Lefty

Don't give up all hope. The people that use such language have standards, too. I overheard this exchange back when I was in high school: Girl 1 "Yo, who dat is?" Girl 2 "It's not 'who dat is', it's 'who dat be'." Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Best. Commencement. Ever. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

An M4 can have either 3-round burst or automatic. Different variants have different features. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

While you're at it, take a look at Kellogg's raisin bran. "Two scoops" can be awfully subjective. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Possibly, but crowing about it definitely pisses people off. Just responding to the question. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

And the third(?) reason: jealousy. We're on top, they're not. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The procedures can be tightened as much as you want, but "thousands of parts" is still "thousands of parts". Doing a full hands on inventory takes time. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Heh, time will tell. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Great post! Would read again! Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Good call. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I love how the government's idea of a stimulus package is to give people back their own money. Perhaps they shouldn't have taxed it away in the first place? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

All is right with the world, now. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is your assertion that only the borrowers are to blame. That assertion is incorrect, and cannot supported by the facts. As you stated, "both parties agreed to the contract as it was written on the paper." Thus, both parties share in the responsibility for agreeing to terms the debtors are unable to comply with. Creditors are not without blame if they make loans to debtors that cannot afford to pay back those loans, or if they accept insufficient collateral on those loans. I completely understand your point, and it is a good one. The lenders are indeed to blame in part for making a deal with a debtor who can't pay, but only in regards to whether they themselves profit from that deal or not. What I am talking about is from a legal standpoint, the contract was entered into knowingly and willingly by both parties. The creditors accept a certain risk in that the debtor may not be able to pay them back. The debtor accepts a risk in that if they are not able to pay, there will be consequences. If the two parties find the risks vs. rewards acceptable, then there is no reason each party should not be held to bear the consequences if their end of the deal sours. Again, I am only referring to the dealings between an individual and a mortgage broker. The larger "mortgage crisis" is something else entirely. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well put. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

What if you eat food that you purchased at the grocery store and that you assume was safe but in reality was contaminated? I am all for personal responsibility, but we make assumptions about the food supply and sometimes the food supply is tainted with things like e-coli. I am going to stay out of the mortgage debate, but I would like to know that the food at the grocery store is safe to eat. But this isn't always the case. Lawrocket made a better post than mine regarding this argument on the previous page, take a look at that. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Respecting one's own knowledge on a topic and being respected by one's professional peers are two wholly different things. For example, I bet W. considers himself to be a good, if not great, president. Besides, common sense does not always lead to the correct answer, and is rarely an adequate substitute for knowledge. Common sense says Time in transit for an object can be found by dividing distance traveled by the velocity. Common sense says a fair coin, observed from start to finish, and flipped without any intent to manipulate the results, has an equal probability of landing on either side. Common sense says the Monty Hall problem offers a choice with 1:1 odds. In each case above, common sense leads to an incorrect solution. Yes, the borrowers share in the blame. No one is denying that. But the lenders and the fed are also to blame. Comments like these make it apparent that you have little idea what actuaries actually do, or why they are good sources of information on these sorts of topics. My comments about common sense and actuaries were tongue-in-cheek. As far as the mortgages go, I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face that on an individual basis, the terms and conditions of the loan were spelled out to the customer. The lender and the borrower can speculate all they want to about the future of the housing market and how it may or may not sweeten their deal, but ultimately both parties agreed to the contract as it was written on the paper. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

See, this is what I'm talking about. To be clear, I stopped talking about the housing crisis at large after my first post in this thread. From then on it's been about the responsibility of individuals to look out for their own necks. The loans and terms are disclosed to the borrowers. Therefore, if the borrower accepts the deal, it's their fault if it was a rotten deal. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Should we all be personally responsible for testing our food for e-coli, salmonella, listeria, or prion contamination? Nice try. If I eat food I know is contaminated (or take out a loan I know I cannot afford) I should not blame others for my choices. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

It sounds like the lenders were being responsible. When the ARM adjusted, they raised the mortgage costs on the borrowers, just as they said they would. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Having listened to 6-8 different actuaries (all very well respected in their field) in the past few months talk extensively about the topic, not one of which has seen the causes as you see them, I'm not inclined to be very concerned with whether or not you accept my (their) rationale. Well, I consider myself well-respected in the field of common sense. If people are dumb enough to get themselves locked into a loan they cannot pay for, it's their fault. Of course, your actuaries would be out of the job if they admitted it was that simple. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Many economists believed when it was being done that the fed was lowering interest rates when it shouldn't. Those same economists predicted a housing bubble. So yes, the government shares in the blame. The banks share a very large portion of the blame. As FDIC insured creditors, they had a responsibility to their owners, their customers, and the nation as a whole to make sure that the people receiving mortgages could afford those mortgages. In many cases, the lenders were only concerned that the customer could afford the payments until the bank was able to resell the mortgages. Yes, the borrowers also share in the blame. However, to claim that they are the only ones to blame shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. I'm not saying that, and you're still making my point. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government, in essence doing the government's job better....and you think government is the solution. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

And I admire that. Standing up for your argument, no matter how invalid. Someone call the president - his methods are rubbing off! Did you read my handy little list about where to assign blame for a foreclosure? It might help you. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin