"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.


I guess it isn't true then that banks made iffy loans to people who couldn't
really afford them. Since the regs were pretty much dropped, I guess you
can't blame them for being greedy!

Pension funds? There won't be any soon enough.


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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:12:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

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.


I guess it isn't true then that banks made iffy loans to people who
couldn't
really afford them.

I'm sure you must have witnessed how the banks put guns to peoples' heads
to
force them take the money, and to lie on their applications.

Of course I exaggerate a bit. It was the mortgage brokers who were putting
those guns to peoples' heads.

Since the regs were pretty much dropped, I guess you
can't blame them for being greedy!

Which regulations are you referring to, Jon? Inquiring minds want to know.


Well, some probably came pretty close to doing that... people about to lose
their homes, people who needed to refi so they can stay in the house...

We've already gone through which regs.... suggest you do a google search!


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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:37:43 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

We've already gone through which regs.... suggest you do a google search!

I recall someone's trying and failing miserably to make the argument
you're
seeking to make.


Me too! You!! LOL

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:37:43 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Well, some probably came pretty close to doing that... people about to
lose
their homes, people who needed to refi so they can stay in the house...

Why were they about to lose their homes? Why did they need to refinance?
Ah,
of course...somebody held a gun to their heads when they financed the
first
time, or when they decided to pull the equity out.


Just like the bumper sticker I saw a few days ago:

NRA - If you absolutely, positively must kill it by morning....

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