idrankwhat

At the time I didn't know they were less than reliable. And I assumed that part of the reason that the qualification went so easily was the amount of equity and preparation we already had in the project. They were the biggest lender in the country and loved to show off their consumer awards. And I didn't pay more for the loan, I paid less. I just ended up getting what I paid for. Actually I got a good deal from what turned out to be a crappy lender. The loan wasn't crappy but the service was. I had no idea that such a successful company could have such ineptitude on the front lines. After I quit dealing with the bone headed key puncher that worked on the front line and started dealing with their computers, I've had no problem. I even saved money, but it cost me in hair pulling. The $1500 discrepancy was money that I owed but no one could tell me where it came from. That was my problem. I was dealing with people who could do little more than fill out a database form. Which brings me back to my point. When you have what is supposedly a reputable lender telling you everything looks great and makes things easy for you then you feel good about them. But after you've signed on the dotted line and things go south you have to resort to your "A" game. I was lucky. I was prepared and determined. Others who only listened to the smiling, friendly paper pushers were led into the corral and some got the stun gun. And I don't know about you, but the week after I moved in we started getting the pre-approved equity loan offers and bazillion telephone calls offering us $300K for $700/month. The upside is that burning those offers significantly cut down on my heating bill.

I can't be any more clear. The system's rigged. 100% public financing is the only way I see us breaking the chain.

No, he's not. But he has the swift boat crowd doing it. He doesn't have to get his hands dirty and and it doesn't cost him a dime. Both sides are playing tricks like that and I think it's a lousy way to fight a contest. But the crux of the article is just pointing out how the double standard is being exercised through the so called "liberal" media.

Which is more likely when you remove a shelf. I'll be ok and my property value will probably increase with a 10-15 ft. increase in sea level.

In a related sidebar, no one seems to be demanding his tax returns either. Not that I care but if either subject is worthy of a media storm, the wind should blow both ways.

Damn, you think you know someone and then.......... Where the hell was the drive by media on that one? That does it, I'm going to run. Let's see...what's the platform going to be? Pay as you go. Defraud the government, go to jail (after my executive order to free those being held for crimes against themselves) All the money recouped from the fraud will go to subsidize domestic use of Jet-A as deemed appropriate by the new Body Flight Czar. Four day work weeks and an AAD in every pot!!!

I agree with what you say about McCain. Those are indeed positives and I'm glad he's the candidate instead of a clone of the tool that we have now. I like Obama's stance on PAC money, although I'm sure that some gets in. He's voted against raising the debt ceiling, voted for pay as you go legislation numerous times and introduced legislation against the abuse of no bid contracts. Those are also positives. His canned rhetoric with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is disappointing but then again, he IS an American politician. But out of the three I think he stands out as having the best chance of mending some broken international ties. That's only a hunch. The other two seem to be examples of "same old song and war" in that dept. Ideal candidate? No. I'm still waiting for that one, just not holding my breath.

He meant to use the term "honky".

What makes you think that "experience" in Washington is a positive attribute? That's a big strike against "Bush Lite" and "PAC Ma'am". Recent "experienced" and influential leaders in Washington include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle. And that's the short list. Go the the PNAC or American Enterprise Institute websites for additional "experienced" players. P.S. Sorry for the rude name calling. Must have picked up that nasty habit in SC

My answer, surprisingly, supports my view of how the Republican party got where it is today. The "so many" who didn't want him as the nominee are actually representative of a small minority group. They're loud as hell and demand a lot of attention but they themselves do not represent "mainstream" Republicans. Apparently actual Republicans figured out that letting that minority drive the train ends up in a wreck. $0.02

I think we should invade ourselves over the matter. The crime wasn't the money laundering of the visit but the fact that we didn't listen to them upon their return.

I don't want to say that there's no blame to be placed on the customer but I can see how many of them may have been coerced by the lenders into thinking that the borrowers were making a good decision. The way the market HAD been for the previous few years gave them many success stories to use in the sale. Also the hard sell tactics of the lenders was ridiculous. If you were a first time buyer you'd have no idea that the offers that were out there were stupidly scary. I contracted the home that we built in 2003 so I was involved in every aspect of the project. I had settled on the builder/framer that I wanted because of his experience with post and beam. The first bank I went to did a thorough review on the project and our finances. I was very happy with the service. Then, at the last minute my lender told me he couldn't approve my framer and that the deal was off if I used him, which killed the deal. (Apparently he had some bad history with some subs. I found out why later. The firm, controlled, consistent teaching method I used on my Rottie came in handy. Works on people too. Although a shock collar would have made me happier.....I digress). So at the last minute I ended up checking out Countrywide. Approval was TOO easy. I had a whole briefcase full of material to lay on the lender but she basically grabbed our credit scores and approved us. To shorten the story, she didn't even go through my project materials for almost a month, about two days prior to closing. At closing there was a $1500 dollar discrepancy that neither I nor my closing agent could figure out. The answer that I got from Countrywide was "It's right. It came out of the computer". It took me half a day of plowing through all of the numbers to finally figure out what had happened so I called to tell THEM what their numbers meant. After that most of it went well because I was dealing with someone besides Countrywide's front line but even then I ran into problems of the left hand of the company not knowing what the right hand was doing, as well as the infuriating "there's no box to check for that so it can't be done". In order to not get hosed (any more than I did) I had to be extremely involved and know what the hell I was talking about. I can't imagine how things would have turned out or how expensive it would have been if I hadn't been well prepared and demanding that they provide the services they agreed upon. I can easily see how someone who just trusted them at their word or, worse yet, had trouble with the language could have been seriously screwed (more than I was). Holy crap I'm mad at them all over again. Damn, what was the question?

Nice post, thanks. I agree with your point about his lack of citation. That's the "something missing" part I was referring to. I would be interested to see which "new rules" were promulgated in 2003. And you're probably correct that the Administration was enforcing a law but I still do wonder how valid is Spitzer's argument that this was the first time in 140 years that the OCC was used, not as a check on the banks, but on the customers. This Administration has had some pretty novel views on law interpretation from war powers to executive privilege to torture to whether or not the VP is part of the executive branch etc. That's why I'm keeping my guard up on this one. Also, this is one of the other preemption issues that was rattling around in the back of my mind while dealing with this one. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1178183076770

I'm not disagreeing with your argument because a) I'm not that vested in this issue and b) I haven't researched it very much because of "a" But, there seems to be something missing from the discussion. I honestly don't know by which route you traced it back to 1824 but I'll certainly give a lawyer the benefit of the doubt for some link. Where I'm lost is in Spitzer's numerous references, over a couple of editorials, to joining with "49 other Attorney's General" to combat predatory lending issues. He gives the impression that he and the AG's from all states were having some luck in combating bad lending practices but were stymied, beginning in 2003 by the feds. What I don't know, is what specific concerted effort was extended through these 50 AG's. You may not want to do it but I'm willing to give him a certain benefit of the doubt. He's successfully argued some high profile, big money cases against a number of the big boys. I don't think he was trying to wag the dog. If his editorials came out a few weeks later I might have a different opinion. If you're interested, here's a similar editorial that came out a couple of days later. It's mentions a couple of specific cases. I'm really not that interested but since I started the thread it would be rude to abandon it http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/15679507.html

I'm not quite sure what your point is. The Washington Post "took the article" from Eliot Spitzer. It's an editorial from about 5 weeks ago. It's not "news" and I don't know of anyone else who is talking about it.

But Citi is doing just fine. As is Mozilo from Countrywide. True, he ended up forfeiting his original compensation package from the Bank of America buyout due to the public and government outcry, but he still gets his retirement benefits and deferred compensation. Not bad when you also consider that he sold $500 million worth of Countrywide shares over the last three years. And I think one of his VP's is now running a company called "Pennymac". That business is in the business of making money off of the sub-prime mess that he helped create. Neat huh?

I'm not sure that he was involved in his crisis at the time of the editorial. Then again he could have heard people sniffing around. But beyond that point does the GBBA apply to National Bank subsidiaries? I think that what Spitzer was referring to in his rant was the OCC's 2003-2004 activity that dealt with state laws like the Georgia Fair Lending act. Apparently in 2004 the OCC issued a ruling that state consumer protection laws don't apply to nationally chartered banks. While that may be true (and another strike against state's rights) I'm not sure that the protection would extend to the national bank's non-banking subsidiaries e.g., mortgage companies. The reason that I posted the original message was because I hadn't stirred up much here in SC recently and this one caught my eye. Secondly, the preemption theme was still resonating from something I had read a couple of weeks ago. It was an article that referred to Daniel Troy while he was at the FDA and his use of the doctrine of preemption. Apparently his argument was that FDA approval was the gold standard. If a product received FDA approval then the manufacturer is protected from consumer protection lawsuits. Throw in a preemptive war and you can see a theme developing.

Come after you? Hell, I just got an invitation to go hunting with him

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25 Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets. Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no. Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye. Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers. In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation. Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position. When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers. The writer is governor of New York. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

It's par for his course. Other notable misnomers: "Patriot Act" "No Child Left Behind" "Fair Pay initiative" and my favorite "Compassionate Conservative".

1) Rain stings. 2) Spotting is difficult and spotting includes checking for other aircraft. 3) It's illegal unless you jump with at a minimum a Heading Indicator, Attitude Indicator, Clock, Altimeter, Radio, Alternator/generator, Turn Coordinator and I'd suggest a transponder as well. 4) You're risking your jump pilot's job security.

Ten times as many people die each year here in the US from the flu. Where's the war on flu? Why don't we have a Dept of Homeland Inoculation? I hear that duct tape can create a superior virus barrier. Hey, many of the flu viruses come from China so let's invade Venezuela!

5/8" paddle bit did the trick, and is cheap.

I'm getting nervous just reading this thread. You're asking how to make a dangerous downsize safely. In my opinion, for what it's worth, is that you can't do it without choosing an intermediate step. Accidents from people flying perfectly good canopies into the ground is probably the sport's biggest problem right now. You may be a very capable canopy pilot and be able to pull this off with no one around you. But what happens if on your next jump you get cut off in the pattern? Besides the time away from the sport due to a serious injury (or death) you need to also think about other people. I for one particularly don't like hearing about the person who was killed while flying a square, left hand pattern on a 1:1 canopy because someone misjudged a turn and caused a collision. Alright, I'm saying more than I intended to. It's your decision to make, as is the decision to snort drano if you want to. I'll not stand in the way of either but in the meantime, check out a couple links just in case you missed Safety Day. USPA canopy risk quotient: http://uspa.org/safety/safetyday/RiskQuotient.pdf USPA 2007 Fatality Summary http://uspa.org/safety/safetyday/2007USPAWebsiteSafetyDayFatalitySummary.ppt I sincerely wish you nothing but the best,

None. Election fraud can take place regardless of which method is used to count votes. Very true, but one leaves a paper trail and the other leaves ____________. Actually it leaves less than that. It's 2008 and we can send accurate, auditable financial transactions around the world in seconds. There's absolutely no reason that we shouldn't be able to do the same thing with a vote. And as far as the machine makers go, I understand why they might prefer not to have people going through their machines looking for problems but they need to realize that it's going to have to happen. It's been proven repeatedly that fraud is possible and rather easy with some of these machines. If they want to play the game then they're going to have to open up and show us the goods.