"60 Minutes" - Forged mortgage documents

[quade 4]

Thanks for yet AGAIN proving my point about your BS.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Thanks for yet AGAIN proving my point about your BS.

Whatever you need to believe to get through the day, Paul.

_________________________________________
jimbrown: Who owns CBS?

quade: WTF? CBS is publicly owned.

mnealtx: So is Newscorp

quade: Rupert Murdoch!!! Saudi Prince!!!
_________________________________________

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for yet AGAIN proving my point about your BS.

Whatever you need to believe to get through the day, Paul.

_________________________________________
jimbrown: Who owns CBS?

quade: WTF? CBS is publicly owned.

mnealtx: So is Newscorp

quade: Rupert Murdoch!!! Saudi Prince!!!

It's just so cute to see you attempt to change your story while not changing your BS.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's just so cute to see you attempt to change your story while not changing your BS.

It's just so cute to see you scramble to try to cover up your hypocrisy on the subject.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

But for CBS and 60 minutes as a whole, they lost me in the early 80's when they ran the hit piece on nuke plants.

Their sad history has continued unfortunatly as the more reputable sources we have the better

I think every news organization on the planet has been occasionally not 100% accurate and I also think they've occasionally made mistakes of not checking their sources enough. That said, CBS, and especially 60 minutes actually does have a pretty good record.

I realize you may not see it that way based on your example of a story that ran about 30 years ago and maybe one or two other stories, in particular the one where Dan Rather was duped by a document forger, but as a whole, 60 minutes is excellent reporting.

I'm am surprised, well maybe not, that you would consider The Drudge Report, NewsMax and FoxNews as more "truthful."

The Drudge Report is simply link bait. Most of their "reporting" is simply a sensationalized headline linking to another web site. That's not reporting at all.

NewsMax and FoxNews might as well be Pravda from the old Soviet Union, only instead of taking their marching orders from the Communist Party, they're taking it from the RNC. While you may be able to find an occasional error in CBS reportage, factual errors are de rigueur at both NewsMax and FoxNews and pretty much always in favor of the positions held by the RNC.

Do yourself a favor, seriously, and give 60 Minutes another try. Actually watch it for a month rather than simply dismissing it because of some some story you think they got wrong 30 years ago.

I have watched 60 seconds again
still a joke

as for Drudge, I agree with the sensationalistic link headlines but, you get a chance to see a lot of news from many sources
I dont agree with their tactics but I like news sources pulled together

as for you comments on other sites?

no wonder you like 60 jokes so much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You don't know much about Pravda, do you?

Oh, I'm pretty sure I do!

Rather than me doing a lot of retyping of material that others have written about far better, let me just link one out of dozens and dozens of reports analyzing FoxNews.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200910270002

FoxNews is one of the most inaccurate sources of news in the entire world.

again your prove your blind bigotted biases

media mattes stated in the last week that they have declared gorillia warfare on foxnews

It is funded by the Soros and has only one purpose that they now openly state

again
No wonder 60 jokes is so dear to you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=media+matters+declares+war+on+fox+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Thanks for proving my point that your defense of CBS being a-ok since it's a publicly held company was complete bullshit.

In your haste to slam Quade you seem to have missed that he specifically highlighted who the majority shareholder is. Which really is the central point.

But, I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your little slam fest.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Here is another, contrasting, viewpoint on the issue of the mortgage paperwork.

It makes some very valid points, particularly about the fact that the victims in this case are only victims in one sense -- the vast majority of them did, in fact, default on their mortgages.

However, two wrongs don't make a right, and if the mortgage companies had to go through more hoops to complete the transfer, that's what they should have done. After all, if someone has their friend move into the house, and the friend quits making payments, the friend isn't on the stick for the mortgage.

So the upshot, to me, is that the big companies tried to save some money, and that "savings" is turning into a huge expense and PR nightmare, because in a paperwork-intensive business, they neglected the paperwork.

Wendy P.

Dishonesty on all sides, the buyers of the houses for lying about their status (whether prompted to or not), the loan officers for lying about the documents, the companies for lying about the signatures, and now committing forgery to try to foreclose. Such is the price of always trying to take the easy road.

I'm sorta glad this is so expensive and painful for all involved. Perhaps after this lessons will be finally learned.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Dishonesty on all sides, the buyers of the houses for lying about their status (whether prompted to or not), the loan officers for lying about the documents, the companies for lying about the signatures, and now committing forgery to try to foreclose. Such is the price of always trying to take the easy road.

