Fren Banklin

No one, and I mean NO ONE has EVER referred to owing more on a house than what it is worth as being "under water". Suddenly, almost as fast as we can transition from cheap gas to an economic emergency, suddenly the entire country is populated by people that are "under water" with regard to their house.

This is not accident; this is part of a well-orchestrated plan by socialists to effect change you wouldn't believe in, if you knew in advance exactly what that change would be.

Back in the olden days (as in, 2 weeks ago), people that owed more on their house than what it was worth were said to by "upside down". A universal phrase that conveyed exactly what the situation was. A ridiculous and untenable posture. Take something that functions normally ("right-side up") and turn it upside-down, so that what is considered to be normal is now quite wrong.

To be upside-down was a bad thing, and usually a direct result of poor financial decision-making. That was two weeks ago, before the Obamaniacs had control of your language.

Today, it's a Brave New World Order, and the phrase "upside down" has been replaced by the NewSpeak "under water". The reasons for this are obvious.

First, to be "upside down" is ridiculous, and a condition that the person so afflicted can be held directly responsible for. So it does not further the Obamanazi's agenda. A suitable replacement was required.

The NewSpeak "under water" was adopted because it conveys the idea of a FLOOD, and the poor victims of that flood are helpless, and need Herr Obama to save them. With your tax dollars, your work, your time on this planet, i.e your life. Your freedom even, should it come to that.

It also builds on the already-constructed mass-media paradigm of those poor victims of Hurricane <fill in the blank>.

People that overextended their credit buying more house than they could afford = Flood Victim

Personally, I don't care about flood victims. Build your house in a swamp, you can expect to get flooded. You can pay for the rebuilding out of your own pocket, or you can rent like other financially irresponsible people that cannot afford to own a home. And economic conservatives that advocate small government and deregulation should have had the sense to buy flood insurance. Too bad, so sad, I hear the homeless shelter has a couple of open beds. If you hurry, you might get one or two of them. And they're serving chicken soup today, always a favorite.

Nor do I care about the soon-to-be-foreclosed-upon, for much the same reason. That plush $250,000 4 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath ranch house on a hill, with the tile backsplash and the granite counter-tops shouldn't get paid for out of MY pocket. I don't even get to live there. In fact, I'm kinda GLAD you're getting foreclosed on.

Everyone is running around in the middle of this "housing crisis" with this very odd (and false) belief that this is a BAD THING.

It's a GOOD thing. A VERY good thing. It's a buyer's market. Lots of properties, low prices, and interest rates are low. Responsible people that save their money, invest wisely and do not over-extend their credit could do very well right now, if it weren't for Obama and his gang of culturally-correct socialists trying to reward the irresponsible with the economic opportunities that rightfully belong to someone else.

That's MY house now. So get out. You, the wife, the 3 kids, the dog and the cat can hit the road. Here's a cardboard sign. The nearest highway intersection is about 1/2 mile up the street. Get begging, and get off my property. I'm moving in tomorrow.

HumanoidComplex

J.P. Morgan:
"Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."

HumanoidComplex

O and umm, good post fren.

HumanoidComplex

if this isn't the end of the dollar, we'll recover sooner or later, and this will just happen in another 50 years. it's built into the system. fractional reserve banking is the biggest scam that ever stuck to civilization.

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 2nd richest man in England at the time:
Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.

simpswr

Being "UnderWater" is a common financial slang for holding an asset that is worth less than you invested or owed. I first heard it in the 70's in relation to stock options

k2skier

Like this is part of a conspiracy theory? You are a lunatic! This is actual proof right here folks that AM radio and Rush will rot your mind! For the love of common sense man get a grip.

kinbard

k2skier, respect the poster. Argue your posistion, don't insult the poster. I personally found it an interesting read.

k2skier

Interesting post yes, factual, no, completely absurd. If it had even a hint of truth I would honor Fren with an intelligent response. He sounds even more right than Rush, or his post was meant to be a joke.

kinbard

How can you call it absurd without posting a shred of proof countering it? That is absurd.
It makes no difference how far right or left anyone is, attack the post, not the poster. If you can not do that, do not post. S/he posted in the correct area. Gave his/her thoughts on a subject. What you did was uncalled for.

k2skier

It is impossible to have an intelligent debate with anyone who believes this statement;
This is not accident; this is part of a well-orchestrated plan by socialists to effect change you wouldn't believe in, if you knew in advance exactly what that change would be.

