Trump Trivia

[ras]

There are bad eggs in every profession. I agree w MJ, people have to take responsibility for there own action. I once had a CPA do my tax return and she under reported my income by a large amount. I would have loved to pay less taxes, but I knew that tax return was too dangerous to submit. I fired her and had another CPA do my tax return.

 

[mjmaherjr]

There are bad eggs in every profession. I agree w MJ, people have to take responsibility for there own action. I once had a CPA do my tax return and she under reported my income by a large amount. I would have loved to pay less taxes, but I knew that tax return was too dangerous to submit. I fired her and had another CPA do my tax return.

Great post. !!!

 

[austour]

No it's not but we did identify another payday lender fan.

 

[mjmaherjr]

No it's not but we did identify another payday lender fan.

who me ?

 

[austour]

No it's not but we did identify another payday lender fan.

who me ?

Very little difference between the predatory lending of the mortgage market in the oughts and that of payday lenders. Defend one defend them all. Again, it's simply a matter of a lack of ethics.

 

[Andrew]

I did well financially under the Clinton and Obama administrations. Got killed when the economy collapsed under GB. I despise Hillary but will have to vote for her unless she goes to jail.

Please read the following. You can find other sources, but the near financial collapse in 2007 wasn't caused by GB, but warned by McCain in 2005 who tried to introduce legislation to reform lending practices instituted by the Dodd Frank Dem controlled Congress to lend mortgages to unqualified buyers.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john-mccain-warned-of-mortgage-collapse-in-20/

John McCain saw this collapse coming as far back as 2005 and not only warned of the coming collapse but co-sponsored legislation to try and prevent it and go after the corruption that was causing much of the problem. Following is McCain’s speech on the Senate floor during debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005 urging the Senate to pass the Act which fell to defeat after being blocked by Senate Democrats.:


"Mr. President, (referring to the Presiding Officer of the Senate) this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005.

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

Senate Democrats blocked the passage of the Bill and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate because of the Democrats.

The problem was the result of Wall Street greed. I think you should talk to Vincent Daniels.

You are a bright guy and a good guy, but don't buy into the Dem Party mantras. Wall Street greed - or more correctly, the Wall Street goal - is money. But the collapse was caused by the fact that these subprime mortgages, with unqualified purchasers, were like other mortgages, bundled and sold on the open market. The subprime mortgage market, with introductory rates that ballooned to market rates the borrowed couldn't afford, was predicated on housing prices continuing to rise. When they did, homeowners could refinance (at steep closing costs that were bundled into the newer higher mortgage), but at an affordable sub prime rate. Once housing prices dropped this was not affordable. With these bundled mortgages at high risk of foreclosure, a global collapse of economic systems could have occurred. Without a financial bailout, depression likely was the result. All financial institutions paid back their loans, and the healthy ones refused government assistance.

But the problem began when lending requirements were relaxed, which led to predatory lending. And it wasn't so much Wall Street, but greedy mortgage brokers working secondary markets.

I agree with much of what you said particularly the greedy brokers. But greed is not a partisan issue.

A greedy mortgage broker doesn't force anyone to sign a loan. The person comes in to buy a house they can't afford they shouldn't try passing the blame as not knowing what they were doing

Not saying their isn't fault on the lenders but the fault resolves in people buying something they had no business buying or even going to the bank for

I want to refrain from saying anything negative because reading your posts the last few years makes me really laugh and I can tell you are a good guy but there is something called professional ethics. As someone who has practiced as a Certified Public Accountant what you said above is incredulous to me.

Say whatever you want. I really don't care and not much will bother me but what I wrote is true. I manage money and there are plenty of bad eggs in my business but the numbers are so far overblown it's mind boggling

And like I said there is fault on both sides but to think people shouldn't be personally accountable for their own individual actions as buying properties they couldn't afford or taking out mortgages they couldn't afford or using their houses as a personally piggy bank and using helcoc's to live like kings before it caught up with them would be naive.

