georgerussia

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,863

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by georgerussia

  1. georgerussia
    Are you talking about the revenue (with expenses to be applied), or about taxable income? I really doubt a lot of them make that amount of taxable income. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  2. georgerussia
    Kind of. At least I see completely no reasons to work 17 hours a day just to help yet another "poor homeowner" with my money. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  3. georgerussia
    Personally I'm not planning to leave, but I'm preparing to, let's name it "change the way my compensation is paid" for this case. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  4. georgerussia
    In the scenario you describe it could only be proven that someone used this PC to hack. Leaves a lot of room for speculations, like what if there was a party in his house at this time? Anyone could go there and do it. Personally I do not think someone clever enough to hack the email account would not know that he needs to use web proxies, or at least go to airport/Starbacks and use their wireless Internet. However it might be just stupidity through typical security questions people choose like "what was your elementary school" or "the name of your first pet", where everyone could get the answers just by reading their MySpace page. But this is not hacking, its social engineering. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  5. georgerussia
    They have to, since the federal government is in charge of other laws, such as immigration or tax laws which treat married people differently. Thus they have to deal with definition of what "married" is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  6. georgerussia
    Oh, c'mon. You could have just written that "Obama and Biden" sounds very similar to "Osama Bin Laden", and THIS should not be dismissed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  7. georgerussia
    How? My marriage wasn't "sacred" by their God or their priest anyway. We just went to a government authority on our way to work, signed papers, got the marriage certificate and went to work. Took about 10 minutes total. No wedding dresses, no wedding vows, no wedding rings, and definitely no priests. Thus I assume that in the eyes of a religious nut this is not even a marriage as they see it, and therefore it should not matter for them if I "married" a man or a woman, right? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  8. georgerussia
    So your opinion is that it's the "marriage" word they're against, and if we implement something else called a "civil union" which provides the same rights and responsibilities (like USSR implemented a "civil marriage" in 1918 to allow people from different religions to be married), nobody would be against it? Other laws need to be changed as well. For example, does the federal government or the state of California recognize a same-sex marriage if two people got married in another country where it is legal? Then, of course, it will raise more questions: will we recognize polygamy marriages if they are legal in another country? And so on. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  9. georgerussia
    Actually I can't understand what they're against. Marriage for religious nuts should be something which is done by a priest in a church, and otherwise it is just a form of civil union (and probably still adultery in terms of the Bible). In this case our marriage is definitely a civil union, even though I'm married to a woman, since we didn't go through all this church stuff. I wonder what kind of difference would it make for a religious nut if I married (in the same way) a man instead? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  10. georgerussia
    If this "civil union" is something like domestic partnership, which is basically not really regulated, they cannot have the same rights. If there are no requirements to have only one "spouse", or to terminate previous partnership before acquiring another one, the things will go funny pretty soon. Especially in estate and immigration law. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  11. georgerussia
    Not necessary. In fact it ended up good for those borrowers who sold the property before the price started collapsing. They made money, the lender made money, and everyone was happy. Of course the lender was aware that the borrower might not be able to pay off his mortgage from a stated income loan. As I said before, the main purpose of stated income loan was to provide a way for the people who will borrow more than their documented income could afford. It was obvious that significant part of them will not be able to pay it back from their income, but they were expected to pay it back when they sell the property. It worked when the property prices grow up every year. It will probably not work anymore in nearest decade. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  12. georgerussia
    It is just a yet another instance of modern "this is not my fault, and therefore I should not be held responsible for that". I think at least some of them did read it, as some people went as far as faking a paycheck. And at least some of those who got stated income loans provided false income information to get a larger loan they could otherwise afford. This means they did not intend to actually pay off the loan from their income, but rather from proceeds of selling the property. I have never heard about any predatory lender who forced the applicants to lie about their income. I agree. This is always someone else fault. Personal responsibility is thing in the past. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  13. georgerussia
    yes, and that's how it works from the report: Surprisingly it is very similar to every country I lived in, even though there was no recent war. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  14. georgerussia
    Well, I'm buying. I'd be surprised if indexes do not make pre-bailout values in less than a year. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  15. georgerussia
    Where did it come from? From the quoted piece of what he said I don't see anything like "McCain took credit for building a winning bailout coalition". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  16. georgerussia
    It depends on criteria "could afford the home". If someone needs credit card debt, or a neg ARM loan to afford a home - technically one could say they were able to afford this home. But practically they were not. The debt cannot grow up indefinitely, and if one cannot afford the home by actually paying back the debt plus interest, I wouldn't say they were ever able to afford it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  17. georgerussia
    So how do you see collecting this data? Walking around through the neighborhood and asking everyone like, hey guys did you lie about your income to get a mortgage? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  18. georgerussia
    That's why I'm saying that conventional mortgage, student and some other loans probably would not be affected at all, because the government is basically guarantees the risk. This of course will mean that the bank margin on those loans most likely will be very low. On other side the margin is much bigger on consumer loans, CC loans and small business loans, but the risk of default for those loans is much greater as well. Which means the banks will be much more selective to those who they give those loans - for example, require actual income or employment verification for credit card applicants. Sure, for some people it will be a crisis - but for the general economy it would be a good thing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  19. georgerussia
    I expected a larger drop. So far it doesn't look significant. Well, there is something for all of us to learn. A lot of people seem to forget during 2004-2007 that investment in stocks, real estate and mutual fonds is not a CD, and the phrase "can lose value" in your brokerage account does not describe a non-existing case. But if you're taxpayer and want a bail out, it would probably be much cheaper for you just to bail out yourself than yourself AND those in much worse condition; what do you think? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  20. georgerussia
    Because I guess is that providing the data you would find reliable would quickly turn into a full-time job. So for now I'll just voice my personal opinion. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  21. georgerussia
    My understanding is that "low income" in his definition meant their income was too low to repay their mortgage after the teaser rate expires. Lying about your income to get a bigger mortgage was a common practice in Bay Area, and I bet it was even more popular in areas where the general income is lower, like Modesto, Stockton and Tracy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  22. georgerussia
    So did CRA require banks to provide a "stated income" loans, which, I repeat, were mostly for the people who would lie about their income to buy more housing than they could really afford? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  23. georgerussia
    I do not see it happens. Basically conventional mortgage loans is free income for the bank, as the loan amount is guaranteed by government (Fannie/Freddy). Non-conventional loans (jumbo or subprime) will be hard to get - but it is not/should not be majority anyway. I do not expect any problems with other loans guaranteed by the government - like student loans or VA-backed mortgage loans. Consumer or business loans will suffer (they do already), but I would not say it is necessary bad thing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  24. georgerussia
    So how'd you call someone who now claims they signed the loan paper for a very large amount without reading it, and being completely unaware what they're signed for? If this is not stupid and irresponsible behavior, than what IS irresponsible behavior? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
  25. georgerussia
    For homeless (which I read as "did not own a home" as no reasonable bank would give a homeless-jobless person a loan) - they did not own it, and they will not own it because they cannot afford it. Homeownership, like owning any other property, is not granted, and not everyone is entitled to it. This is life. For "mentally handicapped" (which is really stupid term) - are we talking about legally incapable people? If yes, they should not be able to enter any contract anyway. If no, they have signed it, and now it's their own problem. If a person signs a paper without understanding what they signed for and just listened to oral promises, they won't hold it for long time anyway. I have no problem with this. Being physically handicapped does not mean that the one will not do stupid things. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *