Yet another stupid debtor and retirement account raider!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

If I may, a random photo of the Hanson Brothers.

 

[haha]

Now, about the debtor woman, I will repeat that these people have low EQ, a disease or deficiency, whatever you want to call it, which also afflicts people in higher socioeconomic classes, like the veterans Nords described in another thread. I am not sure that there can be a cure. For example, some people like to gamble, and if you ban all casinos, they will flock to Schwab and ETrade. What can we do?

Harrah's has a system whereby people can place themselves on "Do Not Admit" status. If they approach the casino, they will be barred. I am not sure if all the security staff have photos, or just how they do this. Also not sure if a do not admit listee can just say, Oh, I don't need that anymore and go on in. The casinos get away with stronger behavior than McDonalds could, so maybe they have answers for this.

Anyway, there are other examples where civil liability or licensing strictures force businesses which otherwise profit from people's self destructive behavior to police that behavior. An easy example is the bar that cannot serve an obviously drunk patron. The better this stuff is enforced, the more careful bartenders tend to be, as their jobs are on the line.

Overall, I think I would not care if these losers all just hit the streets and joined the chorus of beggars. It used to bother me, but since moving to the city I realize that Jesus was right- the poor will always be with us, so put your mind to food or drink or anything pleasant and let it be.

But that is not what happens. What happens is bailouts- not so much of the individuals but of the institutions that sold them their fixes. And who pays for it? As substantial taxpayers, me and my two sons, among others in the same boat.

My campaign is against stupidity, not among debtors but among voters and taxpayers. But Jesus may have said something discouraging about that too.

 

[ladelfina]

According to your logic, and your stated way of thinking, shouldn't we all feel equally sorry for all of the poor bankers that lost huge amounts of money? What about all the piling on of them?

armor99, because "they" personally did not lose money. They hardly ever do. The shareholders/bondholders/taxpayers lose.

Freddie Mac CEO Dick Syron’s unique pay package whereby compensation moves inversely with performance paid off in 2007. Mr. Syron’s pay increased 25% or $3.6 million. Freddie Mac’s stock price dropped 61% in 2007, while net income swung from a $2.3 billion profit in 2006 to a $3 billion loss. The company projects steeper losses in 2008. Included in Mr. Syron’s compensation was a special one time $1.25 million bonus for extending his employment agreement through 2009.

A company spokesman stated, Freddie Mac is committed to take the company into insolvency and only a man of Mr. Syron’s skill set can get the job accomplished. We appreciate his extending his employment contract as it might take longer than 2 years to accomplish this goal. Mr. Syron was unavailable for comment...

MonkeyBusinessBlog: Good Thing CEO Compensation is Getting Straightened Out
(goofy random blog found by chance)

but it's pretty much anywhere you care to look:
CEO pay climbs despite companies' struggles - USATODAY.com

While we reserve harsher sentences for the crack dealer than for the crackhead, the prisons are full of many more crackheads than serious dealers. And in our society debt <=> crack.. but we collectively need and want the crack, so the dealers are rarely prosecuted, and are considered pillars of society, rather.

My right-wing sis got a Pepperdine MBA. She defends the school's right-wing, Christian, moral approach to business.

Pepperdine People Magazine, Fall 2005 - Pepperdine University

The Mozilo Family Executive Dining Center in Villa Graziadio represents a recent choice that this couple made, an investment in education that will endure beyond their lifetimes. ... Mozilo holds an honorary doctor of laws degree from the business school at Pepperdine University. Balancing leadership with community involvement, Mozilo has received the Hogan Entrepreneurial Award, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and the Albert Schweitzer Award for service to youth.

Cracks me up.. the "Executive Dining Center" is an "investment in education".. what? an education in assessing various vintages of Bordeaux and Dom Perignon? THANK GOD that executives visiting Pepperdine have been saved from -I can only imagine- utter squalor during their repasts.

Man, do I want to see this guy in handcuffs.