Again I'm not saying there wasn't fault on the other side. But not nearly as much as what some try to portray ( I'm not accusing you personally of this

Since you are a cpa let me give you an examples of something related to your profession

Someone I know very well was using a cpa and was getting many back way more than this person should. I'm not even an accountant and I told this person years ago that something was up and the cpa had to be doing something wrong. I even went one year to the meeting and I told the cpa that they didnt know what they were doing with some of the write-offs. The person I know quite well still didnt listen to me because they didnt want to change things because they were getting so much money back. This person didnt even have any intent to cheat the govt but basically took the opinion of out of sight out of mind.

Well guess what. This person now got audited for several years and owes major money back. So who is at fault ? They both are. There has to be personal accountability on both sides

With lending no one forces people to borrow.

I certainly would not say that there aren't a lot of crooked CPA's and many prey on poor people by taking a percentage of their refunds which like you described above are intentionally inflated. I find the fault in this case to be primarily on the CPA.

Same if you are a broker and you have given five mortgages to a person you know can't afford it, you are primarily responsible.

That is why certain people are not allowed to make certain investments because they are not accredited. That is also why so many commercials are being run that let people know to question their financial advisors because they earn fees regardless of peformance.

 

[mjmaherjr]

No it's not but we did identify another payday lender fan.

who me ?

Very little difference between the predatory lending of the mortgage market in the oughts and that of payday lenders. Defend one defend them all. Again, it's simply a matter of a lack of ethics.

nonsense. and you should know me better than that and virtually every single thing I wrote with predictions or consequences came true in R&P starting back to the day it started except for 1 major thing when I wrote that we would end up having higher interest rates now because of our own fiscal mess that was going to happen and I wrote that before it even happened and I can make a case for why rates didnt go up because of what has happened globally

But you want to absolve anyone of their own mistakes. You want to buy a house in Cali that you can't afford now then you shouldn't even go to a bank and try to borrow money

Dude seriously we are friends but thats annoying. I just had a client who works for major publicly traded company with high profile job who is only 42 who has TON of stock options and had her exercise a lot of them and told her to pay off her mortgage after paying taxes. I give her this advice without making a penny. It was in MY best interest to tell her to take the half million and invest it with me where I charge her a fee on the assets and yet I tell her to pay off her mortgage

She didnt even want to. She politely argued with me that she was better off investing the money because her mortgage was only 3.5 % and she is young and technically her case has a lot of merit. I tell her absolutely not because the one thing that is always certain is having as little to no dent is a good thing. Oh and her CPA told her I was wrong because she is getting tax break.

She listened to me. After all that I wrote in R&P over the years you should know that there isn't 1 person here that is more against debt in general than me

But if you think individuals aren't at fault at all you are freaking nuts and the lack of water in california has gotten to you

 

[austour]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

 

[mjmaherjr]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

 

[austour]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

I get it. Let the buyer beware. Sorry, not my credo. Believe we should all take responsibility for each other, not just ourselves.

 

[mjmaherjr]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

I get it. Let the buyer beware. Sorry, not my credo. Believe we should all take responsibility for each other, not just ourselves.

I agree that WE should all take responsibility which means the the person borrowing as well as the person loaning

 

[Andrew]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

Totally agree with you here. I told my wife who is not that financially savvy is that if I croak before her, the first thing she should do with the life insurance proceeds is pay off the mortgages and then figure out what do with whats left.

 

[austour]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

I get it. Let the buyer beware. Sorry, not my credo. Believe we should all take responsibility for each other, not just ourselves.

I agree that WE should all take responsibility which means the the person borrowing as well as the person loaning

Yes and I don't believe that in a large number of cases, certainly not the majority but simply a large number of cases, the person loaning did not. I also imagine we'd disagree on the concept of corporate greed, at the expense of customers and employees, but lets leave that to the next time we're actually face to face with a beer.

 

[mjmaherjr]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

Totally agree with you here. I told my wife who is not that financially savvy is that if I croak before her, the first thing she should do with the life insurance proceeds is pay off the mortgages and then figure out what do with whats left.

you gave her great advice and that's exactly what I would have said

 

[austour]

I told my wife the same and then after that to find amd marry a rich man who's far better looking than me. She deserves it.

 

[mjmaherjr]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

I get it. Let the buyer beware. Sorry, not my credo. Believe we should all take responsibility for each other, not just ourselves.