I'm sorta glad this is so expensive and painful for all involved. Perhaps after this lessons will be finally learned.

Until people will recognize that regulation does not equal socialism and that regulation is needed in the financial industries, no lesson will have been learned.

What we have really seen is the failure of a free market. What we have also seen is that industries have grown to a point where failure can lead to an entire country going bankrupt. Strong governmental oversight and regulation is now required.

In a free market people will not do what is best in the long term, people will do what makes them the most money in the short term.

[wmw999 2,446]

Quote

Perhaps after this lessons will be finally learned

Just as there is a new crop of first-graders needing to learn the same lesson every year, there will always be a need to re-learn lessons that can't be prevented.

Some parts of the country had a real estate bust in the 1980's. We had a pretty significant recession then, too; tent cities, massive repos, everything. Every bank and credit union in those days had a little corral out back for the cars that had been repo'd.

Negative am and adjustable rate mortgages were a bad idea for the vast majority of people in the 1980's, but that didn't seem to stop a lot of people from thinking they were a good idea in the 2000's.

The best thing we can do is teach our children responsibility, and let them learn difficult lessons early when it's cheap, instead of later when it's expensive.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>I'm sorta glad this is so expensive and painful for all involved. Perhaps after
>this lessons will be finally learned.

Since people have to relearn it every 20 years or so, I doubt it. Better enforcement of banking rules is probably the only thing we can do to mitigate it in the future.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I'm sorta glad this is so expensive and painful for all involved. Perhaps after this lessons will be finally learned.

The S&L Crisis of 20 years ago was small potatoes compared to this.
Back then, charges were filed and people were convicted and served time.
This time, no one has been charged in the financial institutions.
Not only have we failed to learn, but we have also removed any incentive to not repeat it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Until people will recognize that regulation does not equal socialism and that regulation is needed in the financial industries, no lesson will have been learned.

knee jerk reactive regulation (SOX) didn't seem to help a bit this time around. Why do you think it would be any more successful (and any less expensive) next time?

Bailing out companies rather then letting them fail taught a lesson we probably didn't want learned, esp as we continue to allow any merger to occur, no matter how big the company is.

[idrankwhat 0]

Maybe that's because "FOX NEWS" is an oxymoron. But don't take my word for it. Ask a FOX VP.

"“An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion,” Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/wh-aide-fox-news-operates-like-an-arm-of-the-gop-2/

Quote

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=media+matters+declares+war+on+fox+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

knee jerk reactive regulation (SOX) didn't seem to help a bit this time around. Why do you think it would be any more successful (and any less expensive) next time?

Because countries with stronger regulation faired significantly better. The problem is you had/have extremely limited regulation in place. And those regulations that were in place were hardly being enforced.

Take a look at Canada, there is a reason our financial institutions came through that much better.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

knee jerk reactive regulation (SOX) didn't seem to help a bit this time around. Why do you think it would be any more successful (and any less expensive) next time?

Because countries with stronger regulation faired significantly better. The problem is you had/have extremely limited regulation in place. And those regulations that were in place were hardly being enforced.

Take a look at Canada, there is a reason our financial institutions came through that much better.

Canada is a rare exception. It's also a small(ish) economy that exports oil. Spends very little on defense. How well did the other major economies fare?

To repeat, SOX was dumped on us in the aftermath of Enron. It's a pain in the ass to comply with - when you say there is no regulation here, you don't speak from experience. I work in the financial sector. It is a business that will always push the envelop in America, and the regulatory proposals this time around will be no more successful (and appear to miss the mark). Wall Street already made sure to lobby out the important parts. DC happily took the money and gave us this 'feel good' turkey instead. But it's no more effective than marines with machine guns patrolling the airports.

[billvon 2,991]

>Why do you think it would be any more successful (and any less expensive)
>next time?

It will be more successful if one of the lessons we learn is "you actually have to enforce banking laws."

>Bailing out companies rather then letting them fail taught a lesson we probably
>didn't want learned . . .

Agreed there. Loans are OK, and might make sense under certain situations, but straight bailouts just make the problem worse.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Why do you think it would be any more successful (and any less expensive)
>next time?

It will be more successful if one of the lessons we learn is "you actually have to enforce banking laws."

>Bailing out companies rather then letting them fail taught a lesson we probably
>didn't want learned . . .

Agreed there. Loans are OK, and might make sense under certain situations, but straight bailouts just make the problem worse.

