Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/7/2010 9:35:07 AM EDT
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:36:13 AM EDT
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:37:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.


Ah, a real student of history, I see.

"Discuss." And arrogant too. What a marvel.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:38:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


That may be, but how it is set up now is not right. How about all the people just walking away from their home mortgages? (the thread from yesterday)
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:38:59 AM EDT
The federal government needs to quit bailing out the creditors who fail.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:39:17 AM EDT
Considering all the people out of work and who can't find jobs it would be rather full.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:41:06 AM EDT
In a world where debt was simpler I might agree with you.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:41:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


That may be, but how it is set up now is not right. How about all the people just walking away from their home mortgages? (the thread from yesterday)


Your problem is government bailouts with the banks, and lax bankruptcy laws.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:42:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.


Yes.... you are 100 % right!!!! Let's lock up MILLIONS of people who lost their jobs because of a global financial meltdown. Let's feed them, clothe them, provide them with free medical care in these prisons. Oh yeah, their kids and pets will need a place to stay too! Are you volunteering? What a patriot you are!!!

Schmuck.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:42:58 AM EDT
No. We should not.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By david_g17:
The federal government needs to quit bailing out the creditors who fail.


And putting stupid restrictions and mandates on the private sector!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:30 AM EDT
One of the founding principles of this country was no debtors prison. I'm don't want that screwed with anymore that I want the BOR screwed with.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:31 AM EDT
Yeah, because we don't have enough people in prison already.


Do yourself a favor, read up on a topic before you post.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:42 AM EDT
It just irritates me to no end when people buy brand new cars, or a $500,000 house on a $50,000 salary and then can't pay for it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.

How are they supposed to pay back the debt if they're in prison?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:43:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imdandman:
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


That may be, but how it is set up now is not right. How about all the people just walking away from their home mortgages? (the thread from yesterday)

So the taxpayer can pay for the defaulted mortgage and the cost of imprisoning someone (like 20k/year)? Don't think so.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:44:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.

Wow! What a great idea!


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:44:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 9:45:32 AM EDT by Ellery_Holt]

Originally Posted By BillofRights:


Do yourself a favor, read up on a topic before you post.


Sound, sound advice. I hope he reads it.


I think this thread is not going the way the OP thought it would.




Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:44:45 AM EDT
I think its a great idea, for old lecherous rich fuckers wanting some 20 year old pussy. At least that's how it worked in England.

Hey honey, you're cute... I can help you get out of this mess. I have plenty of money, and a cold bed.

Hell it works pretty well right now even without the threat of jail time.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:45:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.


Debtors prison is abolished because of the slippery slope. It is gone and it should be gone. Even though you do not think that one missed credit card payment etc, that is exactly what it will become. LENDERS also have a personal responsibility in the scenario - lending is a form of gambling and when your debtor doesn't pay, it is a loss. People who cannot repay loans should not be lent money - that is why we have a credit rating.

In the event of outright fraud, we already have laws in place and you will go to prison.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:45:12 AM EDT
No. OP, learn from the past, don't repeat it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:45:15 AM EDT
We need a Debtors Prison for gov't officials instead...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:46:20 AM EDT
Ever hear of a body attachment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:48:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
It just irritates me to no end when people buy brand new cars, or a $500,000 house on a $50,000 salary and then can't pay for it.


Who is the fool in that situation? The person who asked for the loan or the person who thinks they will pay it back?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:48:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


That may be, but how it is set up now is not right. How about all the people just walking away from their home mortgages? (the thread from yesterday)


Maybe if the government wouldn't have forced the mortgage meltdown with their criminally negligent legislation, we wouldn't even be in the tragic position to have this conversation. The worst part is that it looks to have been done for the sole purpose of grabbing MORE POWER!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:49:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
Originally Posted By imdandman:
Or at least do something about people not paying their debts. It's called personal responsibility.

BTW - I'm not saying that one missed credit card payment should get you sent away, but a history of it is another matter.

Discuss.


Debtors prison is abolished because of the slippery slope. It is gone and it should be gone. Even though you do not think that one missed credit card payment etc, that is exactly what it will become. LENDERS also have a personal responsibility in the scenario - lending is a form of gambling and when your debtor doesn't pay, it is a loss. People who cannot repay loans should not be lent money - that is why we have a credit rating.

In the event of outright fraud, we already have laws in place and you will go to prison.


So are you saying that all the risk leans on the lender? What about the responsibility of the borrower to pay? Honest question.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:49:57 AM EDT
Exactly what we need, more gov't involvement with business. more people in prison that we get to support with our taxes. Fuck it I am totally down with the gov't taking more tax money from me... Oh wait no I am not fine with that.

OP stupid idea. All this does is make us work to support the prisoners for their fuck ups.

Credit is a risk proposition. I feel more sorry for the folks who are getting hammered now that tried to live responsibly but are now so screwed up with job losses that it has wrecked them too.

Not everyone hit by this lack of crisis management is irresponsible.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:50:17 AM EDT
There used to be a strong negative component to personal bankruptcy - basically, you were a financial untouchable for 7 years. Couldn't get ANY loan, much less a mortgage, troubles renting, having to put security deposits up for utilities, etc.

At some point, someone figured out that money could be made by loaning to people with bad credit. Once that happened, it was all over. There is no real down side to risky financial behavior anymore - just walk away, the system will absorb the impact.

But now it's like the theory of consumer debt has met the Russian "Golden BB" air defense doctrine - one little personal bankruptcy is trivial; but throw enough of them up there, it's gonna come crashing down.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:51:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 9:52:51 AM EDT by yumbeef]
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
In a world where debt was simpler I might agree with you.


federal reserve sends the federal government to prison? thatd be interesting...

eta id rather get rid of the federal reserve and social security (im 24 and i doubt ill see a penny of my money unless if i retire at some ridiculous age like 98).

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:52:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By R2point0:
There used to be a strong negative component to personal bankruptcy - basically, you were a financial untouchable for 7 years. Couldn't get ANY loan, much less a mortgage, troubles renting, having to put security deposits up for utilities, etc.

At some point, someone figured out that money could be made by loaning to people with bad credit. Once that happened, it was all over. There is no real down side to risky financial behavior anymore - just walk away, the system will absorb the impact.

But now it's like the theory of consumer debt has met the Russian "Golden BB" air defense doctrine - one little personal bankruptcy is trivial; but throw enough of them up there, it's gonna come crashing down.


This shift is what bothers me.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:52:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


Originally Posted By david_g17:
The federal government needs to quit bailing out the creditors who fail.


ding ding ding
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:54:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.

And how do the banks do that? Keep a video probe up your ass all the time?

Greater creditor burden would decrease the availability of credit, particularly to people in low-income areas, contrary to government and societal efforts.

It would also require that loan volume go down, because it would necessitate more small lenders who can personally know clients, or put an increased research and maintenance burden on the large ones.

Either way, fewer people get loans, and those that do, it's more expensive. The nation's expectations of service are built on low-cost models enabled by economies of scale. This is impossible if we go to a Ma-and-Pa architecture where everyone knows everyone, or if a bank needs a PI to trail a loan applicant for two months before coming to the table.

Banks have their paperwork in order. The contract is the contract, and provided the banks don't break it, they've held their end of the bargain. The debtors are the ones largely breaking these contracts today. If they did not read or understand it before, perhaps they shouldn't have bought a home/car/whatever.

The whole concept that a mortgage is a "risk" applies to some extent, but it's ignorant to regard a systemic progressive/anti-corporate effort to defraud the repayment system as commensurate with "their end of the bargain."

As for debtor's prison, I don't think the OP means lock up everyone on hard times. But there is definitely a class of people who are experts at cheating the system to live better than most of us here do while earning less. I would be open to criminalizing habitual default as a class of fraud (if it's not already, I'm not that motivated to look it up).
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:54:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yumbeef:
Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
In a world where debt was simpler I might agree with you.


federal reserve sends the federal government to prison? thatd be interesting...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So who is going to prison for the bank bailout?
Shareholders or the CEO?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:55:22 AM EDT
That's the way it is right now with student loans, and many of them end up as slaves to the government.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:56:50 AM EDT
How about dumbass prison. We'll start with OP.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:57:12 AM EDT
No we should go back to bible days where they would bore a hole in your ear and you became your creditors slave! That would fix everything. Until, that is, the sabbath year (7 years familiar to anyone) and all debts would be wiped clean.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:57:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
It just irritates me to no end when people buy brand new cars, or a $500,000 house on a $50,000 salary and then can't pay for it.