You must be a Neocon yourself then, and believe Fren, you are from Texas after all (sorry for the stereotype, I apologize if you're not a conservative). I have read a few of his posts and they have all bordered on illogical, but that one sentence goes way beyond common sense. Have a nice day.

kinbard

There are parts I agree with, parts I don't. I will not insult the poster. You feel it is illogical, lets hear your side of it. Take it apart, give us your opinion of it.

k2skier

Again, it's too illogical for a serious debate, G-Day.

kinbard

Your proof is lacking...

RedScott

On the contrary, too illogical is the easiest to disprove. Even easier to disprove is blatant nonsense such as this:

Well, NO ONE EVER seems to be nonsense cause here's an instance from 1994:

So when Fren says NO ONE EVER he prolly really means LOTS OF PEOPLE ALWAYS. Or maybe he meant to say "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT."

One of those.

kinbard

Thank you RedScott for actually bothering to provide a an alternate opinion without insulting (save the last part). That was one of the parts I disagreed with. I heard underwater used in financial crisis before. What I do agree with, some of these people bought homes they clearly should not have gotten. Should the tax payers pay for it? Is that even what is going to happen? Lets debate it, but not throw insults.

EnglishPaul

Banking under Sharia law would have avoided all these things. So perhaps the best defence against the bankers who seek to control us, is to convert to Islam.
But if America converts to Islam, then the 9/11 mission has succeeded.
After all, where did the planes fly into... was it a hospital? or a library? or insurance and banking?


I agree with Kinbard. Discuss the post, but not the poster. Either it is a good idea, or a bad idea; correct facts or rubbish; a popular opinion or a subversive contrast.

lolarobot

Yes, Sharia banking would be just fabulous... no interest on any loans? Hmmm, not sure how that works, but you can certainly get a loan in many banks in the US based on this system, but only if you are Muslim. So, maybe I can show up in a Burqa and try to be sneaky. On 2nd thought, no thanks.

How do their mortgages work if they do not pay interest? Do they really get away with not paying fees to borrow money? Calm down a bit for a second on this one. They pay fees... just the same as anyone who goes to a non-Sharia compliant banking institution. Here is how their "mortgage" works: 1) Borrower applies for a "mortgage" and the bank approves it and sends funds to seller, 2) The bank sets up a trust account which amortorizes when its value equals the original principal of the amount borrowed, 3) Borrower pays "rent" each month where a portion goes to the trust account. Essentially, they are buying the home in a lease-to-own contract and will pay the same amount as if they got a normal mortgage. So, what do we have? A moral sham. Instead of following their moral convictions, they are rationalizing some way of making themselves feel moral by doing the opposite of what they believe. I do not see anything wrong with interest... but I see something wrong with people who do not hold true to their own convictions. If your convictions restrict you from interest and you rationalize your way into paying interest under a different name... well, you figure it out.

http://finfree4all.blogspot.com/2006...-opens-in.html

EnglishPaul

Actually, I think that Sharia compliant banking is a bit more complex than that. I believe that they also have to weed out any component of stocks and share dealing that would be considered to be gambling. So a truly Sharia bank would be quite a low risk business.

So if you wanted to, you could argue that if America was a Muslim country run on Islamic values, then the world would not be in the financial mess that it is in right now.

lolarobot

English, I have studied Sharia law a bit and looked up Sharia banking and it is quite complicated as you said, but let's take a look at Iran or Iraq or any Middle Eastern country for example and compare their overall lives to those of Americans. I would far prefer to live in America. The Sharia law certainly does not favor freedom and is definitely not good for women. Sharia law in America would be disasterous, in my opinion. Sharia law is by the far the sickest system I have ever read in my life and would not be accepted with open arms in America. I will take some interest over a complete raping of my rights as a human being...give and take I suppose.

EnglishPaul

I said you could say that we wouldn't have the banking crisis.
I didn't say that you could say that you wouldn't have other crises.