Why does debt mater?

Damocles said:
None of this would change any of what I said previously. Just because somebody can't afford their McMansion, or even a more humble abode, why does it become our responsibility to pay it for them? Where would you draw the line?

This isn't unrecoverable loss, nor does it mean they will be homeless. It only means that they will have to move.

Anyway, each time I purchased or refinanced I had to sign documents about the risk and with an understanding that if I couldn't pay I'd have to move out. If I lose my job and, therefore, my house I will move. I do not assume that the government (meaning everybody, including you) have any responsibility towards paying off the house so I can keep what I can no longer afford.
Click to expand...

Where did I say we should pay for it? My point is that banks/mortgage bkoers/salesmen acted unscuplously.
 
Rune said:
Where did I say we should pay for it? My point is that banks/mortgage bkoers/salesmen acted unscuplously.
Click to expand...
Do they have invisible ink on the contracts? Do they Change the contracts? You should read and know what you are signing before you sign it. That's pretty much all there is to it, of course they want you to buy, but just because a salesman with encyclopedias says they're affordable do you buy them? They want to sell, your job is to figure out if its a good idea.
 
Disillusioned said:
Do they have invisible ink on the contracts? Do they Change the contracts? You should read and know what you are signing before you sign it. That's pretty much all there is to it, of course they want you to buy, but just because a salesman with encyclopedias says they're affordable do you buy them? They want to sell, your job is to figure out if its a good idea.
Click to expand...

Those selling mortgages acted wrongly. Massive systemwide fraud was commited. Their is a reason commerce and banks need to be regulated.
 
wiseones2cents said:
Answer me this. Why does debt really mater? It maters to the creditors that is for sure. But lets say that we had one global economy. Basically one global government and everything was nationalized, and that gov had the power to make money. What would stop it from giving a raise to people or paying people to retire at 45? Debt? Who cares about debt. They can keep creating more money. Though why does debt really mater? Because the rich want to continue living off the backs of the people.

When the rich need more money they just make it up and charge it to the tax payer.

Other notes:

The source of your dollars is nothing but fake IOU's................It has no real value. It isn't backed by anything(contrary to the US constitution).

On your level it may seem that the money is worth something though in the bigger scheme of things. It is actually not.

The only reason it is valuable is because people have been taught to think it is valuable. Just like the kings used to have sticks with notches in it and shells that represented wealth(when they ran out of real wealth) and they were recognized as wealth, even though they are worthless things.

Basically the global economy is controlled by European bankers/elites, that can make money at will(out of thin air) and if wanted to can buy the entire planet. That is why 2% of the worlds population owns over half of the world's entire wealth and their wealth grows rapidly.
Click to expand...

wiseones2cents said:
It's an illusion because the money is actually? WORTHLESS! Though we pay interest and payments on worthless money.

Therefore we are trading for goods with worthless money. As long as we believe the money is worth something, it is. But in reality. It is not.

And we are paying taxes to support worthless money.
Click to expand...

wiseones2cents said:
what is stopping Canada from building a 100 Trillion dollar deficit? We'd have the best military, education, scientists, ect....There would be no limit to what we can acheive.

Who cares if our money becomes worthless outside the country. Canada is a self sufficiant country. We dont need any imports.
Click to expand...


This is a product of the public school system......this fuckin' moron....its unbelievable.

There is enough stupidity expressed here to base a text book on.....

And pinheads want to spend more money education ?.......Just read above what the bloated education system has bought for us so far.....

Its a crime to let this idiot near a polling place to cast a ballot....
 
The Dude said:
Debt only matters to the party out of power. Financing your bs is ok.
Click to expand...

Debt won't matter until the lender demands his loan back....and you morons finally realize that its YOU that own the money......
the debt is YOURS and YOU don't have the money to pay back the lender.........
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It does if they were attempting to purchase one, that was already straining their ability to pay.
Being responsible doesn't start WHEN you're in a problem, but way prior to that.
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) Eligibility and amount

Americans out of work who do not qualify for unemployment insurance include part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers.

Generally, the worker must be unemployed through no fault of his/her own (generally through lay-offs). The unemployed must also meet state requirements for wages earned or time worked during an established period of time (referred to as a “base period”) to be eligible for benefits. (In most States, the base period is usually the first four out of the last five completed calendar quarters prior to the time that the claim is filed.) Unemployment benefits are based on reported covered quarterly earnings. The amount of earnings and the number of quarters worked are used to determine the length and value of the unemployment benefit. The average weekly payment is 36 percent of the individual's average weekly wage. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

Very few people live on a budget appropriate to 36% of their income, thus, most unemployed people face financial hardship.
 
Damocles said:
Is it possible that people who signed contracts understand that they take this risk when they sign them? They may not be able to afford their McMansion, but should we have to do it because you feel bad for them? What limit would you place on this?

Personally, if I didn't have personal savings enough to survive a shortfall, I would take my family and live in an apartment until I could afford to once again purchase a house, or even continue living in an apartment afterward to stack more in savings.

Sometimes dropping our cash on other people just because you feel guilty that good things happen to you really isn't a bearable solution that society can or should afford.
Click to expand...

The problem is when a person loses their home they usually lose their downpayment which took them years to save plus any improvements they may have made. The mortgage program that resulted in many buying homes with little downpayment should have been limited to first time buyers. That would have kept many speculators out of the market.

What's required is a program geared towards first time buyers helping them keep their home. If one is able to sell their home and get some cash back they should not have access to the program. The whole idea was to help first time buyers. Furthermore, as long as they can pay the interest on the loan it shouldn't make any difference for a few years. Banks simply turn around and loan the money out again so they lose nothing by extending the loan and allowing homeowners to avoid paying anything on the principal.

We don't have to drop our cash on other people. On the other hand, we don't have to make life difficult for them.

Also, far too often communities have zoning laws limiting denser construction which, while keeping the value of current houses, results in higher prices for everyone. Sooner or later individual, residential lots are rezoned for multiple dwellings so it's nothing more than a manufactured housing shortage.
 
Damocles said:
None of this would change any of what I said previously. Just because somebody can't afford their McMansion, or even a more humble abode, why does it become our responsibility to pay it for them? Where would you draw the line?

This isn't unrecoverable loss, nor does it mean they will be homeless. It only means that they will have to move.

Anyway, each time I purchased or refinanced I had to sign documents about the risk and with an understanding that if I couldn't pay I'd have to move out. If I lose my job and, therefore, my house I will move. I do not assume that the government (meaning everybody, including you) have any responsibility towards paying off the house so I can keep what I can no longer afford.
Click to expand...

As for unrecoverable loss, in many cases, it is. For first time buyers it was a case of getting a house, any house. For young people they saved while they didn't have a family and now, with children, they may never be able to save another downpayment.

Older individuals simply don't have the time. If one retires before the mortgage is paid how will they meet the payments on SS?
 
bravo said:
Debt won't matter until the lender demands his loan back....and you morons finally realize that its YOU that own the money......
the debt is YOURS and YOU don't have the money to pay back the lender.........
Click to expand...

On our level yes, because we are exchanging real wealth, but how about at the top level?

Do you think it is justifiable for them to make money out of thin air and charge interest, when they have no chance of taking a loss?

And like I said. If we went to one single global currency, devaluation would not be an issue.
 
The Dude said:
Debt only matters to the party out of power. Financing your bs is ok.
Click to expand...

Debt doesn't mater to politicians because they dont pay the bills. The tax payers do. Therefore debt only maters to the tax payers.


"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed." - John Maynard Keynes,
 
bravo said:
This is a product of the public school system......this fuckin' moron....its unbelievable.

There is enough stupidity expressed here to base a text book on.....

And pinheads want to spend more money education ?.......Just read above what the bloated education system has bought for us so far.....

Its a crime to let this idiot near a polling place to cast a ballot....
Click to expand...

Really? Care to argue the points? If the money is not backed by any real wealth, like you idiots claim. Who gives them the right to charge interest? And why would debt mater to Canada that is self sufficient? Try answering the questions bozo.
 
apple0154 said:
The problem is it's not necessary for everyone to work as far as supplying needed products. Many jobs are done simply to earn money.

Do we really need "Greeters" at Wal-Mart? Do we need so many people behind a McDonald's counter so we can get a hamburger 30 seconds sooner?

As we progress there will naturally be fewer and fewer jobs and that's the whole idea behind progress. Machines and technology replace man.

We take the bizarre position that unemployment is bad. If the store shelves are full and there is no shortage of products/items it shows it's not necessary for everyone to work. The problem is how to structure society so that people who lack jobs do not suffer. With a one world government jobs can be apportioned so each individual has the opportunity to earn money. That is the primary reason behind the unemployment problem. It has little to do with actually supplying goods and services.

Take computers, for example. Why do we throw out the entire computer rather than just replace the necessary parts? Instead of designing products to be thrown away we need to design ones that last and replace only the defective/worn out parts. Of course, a lot of companies making the metal enclosures for desk-top models wouldn't be in business very long nor the companies making all the other parts which are still functioning.

There needs to be a major change in the way the world operates. A coordinated plan. A one world government.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Technology is used to enslave us. Not better us. We have to keep working to buy the new stuff.

And yes. We need a society where our elderly, sick and unemployed are not left out in the cold. That is socialism. At least in my sense of the word.

The problem with the current one world government is that they operate like an oligarchy, as opposed to being beneficial to the people. Their goal is to enslave every country and individual to debt.....
 
Disillusioned said:
I find myself in the akward position of agreeing with Freedom. When you buy something you accept the responsibility for paying for it, when you use a credit card or a loan, you are accepting that in the future you will pay for it over time. When people complain that "The bank shouldn't have offered me the loan." What they are actually saying is, "I just signed papers because I wanted the new house, the new car, or the new tv and assumed that it would all be ok." Stop doing that, take responsibility for what you do, and stop trying to do the "We're american so we should all be equal middle class and all be able to get the latest stuff." If you're working Walmart, you won't be able to afford a new house every year.
Click to expand...

I'm taking about government debt. Not individual debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top