I got a gal here at work thats leting here house get repoed but bought a new car to replace here 1 year old car.. WTF over.. and shes in accounting..
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:57:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By david_g17:
The federal government needs to quit bailing out the creditors who fail.


Uncle Fed should stop bailing out everyone!

Let the weak, stupid, and careless fall.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:58:30 AM EDT
I want to see Douchebags' Prisons.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:59:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 0PSEC:

Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.

And how do the banks do that? Keep a video probe up your ass all the time?

Greater creditor burden would decrease the availability of credit, particularly to people in low-income areas, contrary to government and societal efforts.

It would also require that loan volume go down, because it would necessitate more small lenders who can personally know clients, or put an increased research and maintenance burden on the large ones.

Either way, fewer people get loans, and those that do, it's more expensive. The nation's expectations of service are built on low-cost models enabled by economies of scale. This is impossible if we go to a Ma-and-Pa architecture where everyone knows everyone, or if a bank needs a PI to trail a loan applicant for two months before coming to the table.

Banks have their paperwork in order. The contract is the contract, and provided the banks don't break it, they've held their end of the bargain. The debtors are the ones largely breaking these contracts today. If they did not read or understand it before, perhaps they shouldn't have bought a home/car/whatever.

The whole concept that a mortgage is a "risk" applies to some extent, but it's ignorant to regard a systemic progressive/anti-corporate effort to defraud the repayment system as commensurate with "their end of the bargain."

As for debtor's prison, I don't think the OP means lock up everyone on hard times. But there is definitely a class of people who are experts at cheating the system to live better than most of us here do while earning less. I would be open to criminalizing habitual default as a class of fraud (if it's not already, I'm not that motivated to look it up).


Yep.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:00:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:01:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By david_g17:
The federal government needs to quit bailing out the creditors who fail.


/thread.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:04:42 AM EDT
What would be the financial gain from taking on debtors as prisoners? What would they do? It worked 300 years ago when you could make debtors do unskilled farm work.

Keeping people against their will is expensive. I dont see how any forced labor would offset the expense of imprisoning them.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:06:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 0PSEC:
Greater creditor burden would decrease the availability of credit, particularly to people in low-income areas, contrary to government and societal efforts.

It would also require that loan volume go down, because it would necessitate more small lenders who can personally know clients, or put an increased research and maintenance burden on the large ones.

Either way, fewer people get loans, and those that do, it's more expensive.


Sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

Hell, if lenders had been doing this all along the nation would not be in the mess it is in.

-WhyTanFox



Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:10:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
It just irritates me to no end when people buy brand new cars, or a $500,000 house on a $50,000 salary and then can't pay for it.


Keep your nose out of other people's business. Don't take it so personally. It'll be easier that way.

Who the hell gives a loan for a 500,000 dollar house to someone with a 50,000 dollar salary, anyway? Looks like your beef is with the creditors.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:11:01 AM EDT
Stop lending money to folks who can't afford to pay it back.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:11:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 10:13:55 AM EDT by 0PSEC]

Originally Posted By WhyTanFox:
Originally Posted By 0PSEC:
Greater creditor burden would decrease the availability of credit, particularly to people in low-income areas, contrary to government and societal efforts.

It would also require that loan volume go down, because it would necessitate more small lenders who can personally know clients, or put an increased research and maintenance burden on the large ones.

Either way, fewer people get loans, and those that do, it's more expensive.


Sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

Hell, if lenders had been doing this all along the nation would not be in the mess it is in.

Touche... except it would be racist.

I sort of put that kind of common sense up on the "sounds cool but would never work" pedestal, sort of like some of the food stamps reform that another thread today brought up. We have to convolute to the nth degree to discern anything workable in the real world.

[... the accented e in "touche" won't show up right.]
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:11:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DerekCB:
No. We should not.


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:11:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
No. If you don't like the risk of not being paid, don't accept the contract.

How about some personal responsibility on the creditor's side. It is NOT a risk free transaction.


First post nails the truth.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:12:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sixnine:
Ever hear of a body attachment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


Not really the same thing. The court has to order payment or forfieture at the defendant has to fail to make a good faith effort to comply with the court order before an attachment is issued. I generally see them for child support
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:13:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imdandman:
It just irritates me to no end when people buy brand new cars, or a $500,000 house on a $50,000 salary and then can't pay for it.


They can't do it unless someone is willing to lend them money.

Only a dumbass or a crook who knows the gov will bail them out, lends money to a high risk person/s.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top