I agree that WE should all take responsibility which means the the person borrowing as well as the person loaning

Yes and I don't believe that in a large number of cases, certainly not the majority but simply a large number of cases, the person loaning did not. I also imagine we'd disagree on the concept of corporate greed, at the expense of customers and employees, but lets leave that to the next time we're actually face to face with a beer.

You'd actually be surprised where I stand I corporate greed even though I don't hate walmart like you

 

[monte]

I did well financially under the Clinton and Obama administrations. Got killed when the economy collapsed under GB. I despise Hillary but will have to vote for her unless she goes to jail.

Please read the following. You can find other sources, but the near financial collapse in 2007 wasn't caused by GB, but warned by McCain in 2005 who tried to introduce legislation to reform lending practices instituted by the Dodd Frank Dem controlled Congress to lend mortgages to unqualified buyers.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/ken_taylor/2008/09/17/john-mccain-warned-of-mortgage-collapse-in-20/

John McCain saw this collapse coming as far back as 2005 and not only warned of the coming collapse but co-sponsored legislation to try and prevent it and go after the corruption that was causing much of the problem. Following is McCain’s speech on the Senate floor during debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005 urging the Senate to pass the Act which fell to defeat after being blocked by Senate Democrats.:


"Mr. President, (referring to the Presiding Officer of the Senate) this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005.

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

Senate Democrats blocked the passage of the Bill and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate because of the Democrats.

The problem was the result of Wall Street greed. I think you should talk to Vincent Daniels.

You are a bright guy and a good guy, but don't buy into the Dem Party mantras. Wall Street greed - or more correctly, the Wall Street goal - is money. But the collapse was caused by the fact that these subprime mortgages, with unqualified purchasers, were like other mortgages, bundled and sold on the open market. The subprime mortgage market, with introductory rates that ballooned to market rates the borrowed couldn't afford, was predicated on housing prices continuing to rise. When they did, homeowners could refinance (at steep closing costs that were bundled into the newer higher mortgage), but at an affordable sub prime rate. Once housing prices dropped this was not affordable. With these bundled mortgages at high risk of foreclosure, a global collapse of economic systems could have occurred. Without a financial bailout, depression likely was the result. All financial institutions paid back their loans, and the healthy ones refused government assistance.

But the problem began when lending requirements were relaxed, which led to predatory lending. And it wasn't so much Wall Street, but greedy mortgage brokers working secondary markets.

I agree with much of what you said particularly the greedy brokers. But greed is not a partisan issue.

No, in politics, greed is pretty much unilateral.

I'm most disgusted with the total amount of crap that all candidates toss around during election cycles. Mostly it's served up to people with the least. There are obvious contradictions in their platforms. Unemployment is soaring in some communities, and still at this time of year, candidates make promises built on air where they have no history of success in helping those they claim to represent.

What was done 10 years ago was criminal. I would fully support legislation that ensured an individuals ability to secure a loan based on their own financials and not race or ethnic background. But politicians, seeking to increase political capital, said home ownership is an American right, without a strong correlation to be able to afford it. So they opened a door where poorer people who couldn't afford homes were preyed upon. These folks couldn't afford even lower interest loans that have been around for at least a decade, so lowlife mortgage companies created instruments that started at 0% interest, with hefty fees built in that would return to market rates within a couple of years. Those borrowers couldn't afford those, so they had to refinance, again for hefty fees and for more principal. It created an upward spiral with nowhere for these people to turn except to refinance again and again for more and more until the housing market crashed.

The same politicians go into the poorest neighborhoods at election time, and tell people that education is a priority and that they will fight for better schools, better housing, jobs creation. Elections end, and these people are given nothing. Meanwhile at the same time, millions of people pour across our borders, taking unskilled and skilled labor jobs that could otherwise go to the poorest Americans. Tell me that some poor American wouldn't take a $20/hour carpenter's apprentice or electrician's helper, or any type of job that contractors often hire out to illegals?

I'm disgusted by the entire political process, and most of the politicians and political hacks who are part of the system. This is why people are voting for Trump - something I will do reluctantly.

