Posted on 06/01/2011 1:37:02 AM PDT by Daisyjane69
(Reuters) - Ally Financial Inc, the United States' largest maker of car loans, hopes that people have forgotten the time when "subprime" became a synonym for "disaster."
Ally, once known as GMAC Financial Services, is getting ready to go public this year, and is making the case that subprime loans for used car buyers are not about to produce the same results that they did in the housing market a few years ago -- a near-collapse of the financial system.
Auto loans performed relatively well during the downturn, and demand for cars is up, so auto lending is one of the few types of consumer debt that is growing.
Ally wants to show investors that this makes it different from many other banks, which are struggling with weak loan demand and their own soured mortgages.
The company is making more loans to subprime borrowers, and financing more purchases of used cars, both steps with higher risk. It has said it wants to raise the percentage of auto loans on used cars that it makes to 50 percent from its current 20 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“The bank doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the responsibility of the borrower.”
I’m not asking if the bank gives a rat’s ass, I’m asking if you give a rat’s ass about the responsibility of the borrower? When your philosophy wants to hold one side of a contract responsible for fulfilling the contract, and not the other, you are not supporting the rule of law and the ability of separate legal entities to contract with each other? Do you pretend to support a republican form of government if you do not support the viability of contracts? Because one depends on the other.
The question is do *you* recognize the responsibility of the borrower, or do *you* want to skip over that part and blame the other side of the contract (banks.) I suspect the answer is the latter. Not a very objective position. Just scapegoating without really understanding how the system works.
“Pretty soon, he has more bad loans than he can handle, or that his high interest rate can compensate for, given the cost and delay in recovering the car. And then he runs out of money at which time no sane person will invest in him anymore.”
Then, if government does what its supposed to do, meaning let that party go bankrupt, the party goes bankrupt.
What’s the problem with that as long as government stays out of it? And why are we blaming individuals who choose to take business risk for taking business risk. That’s what businesses are in business to do, is take risk. Business and risk are two sides of the same coin. You can’t enter business without taking some risk.
Some take more than others. If they fail, they loose their money. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
Stop blaming entrepreneurs for taking risk. Its what they do. As long as government doesn’t try to save some and not others, the system works just fine.
Wow! Exactly. Stupid and irresponsible people includes those who make loans with a reasonable expectation that it won't be repaid, but that the government will bail out the lender.
Stop government bailouts of lenders, allow these idiots to go bankrupt, and then i will go along with you.
“Stupid and irresponsible people includes those who make loans with a reasonable expectation that it won’t be repaid, but that the government will bail out the lender.”
But does not include borrowers right?
My point is exactly that there is room for blame on *both* sides. Your view *ignores* the responsibility of the borrower, exactly as I explained in my first post on the issue.
“You want to blame banks for lending to stupid or irresponsible people.
I want to blame people for being stupid or irresponsible.
Mine is a conservative viewpoint. Your’s is a liberal victimhood viewpoint.
Clear as day.”
No, it is NOT conservative, nor is it clear as day.
Banks should FAIL AND NOT GET BAILOUTS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THEIR STUIPD MISTAKES. That would be conservative, and not the FASCIST bull you are trying to sell.
SOCILAIZED losses and PRIVATIZED gains is FASCISM.
Debt slavery is NOT capitalism.
“Banks should FAIL AND NOT GET BAILOUTS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THEIR STUIPD MISTAKES.”
Agreed. And borrowers who borrow stupidly should face the consequences of that choice.
If you read my posts you will see that I have advocated for banks that make stupid bets to fail, so maybe you are missing the point. My line of reasoning is simply do not punish risk taking, and do not fail to recognize that responsibility for irresponsible borrowing also lies with the borrower. If you think that is fascism then maybe you misunderstand the meaning of fascism.
Look, banks default on their loans and don’t get lectured about their “morality” of letting the collateral return to the lender.
Don’t do the same to the average person.
Paying when they can’t pay anymore is just as legal as the banks who default on their loans.
So for the fifth post in a row, you are defending the same point:
Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.
Again, its very clear where you stand.
You take a populist view of a major issue, and blame one side to the exclusions of the other.
Your view: Banks are evil.
Your view: Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.
I tire of repeating myself. See my earlier posts for a detailed explanation of why your view is wrong, and not defensible from a conservative perspective.
As long as you cling to emotional, non-objective responses to social problems, you are arguing for the liberal point of view, that views the world from the starting point of “I wish it were thus, and so it should be thus, and so if I say it is thus enough times, it will become thus.”
The liberal victimhood mindset is like walking out to your car in the morning, looking at the car, and saying, this car ought to have gas in it, and then pretending that the car does have gas in it, and then trying to use the car.
That is your philosophy.
My philosophy is to look at objective facts and try to find solutions.
Give up emotionalism and look at facts. Individuals bear personal responsibility for borrowing, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur at banks. The two facts are completely independent of each other.
Or you can follow you philosophy and let that lead you were it leads you, probably to some kind of dead end.
“Then, if government does what its supposed to do, meaning let that party go bankrupt, the party goes bankrupt.”
Exactly, and the losses are restricted to the parties that voluntarily agreed to share the risk. They are not “socialized”, a polite term meaning that government will send men with guns to force everyone else to chip in whether they want to or not.