 

[BLS53]

Apparently she persuaded her son to co-sign a loan application and then spent lots of money on home shopping channels (“'Eight weeks in bed by yourself is very dangerous when you have a TV and credit card,' Ms. McLeod said.”). Now her son's credit history has taken a beating, and she is planning to walk away from her obligations by declaring bankruptcy.

That's not taking care of her family, or doing the right thing.

What's done is done. What exactly do you think she should do as this point? Given her health, I doubt her employment opportunities are very good as this point. Any job that she does get is not likely to pay enough to service $80K worth of debt.

 

[haha]

Maybe what we are seeing here is a type of Stockholm Syndrome. I used to think that ordinary people who sided strongly with power might at least be hoping that they could aspire to that power themselves- but our posters are a bunch of people whose major ambition is to quit working! Not much hope of power there!

So maybe it is more magical- identify with power, and maybe some of it will rub off on oneself.

Don't worry, we will just have our fat rendered like everyone else's.

Ha

 

[ladelfina]

ha, the 'power' is the belief that the financial system and its mechanisms won't betray you, that they are logical, or that they are transparent -- such that your decisions and observations make sense and lead to a 'correct' outcome. Lotsa type-A intellectuals here; it's hard to admit we have less control than we might have thought.

No one has more invested in the system than.. investors who live off their investments. I wonder if people with private pensions might not be the next group to start getting suspicious. Pension plans purchase investments just like anyone else (more or less).

Many more people used to be profoundly religious. Now the religion is the marketplace.
The sacrifices were a sheep, a foreskin, a rabbi. Now the offerings are 401ks.

Without these beliefs one really risks staring into the abyss.

 

[BLS53]

In a way, you are right in that the loans could have been originated at the top, but no matter what you do or package it, these loans NEED to be taken by those at the bottom. In other words, you are kind of suggesting induced demand (has a decent article on wikipedia, more like enough supply creates demand almost).

And, I never said that she ISN'T feeling the pain, if I did I feel I wrote poorly. What I am trying to say is that she SHOULD (as she is). I am not saying this out of spite or anger or contemptuously looking down on her on my high horse, but the fact that based off the agreement that she had with the creditor, she was supposed to pay off the credit card debt. Just, and again it isn't specifically from her but an indictment against many of those in debt's attitude, many of those who want to hang the credit card companies will completely favor a bailout of those in debt.

I stand by the companies and the debtors should be held responsible for their actions (and the stockholders/bondholders). If it causes higher rates, then don't buy the product, or make your own company and try to beat their rates. In other words, the creditors ARE offering a service, no matter how expensive it actually is, it does help people. The problem I see is when the agreement falls out, everyone jumps in to help out (not this case again) the debtor, but not the creditor because of "predatory practices"

There already is a bailout for those in debt. It's called bankruptcy.

 

[ladelfina]

I don't think bankruptcy is a walk in the park. And the point is that 'savvy' financial companies should have the money salted away to deal with the odd defaulter, thanks to the super-high 15%-20% or more fees they charge these people for credit. You can't expect to reap the high fees yet keep little on hand to CYA, but that's basically what they did.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Don't worry, we will just have our fat rendered like everyone else's.

Dont sweat it Ha, I'll make sure you're made into a few fine sides of bacon.

We'll have to fatten you up a little bit between now and then, so keep eating those pork chops for breakfast!

 

[BLS53]

I don't think bankruptcy is a walk in the park. And the point is that 'savvy' financial companies should have the money salted away to deal with the odd defaulter, thanks to the super-high 15%-20% or more fees they charge these people for credit. You can't expect to reap the high fees yet keep little on hand to CYA, but that's basically what they did.

For the lady in the article, the bankruptcy process itself, would be quite simple. Her best case scenario is to apply for Social Security Disability and Section 8 housing. Life as she knew it, is over.

 

[haha]

Dont sweat it Ha, I'll make sure you're made into a few fine sides of bacon.

We'll have to fatten you up a little bit between now and then, so keep eating those pork chops for breakfast!

LOL-if you don't mind, I'd prefer to recycle into Pork Rinds. To be eaten with yak butter.

Ha

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You're pushing it with the yak butter...but we'll take care of ya.

