Re: Economist nonsense Soc.Sec. and houses

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:38:43 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
> 
>> 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!
> 
> He did, you just didn't get it...

No, he didn't.

Do you have anything to contribute?  Or are you just here to add 
irrelevancy?