True enough, but we still need to acknowledge the responsibility of the borrower, regardless of whatever other parties may do proper or improper things, it does not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of borrowing the money.
Borrowing is a choice.
Borrowing, by definition, obligates a party to something. Parties who borrowed who knew or should have known they could not pay it back are just as much a problem as banks that took unrealistic risks.
Banks that take improper risks face the possibility that they will go bankrupt, and that penalty should not be removed from the system.
In the exact same way, and for the exact same reason, borrowers who borrow unrealistically should face a consequence for their actions. One such consequence that the do face is a wrecked economy.
You see, when you walk away from a loan, the responsibility for that loan does not disappear into thin air. Someone bears responsibility for that loan, namely and ultimately your fellow members of society. As members of society, borrowers who walked away from loans should look in the mirror to find *one* source of the problems that the economy faces. And those who side up to populist emotion by painting banks as the only responsible party are no better than the race-baiting and class baiting poverty pimps and racers that we all know.
Time for a lot of conservatives to face the cold, hard fact: personal responsibility is an important building block of any society.
We don’t tolerate this one-sidedness when poverty pimps do it. Why do we tolerate it from ourselves and the “banks are evil” crowd?
Dunno.
“So for the fifth post in a row,...you are defending the same point” I have only made TWO posts. This will be my third.
“Borrowers have no responsibility for borrowing.” “ Banks are evil.”
You don’t have a CLUE what my point is, at all.
“I tire of repeating myself.” GOOD. Don’t do it anymore.
“Individuals bear personal responsibility for borrowing, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur at banks. The two facts are completely independent of each other.”
Let’s try that again.
“BANKS bear personal responsibility for LENDING, regardless of what inappropriate behavior does or does not occur by borrowers. The two facts are completely independent of each other.”
Got it? FED rent boy.
“... but we still need to acknowledge the responsibility of the lender, regardless of whatever other parties may do proper or improper things, it does not absolve the lender from the responsibility of lending the money.”
“Lending is a choice.”
“Lending, by definition, obligates a party to something. Parties who lent who knew or should have known the borrower could not pay it back are just as much a problem as borrowers that took unrealistic risks.”
“Lenders that take improper risks face the possibility that they will go bankrupt, and that penalty should not be removed from the system.”
“Lenders who lent unrealistically should face a consequence for their actions. One such consequence that they do face is a wrecked economy because they failed to only just wreck themselves.”
“Someone bears responsibility for that loan, namely and ultimately the banks. As members of society, banks who walked away from losses and put them on the backs of taxpayers, should look in the mirror to find *one* source of the problems that the economy faces. “
“Time for a lot of Banks to face the cold, hard fact: responsibility is an important building block of any society. Banks need to take the losses they incurred, because THEY were the ones who took the risks, not the taxpayer.”
Sorry, you can type all you want and it still won’t absolve the borrower of his/her obligation.
But keep wishing for that. Maybe if you wish hard enough you can make it true. . . .
So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers defines you as a liberal.
Good luck with that.
Your argument isn’t even internally consistent with itself.
No further proof needed of its falsehood.
“You don’t have a CLUE what my point is, at all.”
No one does. The logic of your argument is clueless.
A misqutoe, oh goody, what a liar you aze.
Just like the other FED rent boys, liar.
“So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers...”
YOU are a liar, again. How is that conservative?
Oh, I know, you aren’t.
You love the FASCIST FED, you love DEBT SLAVERY OF OTHERS.
THAT is not conservative, in fact, it is COMMIE LOVING.
Capitalism is NOT MAKING THE TAXPAYER PAY FOR THE GAMBLING DEBTS OF BANKS.
Fascist Commie lover.
Nope, your only purpose here is to keep the sheeple unaware.
Not going to let you get away with it, FED rent boy.
You:
” ‘So your definition of personal responsibility for borrowers...’
YOU are a liar, again. How is that conservative?
Oh, I know, you aren’t.
You love the FASCIST FED, you love DEBT SLAVERY OF OTHERS.
THAT is not conservative, in fact, it is COMMIE LOVING.
Capitalism is NOT MAKING THE TAXPAYER PAY FOR THE GAMBLING DEBTS OF BANKS.
Fascist Commie lover.”
Hmmm . . . interesting response.
I guess when you can’t put forth a coherent argument the only thing left for you is to resort to attacks and name-calling. Anyone reading this can tell the argument’s got the best of you.
Maybe you are someone who doesn’t know how to responsibly use debt and got in debt up to his @ss and now wants to blame others, including banks.
Who knows which it is, or both.
Pretty sad either way. Best of luck.
Maybe you should become a Dave Ramsey reader. He’s helped others. . .
I guess when you can’t put forth a coherent argument the only thing left for you is to resort to attacks and name-calling. Anyone reading this can tell the argument’s got the best of you.
Maybe you are someone who makes money off of other peoples slavery and now wants to keep blaming borrowers so you can keep robbing, specially taxpayers. How much they paying you to shill? How’s it going, not enough suckers borrowing anymore, is there, eh?
How sad for you. Making a living off of making slaves of Americans.
how sad. :(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.