On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:51:02 -0400, Marty wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.
Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.



By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!




I might have missed something, but I don't think that's what Dave said,
he did say something more like he deals with them, whether pro or con
was not mentioned.


A lot of them start out pro's, but end up cons.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:10 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Sep 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little
a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh?
And
the judge decides how much to steal.

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might
steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.



By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!

So this whole mess is DAVE'S fault! I should have known.



There's plenty of blame to go around.... oh wait, I'm channeling Paulson.
Sorry.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:10 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!

I suppose you could say that. In the same sense that defense counsel
advises
the prosecution.


You didn't say this? I thought you did.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:34:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!

I suppose you could say that. In the same sense that defense counsel
advises
the prosecution.


You didn't say this? I thought you did.

I think you'll find I said in substance that I often have to persuade them
of the error of their ways.


So, what you're saying is that you didn't advise them when you were
persuading them! I got it. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:34:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

By his own admission. He advises bank regulators!

I suppose you could say that. In the same sense that defense counsel
advises
the prosecution.


You didn't say this? I thought you did.

I think you'll find I said in substance that I often have to persuade them
of the error of their ways.


Does that also mean you think the fundamentals of the economy are sound? I
hope so!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:07:07 -0400, said:

With whom would you propose to negotiate the price?

Bankruptcy judges.

So every time somebody with a mortgage goes bankrupt, you steal a little a
chunk of money from the guys that made it possible to buy the house, eh?
And
the judge decides how much to steal.

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.


I believe Dave is trying to make a point. He has more experience and is
closer to the action on this issue than anyone else here, afaik. I just wish
he was a bit more open and direct with his enlightenment as some people do
actual regard what he has to say.

Dave should take a cue from our most enlightened newsgroup member, the
always truthful, fair, objective and balanced Jonathan Ganz whose only bias
is one towards the truth. Discussions with Jon are always a win-win
proposition as everyone walks away a better person, both in character and
knowledge. Perhaps Jonathan will intervene here and moderate the discussion
in the beneficial format he uses in every discourse. I can only marvel at
Jon's seemingly innate ability to get to the truth and essence of the matter
at hand and the wonderful way he brings others into the fold. If he were to
go onto the motivational speaking circuit he would not only improve the
world, he would garner trillions in fees and the income tax paid would pay
for the current financial crisis many times over. Yes, such great men still
do exist and even walk amongst us. Great fortune is ours.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:47:17 -0400, said:

If you're the guy providing money for people to buy houses, that's sure
gonna encourage you to lend more. Gee, you might even charge everybody
higher interest for taking the additional risk that some judge might
steal
some of the money. Ya think?

I'm not at all sure that bankruptcy was what the OP had in mind.

Your interpretation is extremely twisted and dishonest. You sound like
someone connected with banks.

In today's market with securitization, it has little to do with banks.
Most
banks will have long ago sold the paper. That's in fact what my initial
question was intended to highlight, and why I carefully said "the guys
providing money for people to buy houses" instead of "banks." The entity
taking the hit could well be your pension fund, or more likely several
different pension funds, and an insurance company. One of the problems
with
the OP's proposal is that mortgage pools are carved up in pieces these
days
so it's virtually impossible to sit down with a single entity and
negotiate
a modification. That's in part why the Dems want a judge to decide how
much
to steal from those pension funds, (and ultimately their pensioners) etc.
when there's a bankruptcy.

Dave, when the government does it, it's not stealing. It's for the common
good.
Thanks for the explanation.

On 24 Sep, 20:31, "Charles Momsen" wrote:


Dave, when the government does it, it's not stealing. It's for the common
good.

What rubbish!

The Government doesn't act for the "common good". Each member
acts in a way that he thinks will get him/her re-elected.

Unfortunately, idiots like you, will vote for the party that
makes you *think* that you are better off. If credit is easy,
you will borrow money to buy things that you cannot really
afford. It isn't just homes that is causing the current problems,
it is autos, fridges, furniture, Evos and anything else that you are
buying on a credit card.

If you are stupid enough to think that they have your interests
at heart, then you deserve what you get.


Regards


Donal
--

wrote:
On 24 Sep, 20:31, "Charles Momsen" wrote:

Dave, when the government does it, it's not stealing. It's for the common
good.

What rubbish!.........


If you are stupid enough to think that they have your interests
at heart, then you deserve what you get.

Huzzah! Donal, you do realize that in an insane society, the sane man
will be perceived as insane?

Now stop spouting sense and get down ranting and raving.

Cheers
Marty

wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep, 20:31, "Charles Momsen" wrote:


Dave, when the government does it, it's not stealing. It's for the common
good.

What rubbish!

The Government doesn't act for the "common good". Each member
acts in a way that he thinks will get him/her re-elected.

Unfortunately, idiots like you, will vote for the party that
makes you *think* that you are better off. If credit is easy,
you will borrow money to buy things that you cannot really
afford. It isn't just homes that is causing the current problems,
it is autos, fridges, furniture, Evos and anything else that you are
buying on a credit card.

If you are stupid enough to think that they have your interests
at heart, then you deserve what you get.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal, you might have missed something in the transatlantic transmission.
Read it again with an eye towards sarcasm.