Anyone out there have a yak?

How about a butter churn?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I do have another alternative for you...

 

[haha]

Hey, you have never let me down, Bunny.

But if it's all the same., I'll go with the yak butter. Does that
ever look rich!

BTW, this has made me hungry, so I got some pork rinds, even though all I had to butter them with was Darigold. Still, muy sabroso!

Ha

 

[ERD50]

Geez, I've been meaning to jump into this thread from page 1, but then I see a new comment, and want to respond to that, then another, and I want to respond to THAT, then.... marmots!!?? (LOL, BTW)

So haha, how come I don't like your current avatar as much as the previous one?

When you have ones I like, you need to provide a link to the source. My eyes are not good enough to appreciate a postage size image.

So what did that have to do with marmots? Nothing!

-ERD50

 

[haha]

So haha, how come I don't like your current avatar as much as the previous one?
-ERD50

I see your point, but you have to admit there is something strong about the Dog.

I'll see if I can find Miss Amanda Sulu's pics and post them on pin-ups.

 

[Marquette]

I see your point, but you have to admit there is something strong about the Dog.

I have noticed you've been more serious since the switch... or at least I've perceived you as more serious.

respect.

 

[youbet]

Financial suicide is similar to other forms of self-destructive behaviour (e.g. smoking, drinking, overeating, etc.).

That is certainly not the way I choose to live my life; but from their perspective, it probably makes sense.

Yeah..... but is hanging around on internet discussion boards looking at pics of fat, smoking old women and then spending your day talking about them really that much better?

 

[ikubak]

Unfortunately, there will always be people who hit themselves over the head with a hammer and then blame the hammer manufacturer.

 

[brewer12345]

There already is a bailout for those in debt. It's called bankruptcy.

Much less of a viable option than it used to be, thanks to the idiotic "reform" the rethuglicans pushed through a few years ago. Hopefully this will get rolled back next year.

 

[CitricAcid]

Maybe what we are seeing here is a type of Stockholm Syndrome. I used to think that ordinary people who sided strongly with power might at least be hoping that they could aspire to that power themselves- but our posters are a bunch of people whose major ambition is to quit working! Not much hope of power there!

So maybe it is more magical- identify with power, and maybe some of it will rub off on oneself.

Might be people who *gasp* believe in personal responsibility

I don't think bankruptcy is a walk in the park. And the point is that 'savvy' financial companies should have the money salted away to deal with the odd defaulter, thanks to the super-high 15%-20% or more fees they charge these people for credit. You can't expect to reap the high fees yet keep little on hand to CYA, but that's basically what they did.

Define high.

I think where we differ is that I feel that both sides benefit from the initial agreement (where it seems you feel only the CC company/bank does) and that both sides are hurt from the default (where it seems you feel the debtor hurts more). The bank offers a rate. A high rate. If you need the money to have 3 easy payments of $37.99 for a necklace on QVC, the bank does not discriminate based off your intents, only on your creditworthyness (word?). If the rate is too high, either a.) find a bank who will give a better rate, b.) make more money, c.) stop buying random crap.

I think that's really what it all boils down to. When the lady defaults, the bank's extension of credit comes back to hurt them and everyone else who is borrowing in the system.

 

[ladelfina]

CA, not quite. I don't take the side of the debtor in that they should get some kind of break or something for nothing.. I think the onus of responsibility, though, is more on the stronger, more savvy party to protect themselves and shareholders/bondholders/taxpayers from the self-same company's greed. I actually think regulations help companies preserve their wealth more than they protect the average person (who can certainly go broke buying junk anyway, if they feel like it, without going into debt over it).

It doesn't matter what "high" is.. unless it is too high for whatever individual debtor to pay. The companies did not build themselves enough of a safety net, ignoring the risks of high-interest-rate lending or zero-down mortgages. I don't see a general benefit, to individuals or to the financial system, when people are urged to take on risky debt, because risky debt is the crack that financial companies are addicted to no less than the consumer-- in fact, to a greater degree, I'd argue.