An even better solution would have been for the government not to get involved in the financial industry (Fannie, Freddie) as well as not force businesses to make an x% of loans to a cetain group.

I agree straight out bailouts are bad, but if the stupid policies and regulations were partly to blame for the mess, I think they're warranted.

Unfortunately, that money comes from all of us, not the idiots that proposed and voted for the legislation.

Hmmm... There's an interesting concept. Hold those that vote for and/or approve new legislation and regulation accountable for the results/impact.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,991]

>An even better solution would have been for the government not to get involved in the
> financial industry (Fannie, Freddie) as well as not force businesses to make an x% of
>loans to a cetain group.

Stop giving out bailouts - agreed.

Revoking banking regulations - a very very bad idea.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>An even better solution would have been for the government not to get involved in the
> financial industry (Fannie, Freddie) as well as not force businesses to make an x% of
>loans to a cetain group.

Stop giving out bailouts - agreed.

Revoking banking regulations - a very very bad idea.

At this point I agree with you as those regulations and bailouts have left very few small banks. With such limited choice now, there needs to be some protections but even so some of the current state and fed regs should be reviewed and revised/standardized.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,446]

Revoking regulations and trusting corporate entities to always do the right thing is just as silly as revoking laws and trusting people to always do the right thing.

And overly restrictive regulations "just because" are just as bad as speed traps, as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Canada is a rare exception.
To repeat, SOX was dumped on us in the aftermath of Enron. It's a pain in the ass to comply with ...

I'll admit I don't know much about SOX, but I think sometimes simple straightforward regulation is passed over in favor of needlessly complex systems that just "feed the lawyers" to find ways around the rules. I believe the major reason why Canada escaped the financial meltdown is that lenders have to hold on to their mortgages for a period of time before they can sell them to another lender. If you know you have to hold a mortgage for a couple of years, you will do the due diligence to make sure the borrower can pay. If you know the mortgage will be someone else's problem before the ink is even dry, and that you will make a commission both at the closing and when you sell it off to someone else, why would you care if the borrower can make the payments? Two years before you can sell the mortgage (even one year would be sufficient!); simple and effective. Canada also has a wider range of mortgage products, including 40 and even 50 year mortgages. Lower payments, as so little principle comes off, but a great return for the lender over the lifetime of the loan.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Canada is a rare exception.
To repeat, SOX was dumped on us in the aftermath of Enron. It's a pain in the ass to comply with ...

I'll admit I don't know much about SOX, but I think sometimes simple straightforward regulation is passed over in favor of needlessly complex systems that just "feed the lawyers" to find ways around the rules. I believe the major reason why Canada escaped the financial meltdown is that lenders have to hold on to their mortgages for a period of time before they can sell them to another lender. If you know you have to hold a mortgage for a couple of years, you will do the due diligence to make sure the borrower can pay. If you know the mortgage will be someone else's problem before the ink is even dry, and that you will make a commission both at the closing and when you sell it off to someone else, why would you care if the borrower can make the payments? Two years before you can sell the mortgage (even one year would be sufficient!); simple and effective. Canada also has a wider range of mortgage products, including 40 and even 50 year mortgages. Lower payments, as so little principle comes off, but a great return for the lender over the lifetime of the loan.

Don

I see SOX implications everyday

Costs corps big bucks every year which increases costs to customers as a cost of business. Much of it is a waste of time

Par for the course since the gov is involved

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

To repeat, SOX was dumped on us in the aftermath of Enron. It's a pain in the ass to comply with - when you say there is no regulation here, you don't speak from experience. I work in the financial sector. It is a business that will always push the envelop in America, and the regulatory proposals this time around will be no more successful (and appear to miss the mark). Wall Street already made sure to lobby out the important parts. DC happily took the money and gave us this 'feel good' turkey instead. But it's no more effective than marines with machine guns patrolling the airports.

The ease with which mortgages were handed out based on no or simly made up information proves my point. This is simply near impossible to do in Canada. if you want to call that a rare exception, then you are showcasing the mentality which has driven the current crash and will drive the next one.

Mortgages are very tightly regulated, the financial sector is very tightly regulated (it's no surprise there are far fewer banks in Canada as well, many of them now owning US banks, thank you for that!!).

Quote

Spends very little on defense. How well did the other major economies fare?

China and India did pretty good.

Quote

Canada is a rare exception. It's also a small(ish) economy that exports oil.

Canada's economy ranks anywhere from 8th to 12th in the world, dependent on measurement used.