Beast I will tell you this from first hand experience: there is a real shortage of American kids looking to go in to the various trades(IE plumbers, electricians, framing, sheetrock, etc.). Not so with immigrants, especially from the Hispanic and eastern European countries. Not only are they some of the hardest working people I've ever met, but they take an immense amount of pride in their work. I strongly believe that some sort of amnesty-for the purposes of acquiring a work visa,not citizenship-should be given to those who are here illegally but have a clean record and have shown a history of working here. Not sure if this is still the case post 9/11, but the US government had no problem taking taxes from illegal immigrants who were willing to pay taxes. I do believe that something needs to be done to secure the boarders, I don't feel that people who are here illegally but have contributed to our country should be deported.

I've engaged in several capital renovation projects, and I agree with you that the latino tradesmen that worked for contractors and subcontractors, whether skilled or unskilled, were to a person hard working, talented, diligent and well mannered. I don't begrudge them for a second, and if I were in their shoes in a poor country in Central America or Mexico, I'd to anything to help my family. What is disingenuous is that they have become political fodder - Trump on one side saying to deport them all, and the left pretending to be Lady Liberty in the hopes of expanding the Democratic party tent of voters. I do believe they should be paid a fair wage, and also should be contributing by paying income tax, which many do not. I agreed with Rubio's stance that we cannot grant a path to citizenship until our borders are secured.

I agree with Rubio also, however I do not like the idea of a "path to citizenship" being offered to anyone who came here illegally. I think it sends the wrong message and is completely unfair to those who waited their turn and came here the right way. Some sort of renewable(every 5 years?) work visa is what I would like to see. Lets face facts, they came here illegally but it has almost been by invitation of our government. I think a lot of these immigrants fill a valuable void in fields(farming, construction, restaurants, etc) that do not appeal to many Americans.

 

[Ray Morgan]

Back to the topic-Trump Trivia: If he gets the nomination, he will be the first presidential nominee from either party to be in the WWE Hall of Fame. I can just picture him, as a young boy, sitting in the Sunnyside Garden Arena cheering for notorious rule breaker Nature Boy Buddy Rogers.

You can see in him the influence of past wrestling managers like Classy Freddie Blassie. The bleached hair, the name calling and belittling of his opponents. Trump may as well have called Rubio a pencil neck geek instead of Little Marco. Add to that his demeanor at debates: the finger pointing, the smirks when he is accused of some allegedly sleazy business practice. I would guess that over 95% of his supporters have been to live pro wrestling matches. The republican power brokers have no idea how to deal with him, especially since there has never been a candidate like him. There is no doubt that he has dominated the media like no candidate in history. Turn on any news channel, and the under over on his name being mentioned is 2 seconds.

 

[ras]

To be clear, I'm not questioning your ethics, and yes folks should certainly have been more wary of what was essentially free money, but these were predominantly middle income folks being pushed by greedy real estate developers with ties to shady mortgage brokers all promising the moon with financial offers the customers didn't understand. You don't think the person servicing the loan should explain how it works rather than just keep trying to meet those sales incentives? I consider that a question of ethics, you don't have to.

I think a person should understand any time they sign something what they are signing. I don't think the mortgage brokers were knocking on doors telling people to borrow. I think their phone was ringing

I think they are at fault also. I think there are plenty of people who don't care that service they provide and what the consequences. I don't think it's the majority of people though.

Example. I have a friend who used a travel agent last year. vacation was nightmare. The travel agent totally screwed him and wife. Is it only the travel agents fault ? I freaking looked on trip advisor in 5 minutes and could see the reviews sucked for the hotels

I get it. Let the buyer beware. Sorry, not my credo. Believe we should all take responsibility for each other, not just ourselves.

In an ideal world your right. But your living in fantasy land. I have been agreeing w MJ a lot lately. I believe one should read a document before signing, understand what they are reading, ask questions, before signing. Many people are out for number 1 and don't have your best to interests at heart. I'm not a cinic, but a realist.

 

[austour]

And I'm an idealist, I know that. Also if you are asking everyone who signs a mortgage application to understand what they're signing you're eliminating 95% of the population from home ownership.