Just as the lady could have changed course at different points, perhaps.. so too did the companies have choices to continue to extend, or to initiate, more credit at each step of her financial decline.. with more offers still coming in. So which of the two is really out of control? Who woke up first to the fact that this was unsustainable?

Your last statement I agree with.. which is why we should somehow get both companies and consumers into rehab. We don't let people buy crack and meth, even though both sides of those transactions yield benefits to the parties concerned. We make bartenders cut off drunks. So I don't see the big deal in putting in regulatory brakes that require down payments, or limit interest rates to sub-usury levels. Just as we should enforce higher capital requirements and make all the no-capital off-balance-sheet "assets" come under regulation and into the light of day.

You can't say that financial companies have comported themselves better than individuals.. because the majority of financial companies are insolvent. The majority of consumers are not (yet) insolvent.

 

[armor99]

armor99, because "they" personally did not lose money. They hardly ever do. The shareholders/bondholders/taxpayers lose.


MonkeyBusinessBlog: Good Thing CEO Compensation is Getting Straightened Out
(goofy random blog found by chance)

but it's pretty much anywhere you care to look:
CEO pay climbs despite companies' struggles - USATODAY.com

While we reserve harsher sentences for the crack dealer than for the crackhead, the prisons are full of many more crackheads than serious dealers. And in our society debt <=> crack.. but we collectively need and want the crack, so the dealers are rarely prosecuted, and are considered pillars of society, rather.

My right-wing sis got a Pepperdine MBA. She defends the school's right-wing, Christian, moral approach to business.

Pepperdine People Magazine, Fall 2005 - Pepperdine University



Cracks me up.. the "Executive Dining Center" is an "investment in education".. what? an education in assessing various vintages of Bordeaux and Dom Perignon? THANK GOD that executives visiting Pepperdine have been saved from -I can only imagine- utter squalor during their repasts.

Man, do I want to see this guy in handcuffs.

I find it interesting that you identify who is right and who is wrong, by how much money they have. There are many people who believe that stealing $5 from a millionare in not the same as stealing $5 from a beggar. I am not one of those people. I see both of those acts as moral equivalents... and equally wrong.

 

[CitricAcid]

What armor99 is saying is Robin Hood, anyway you cut it, is a thief.

ladelfina, what I think I am being misrepresented for is defending the CC companies. I am saying that they should also suffer for their choices and that they, too, could be considered crack addicts to the high-risk debt? Are they partly responsible? Yes. Are they out of control? Yes. Are they suffering for their choices? Yes. The big distinction I make is the fact that when companies fail, they lose money, their shareholders lose money, people lose jobs, their bondholders lose money, etc., etc. There IS accountability. What is different, however, (not being proposed by you or the lady in the article albeit) is when the consumers/debtors fail in this regard, the accountability is often tried to be passed on to the taxpayer or the creditor or anybody but the person who got themselves into that position.

You claim that they kept offering credit, and she is STILL being offered credit. Yet again, I say that it is a poor decision BY THE COMPANIES, who could feel the pain if she eventually took the credit and defaulted. You and I are not in charge of these companies, so in the situation between her and the CC company, I feel we should not have a say in how they run their business and what personal financial decisions she makes.

Sidenote: I think it may be different in every state. I always thought that bartenders weren't legally obligated to cut off a drunkard. I thought that it was because one overtly drunk person can scare away customers/dampen the mood, and (most commonly) puke all over the bar.

 

[brewer12345]

Sidenote: I think it may be different in every state. I always thought that bartenders weren't legally obligated to cut off a drunkard. I thought that it was because one overtly drunk person can scare away customers/dampen the mood, and (most commonly) puke all over the bar.

Legally obligated? Not sure about that. But every state I know of and the court system has what is known as "dram shop liability." Put simply, it means that if you sell enough booze to someone that they get lickered up and hurt/kill someone (or themselves), then you are exposed to some liability. This being the case, most booze sellers buy liability insurance, which is cancellable if the liability is triggered by gross negligence on the part of the insured.

So I don't know if there is legal requirement to cut off boozehounds, but there are certainly other reasons you would do so.