Why I Cry For America

[OhioFiler]

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties(sic)( (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved(sic) into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

You are officially on my list of ignorees for your grossly inaccurate assumptions of why I am on this board and your obvious anger, jealousy and moveon inspired thoughts but primarily because you choose to turn a discussion into a personal attack.

You need to understand that not every person who files BK does so in a specified by you time frame.

Your compassion and empathy "for others" (as opposed to compassion and empathy for yourself?) is on full display here.

If I may offer you advice, I recommend you simply ignore my deceptive posts on here and enjoy your bankruptcy without me.

Have a great day!

[OhioFiler]

I understand where you are coming from OF, but free markets have little to do with constitutions.

A free market can exist where there is not a constitution in place. Laissez Faire free market economies, by definition, are economies that allow business and trade to operate free of restrictions. Voiding owed debt in bankruptcy would constitute a restriction.

I understand where you are coming from as well BTS. However, the free market I cite does in fact operate within the confines of a constitution. If I were operating within the confines of an Ivory Tower and pretending laissez faire market was the rule your point would be valid.

[MSbklawyer]

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

That was the excuse they used anyway, though the numbers of those kinds of people was exceedingly small. The law that was already in place required that student loans be at least 7 years old before they could be discharged. On top of that, there was the substantial abuse standard that allowed a trustee to object if a high income earner tried to discharge his debts.

[backtoschool]

Ever try being one of them? Of course not. What is absurd is to suggest that there are no poverty/suffering problems in this nation, or that charity/gov. programs have solved it.

If you listened to the news, you would know that increasingly, charities and food banks are running out of supplies as the segment of the population needing help grows and those able to give shrinks.

Is it acceptable to you to expand government assistance to those Americans in need, acknowledging, of course, that taxes will increase? Or, is it only OK to expand government assistance to citizens of other countries when a natural disaster hits? The Americans should pay higher taxes for that, but not to help it's own?

I am not saying that we shouldn't help Haiti, just pointing out that for some reason people don't object to footing the bill for other countries, but God forbid our taxes go to help some struggling American family that has fallen on hard times and can't pay their mortgage.

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


Again, in answer to your other post, I consider myself an Independent and registered as one because I find both parties to be in the pockets of big business, with no interest in solving the problems facing middle/lower class Americans.

I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

I have to disagree with this post sofarsogood2. Ohiofiler has been on this board for a year, contributing and helping others. Sometimes people need to plan their bankruptcy and it takes awhile to file. I myself had to wait 7-8 months from my decision to file, until I actually filed.

Although I do not agree with OF's ultra-conservative views a lot of the time, I do believe he is a valuable contributor to this forum.

[backtoschool]

I understand where you are coming from as well BTS. However, the free market I cite does in fact operate within the confines of a constitution. If I were operating within the confines of an Ivory Tower and pretending laissez faire market was the rule your point would be valid.

Point well taken.


How filing for bankruptcy under the protection of the constitution is different from lowering a mortgage principal under the protection of a law, is not completely clear to me yet however. Why is bankruptcy ok and in accordance with a free market, and lowering a mortgage principal not? Not every law can be explicitly stated in our constitution, but our constitution gives far-reaching umbrella-like protection to all of our laws, unless they are deemed to be unconstitutional, which it is unlikely a mortgage reduction law would be deemed.

[OhioFiler]

Although I do not agree with OF's ultra-conservative views a lot of the time, I do believe he is a valuable contributor to this forum.

Well I can't seem to agree with your ultra-ultra-liberal views a lot of the time either!

[OhioFiler]

Point well taken.


How filing for bankruptcy under the protection of the constitution is different from lowering a mortgage principal under the protection of a law, is not completely clear to me yet however. Why is bankruptcy ok and in accordance with a free market, and lowering a mortgage principal not? Not every law can be explicitly stated in our constitution, but our constitution gives far-reaching umbrella-like protection to all of our laws, unless they are deemed to be unconstitutional, which it is unlikely a mortgage reduction law would be deemed.

When I entered into my agreement with the lender the Constitution was in force (pending Obama's dream of destroying it ). There existed no law or rule that allowed me the right to change the terms of the mortgage. I had two options. Pay as agreed or bk the debt. Both the lender and i knew these options existed. I assume the lender set the offered interest rate knowing I might one day file BK.

If the two parties agree to modify the agreement I'm all for it in accordance with my belief in the free market. If the lender is forced to modify it because the borrower misrepresented himself at acquisition or over-extended himself then I have an issue with the process. I also have a problem with fat cat pols in DC demanding that banks modify existing agreements and especially with these fat cats limiting the bonuses paid to Wall Street fat cats.

[backtoschool]

When I entered into my agreement with the lender the Constitution was in force (pending Obama's dream of destroying it ). There existed no law or rule that allowed me the right to change the terms of the mortgage. I had two options. Pay as agreed or bk the debt. Both the lender and i knew these options existed. I assume the lender set the offered interest rate knowing I might one day file BK.

If the two parties agree to modify the agreement I'm all for it in accordance with my belief in the free market. If the lender is forced to modify it because the borrower misrepresented himself at acquisition or over-extended himself then I have an issue with the process. I also have a problem with fat cat pols in DC demanding that banks modify existing agreements and especially with these fat cats limiting the bonuses paid to Wall Street fat cats.

I agree we shouldn't limit Wall Street bonuses. Limiting bonuses is a punitive political measure that accomplishes nothing. The people whose bonuses are being limited are getting the same compensation in stock and other incentives, or they are going to another company that is not on the government watch list. I just started a job with a small company that was formed by former Wall Streeter's fleeing the big investment banks.

As to the mortgage modification, well I see your point OF. There isn't currently a law that allows for principal reduction.

I do think however that the people who are asking for the principal reductions are the same people who will enter the bankruptcy or foreclosure process if they do not get the principal reductions. Not giving them the principal reductions is not really saving any money or solving anything in the mid term or the long run.

Of course this is probably a moot point, since principal reductions would be akin for a bank to declaring their housing assets at their actual market value, which they do not want to do. Modifying the housing contract to reflect the house's actual market value, would cause the bank to have to declare a loss on it's books, and to reserve capital to cover that loss, which would lead to less lending, etc...., which would lead to a worsening of the recession and might even lead to a Depression.

[FLBK7]

That was the excuse they used anyway, though the numbers of those kinds of people was exceedingly small. The law that was already in place required that student loans be at least 7 years old before they could be discharged. On top of that, there was the substantial abuse standard that allowed a trustee to object if a high income earner tried to discharge his debts.

It was an open secret that upon graduation, the Ivy League doctors and lawyers would then take (relatively) low-paying jobs at clinics and non-profits. On purpose.