Re: Economist nonsense Soc.Sec. and houses

Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:07:22 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
> 
>> Mason C wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:00:11 -0800, Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mason C wrote:
>>>>> That is a failure of the unregulated free market -- overselling and
>>>>> in many cases outright deception if not criminal fraud.
>>>> What is an example of the deception and/or fraud?
>>>>
>>> Deception:  telling people they could afford a house they *obviously*
>>> could *not* afford.
>> ?
>>
>> I've always assumed that was MY responsibility.  So is what you are
>> saying that it is someone else's job to tell me what I can and can't
>> afford???  If that is the case, I've never listened to or obeyed what
>> someone else has told me to do wrt what I can and can't afford.  Please
>> explain why I'm not in debt and live within my means?
>>
>>> Fraud:  unrecorded verbal instruction at odds with the fine print.
>> ?
>>
>> What are these "unrecorded verbal instructions" you speak of?
>>
>> Doesn't the fine print say that the fine print is the last word on an
>> issue, verbal instructions aren't authorized nor part of the contract?
>> That is what it says on most every one of my contracts...
>>
>>>> How come I didn't get suckered into the deception and fraud when I
>>>> refinanced several years ago?
>>> I assume from what you say that you were not one of the "many cases."
>>> You were smart or lucky.  (I'm surprised by your question.)
>> Luck had nothing to do with it.  Smart, I don't know.  But I did read
>> the contract and I did take personal responsibility for my actions.
> 
> This "debate" was settled long ago.  But the rightards will never let it

> go.  The buyers saw a chance to improve their lot.  They would probably 
> never had a chance to do so if not this _ONE_.  They had no money and no

> assets to lose and everything to gain.  If the bubble continued then
they 
> would end up in much better financial shape than what would have been
had 
> they not participated.  They also would be living in better 
> accommodations.  When someone offers you such a deal you are a complete 
> moron to turn away.  And all the other members of your economic group 
> will leave you in the dust as they take advantage of this OP****TUNITY.
> 
> The point is that this op****tunity should not have existed.  And it 
> existed due to deregulation, greed and the lust for power.  It existed 
> because the Republicans needed the housing bubble to continue to sell 
> their make war and cut taxes s**** oil economics.  It was not the poor 
> people who bought the homes that were the malignancy.  It was the lying,

> thieving latter day Republican party.

Funny, you didn't answer any of my questions!