we expect all people to be experts in finance and contracts you will end up with a very restrained economy.

If you regulate the industry in such a way to protect the average Joe from getting spun into these types of scams you end up with a populace who is not affraid to take part in the economy.

It is not punishment to face the consequences of your own choices. Punish would be to add to the consequences they face from their own choices.

 

[evince]

It is not punishment to face the consequences of your own choices. Punish would be to add to the consequences they face from their own choices.

There is a whole generation of future consumers who have watched this take place.

You are asking for an enconomy in which many will never again trust lenders and will fovever associate Home ownership with the financial ruin of their parents.

Don think about them as people who made a mistake if it makes you unsympatetic to the situation. Think about them as elements of the economy and what functions our elelments need to perform to keep our ecnonmy strong.
Saddle so many people with debt or saddle them with the inability to ever truely purchase any large item until they die and Then also consider what will be the impact on their childrens consumer habits for their lives.

What will you have gained for this country to have mass amounts of homes sitting empty and vast amounts of future consumers stangled with debt, horrible credit for life and represeting to future generations what large ticket items and the lending industry will do to their lives.

Do you really want a lending industry in this country which is looked upon with as much scepeticism as used car dealers?

The housing industry will take a generation to recover.

 

[Damocles]

There is a whole generation of future consumers who have watched this take place.

You are asking for an enconomy in which many will never again trust lenders and will fovever associate Home ownership with the financial ruin of their parents.

Don think about them as people who made a mistake if it makes you unsympatetic to the situation. Think about them as elements of the economy and what functions our elelments need to perform to keep our ecnonmy strong.
Saddle so many people with debt or saddle them with the inability to ever truely purchase any large item until they die and Then also consider what will be the impact on their childrens consumer habits for their lives.

What will you have gained for this country to have mass amounts of homes sitting empty and vast amounts of future consumers stangled with debt, horrible credit for life and represeting to future generations what large ticket items and the lending industry will do to their lives.

Do you really want a lending industry in this country which is looked upon with as much scepeticism as used car dealers?

The housing industry will take a generation to recover.

Who said I was unsympathetic? Sometimes the cure is hard. Giving money infusions to the companies and consumers who made foolish decision does not fix anything at all.

And yes, I would like people to be careful when they spent more money than they make in many years. The lending industry would not get out unscathed either, future industry leaders would not be so foolish. Trust for a company would come from right action, and mistrust would cause careful consideration from the consumer.

As I said before, sometimes the cure is difficult. But simply giving these corporations and consumers fixes for their own action will not solve anything at all. It will only suffice to build false security and a larger balloon to burst later.

 

[evince]

I dont sugest bailing out the institutions I sugest coing up with some program to keep people from losing their homes and having their credit destroyed to help keep the economic effects smaller.

It can be done on a case by case basis if you like but to step in and make sure we dont end up with vast swathes of empty homes, perminant debtors and a generation tramatized at the thought of home purchase.

Hoover made similar mistakes in his time.

 

[Socrtease]

A person should not be allowed to do any of the following until they achieve the age of 25

a) Vote

b) Driving unsupervised by an adult

c) Use recreational drugs (this includes alcohol, tobacco and THC) out of the presence of an adult (25+ years)

d) Enter into a contract without adult supervision (especially independent legal advice)

e) Enlist or be drafted into the military

f) Marriage without adult approval (living with the partner(s) of your choice is based on other legal constraints – like a range of over 2 – 5 years between oldest and youngest partner(s))

When an adult reaches the age of 70, they should be tested periodically for the ability to operate machinery or competency - if they are declared incompetent by a district court, their right to manage their own affairs (including voting) shall be revoked

So do people under 25 also get a pass on criminal liability? I mean if you say that before 25 all these rights and priviliges should be withheld then so should being held culpable as an adult for crimes commited before 25.

 

[uscitizen]

Sorry Desh but I believe in personal responsibility on both sides.
I do however think that the ones behind the subprime loan business should be pursued and punished like the swindlers they are.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

d

just tilting at wind mills..although, given the lengthing life expectancy, it might help to raise the 'age of reason'...especially for voting and joining the military

and yes, it is not likely to happen within our lives

oh well

Good thing people are sane, unlike you.

NOte to Don: raising the life expectancy does not, in any way, raise the age that someone reaches maturity. Just pointin' it out to you.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

c

first, read the entire thing - there are ways around some of the restrictions

second, someone that would not want to deal with the consequences of someone elses immaturity may object to an immature person's actions

third, what should the penalty be for someone that maims or kills because they did something immature or ignored the consequences of their action(s)

on another tentacle, maybe we should reduce the age limits to 16 and reap the rewards of population reduction - or maybe 14 since a person may be tried as an adult at age 14 in some jurisdictions

in some historical cultures (with shorter life expectancies) a person was considered an adult at age 13

oh well

1. Like what? Having an "adult" (although a person above 18 is an adult, I'm giong to keep with your pedantism) with you? What kind of freedom is that?

2. A responsible person is always going to be responsible. An irresponsible person will always be irresponsible. This is true regardless of age, and affects people much more greatly than the small difference in brain structure between 18 and 25.

3. It should be whatever else it is for negligence. Duh.

4. Lowering the age of responsiblity to 16 will cut into our population? Drop the drinks, Don.

5. This wasn't a legal restriction and didn't have much to do with life expectancy at all. The age of responsibility has been 18 in pretty much all jurisdictions since the 1800's, even whenever life expectancy was in the 40's.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I dont sugest bailing out the institutions I sugest coing up with some program to keep people from losing their homes and having their credit destroyed to help keep the economic effects smaller.

It can be done on a case by case basis if you like but to step in and make sure we dont end up with vast swathes of empty homes, perminant debtors and a generation tramatized at the thought of home purchase.

Hoover made similar mistakes in his time.

Desh, please tell me of one 'empty home' in your neighborhood that's sat there for more than 2 years.