Liberal Hogwash
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 99 Homes
digital_generation_x — 10 years ago(June 04, 2015 05:59 AM)
Those poor oppressed people who were ripped from their homes. Please! What happened to personal responsibility? They signed those crappy deals, yet in the eyes of liberal America, they were bullied and terrorized by banks? How does that make any sense? I almost bought a house during the real estate boom of the mid 2000's. I went in to sign, started reading the fine print, and I walked away. I bought a place 3 years later after the bubble burst, and still own it to this day. These people are idiots, not oppressed citizens. Screw this liberal propaganda piece of trash movie.
-
jimthing1 — 10 years ago(June 04, 2015 06:14 PM)
Yeah that's great for you isn't it, but not everyone understands money/finance, nor knows how to go about getting decent advice (a la IFA's: Independent Financial Advisers). Until that changes and is probably made mandatory, mass subprime mortgage industry misselling will continue in decades to come.
This then will then very likely affect you, me, and almost everyone else again, as yet another recession hits, and people don't buy what you're selling (goods or service).
So patting yourself on the back with your personal great single decision might seem great to you, but don't think you're immune from the rest of the process. -
Pennst411 — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 05:05 PM)
I find it hard to feel sorry for someone buying a $250,000 home on a $30,000 salary, and not knowing what ARM meant when they signed the mortgage. Because I responsible, nobody is helping me with my mortgage.
"You're close, but the sky's closer" -
digital_generation_x — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 08:37 PM)
According to what I'm seeing here, you shouldn't be proud of your smart choices. Instead you should be obligated to cover the asses of the dumb dumbs who thought that 250k House vs 30k Salary on an adjustable rate mortgage made sense.
-
ThreeIn10 — 9 years ago(July 10, 2016 03:34 AM)
The banks should never lend $250k to somebody who makes $30k. That's the problem. The banks didn't care because they just turned around and sold the loan. This is what deregulation gets you. It's amazing that all of you out there complaining about covering asses are the same ones clamoring for more deregulation. Talk about dumb dumbs.
-
sean-van-der-smythe — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 03:14 AM)
You're okay covering the asses of those too-big-to-fail banks though? Who even argued you should be obligated to cover the asses of the dumb dumbs? I'm pretty sure that wasn't a message of the movie.
-
orignlsinz — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 03:56 PM)
You are absolutely correct. There were three parties responsible for the housing crisis; The government that forced the banks to lend out subprime loans to broke people, the banks who took full advantage of, and abused, the situation, and the home buyers who accepted huge financial obligations without any financial understanding of them. Personal responsibility is not in the progressive/liberal vocabulary, though.
-
Stiles5339 — 10 years ago(September 28, 2015 12:13 PM)
This film went above and beyond that. The main things that were pointed out - eviction companies can an do steal items from outside/inside of homes, don't completely listen and take your landlord's word for things - they could be conning you and you will get evicted for buying into it if you aren't careful, eviction companies have and can file fraudulent reports to illegally take away property that is still legally yours. Like Wallstreet - the act of what goes on at Wallstreet isn't bad, it's the lengths greedy people will go to in order to manipulate the system regardless of who or what is hurt along the way. Saying it's about evictions is just scratching the surface, that isn't really what the film addressed rather the illegal fraudulent practices that some commit.
-
Stiles5339 — 10 years ago(September 30, 2015 10:13 AM)
Did you see the movie? Some, like Michael Shannon's character, take advantage of the system because of their greed - he was ripping off people and the government while smiling about it. I highly doubt forging fraudulent documents and stealing from homes (inside and out) is part of their job description especially when it was important to keep all of it under the radar. That isn't to say all brokers are greedy, the film explored two different types of brokers - Garfield and Shannon both who had a different approach to the job. Granted, Garfield's character did commit crimes as well along the way; in the end he saw that what he was doing wasn't right. Garfield's character being, I hope, what most brokers are like. Michael Shannon basically playing an equivalent of Gordon Gecko who acted outside of the system as well.
-
buddytesla-1 — 10 years ago(October 06, 2015 10:52 AM)
The left can't have it both ways. The AP wrote puff pieces on Countrywide calling them "the bank with a heart" for giving home loans to people other banks wouldn't. Then when the beep hit the fan and all these people lost their homes, the same media called them "predatory lenders". Making it easier to get home loans is going to drive real estate prices up, it's called "supply and demand". This was a government manufactured disaster.
-
mikeyflatley — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 02:53 PM)
Werd. Its a very simple concept really and no super finance knowledge required. Buy low, sell high. When ur neighbor's home wuz 300k and now sellin 4 a mil, well it doesn't require rocket science 2 know dis is overvalued.
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka