And this in a Country that pretends to care about the Rights of the People.
How much longer until everyone is finger printed, tagged, and chipped.
I feel so much "safer" now.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Mortgage loan originators will have to be fingerprinted and sign up to a central registry to do business in future, according to final rules issued on Wednesday by the Federal Reserve and other regulators.
The rules are part of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, also called the S.A.F.E. Act.
Who is going to protect the American Citizen from the Federal Government?
LOL! You have the love the nam of this bill! the SAFE Act, who wouldn't be FOR being SAFE? This is how the government opperates, a master of illusion, watch your freedom disappear right before your eyes!
Mortgage loan originators? This the bank or the consumer?
If the bank, fine.
If the consumer, then it's a problem and the only suggestion would be to be completely ready to buy a house whenever a house is wanted or desire.
That means, do not use a loan. Pay cash for the house.
Ahahahha....treat them like the crooks that they are!!! GOOD.
People get fingerprinted and thrown in jail for much less than stealing...
It's about time we recognize them for who they are...crooks who need to be monitored until they can be trusted.
you do understand that if this stuff is implemented, then no one will want to perform that job. Their service will be wiped from the US, and the entire country will be much much poorer because of this idiotic bill, right?
Also, the entire housing bubble was caused by credit expansion via the Federal reserve! So... had nothing to do a bunch of loan makers.
Sounds like the government is protecting citizens from crooks.
You appear to be supporting the right of lenders to sell bad morgages to people and then remain anonymous. They have proven themselves to be crooks of the first order already, and it is normal to fingerprint criminals.
Or are you saying that you want the right to be ripped off?
This looks like government protecting the people from the banking system - and more power to them for taking on the 'robber barons' of modern America.
so you agree - every loan lender IS guilty, unless they prove themselves innocent!
Where did I say every loan lender ? It is not necessary to put words in my post if you have an intelligent response to hand, but you don't I think. Bad mortgages have aused untold misery, lending to people who could never afford the payments artificially increases house sales and prices, then when the prices crash the loans that people could afford to repay became too much even for them.
This in turn has contributed to the instabnility of the economy and the same bankers, who give other less easily seen bad loans, rip you off even more - but you just lay back there and take it I guess ?
The post you replied to said that. Did you read it before replying, or you were just so eager to mock Mike you proceeded without reading?
Either way, your reply did not come across as one of your best
Are Mike And Evan the same person, or were you so eager to pounce on AP that you confused the two?
Sorry for the pounce, it may seem unfair...
Life is not always fair.
Ron, you seem to have difficulties following a conversation with more than two persons involved. Try muffins instead Or just scroll all the way up to the top of this page
Did it. AP's response was to Evan, not Mike.
Stick to borscht and Ayn Rand
Have a cupcake
Thanks for the cake Ron, and looks like your case is easier than I thought - you just need a new pair of glasses
I replied to the OP - who said mortgage lenders would be required to . .
I said that he was supporting the rights of BAD LENDERS to . . . rip us off.
I don't think that pointing out the obvious nonsense of objecting to the regulation of lenders who have caused untold misery in the past is mockery - it is simply stating the obvious.
And I still did not say 'every loan lender', the glasses and the muffin stumps are in the post
So I was wrong in pouncing on Misha?
... Switching to decaf now.
Now I am terminally confused - Misha pounced on me then you pounced on Misha and then . . . And I still don't know why he got upset about my post in the first place
And those muffin stumps - if they are stale now then I would sugges the only last resort is to make a strong hot chocolate with a large dose of brandy in it and dunk 'em.
I argued that you were replying to Evan rather than Mike because you quoted Evan in your response.
Thanks a lot for setting me up.
I was not setting you up - I always appreciate your defending me and try to return the favour (although you seem not to need much defending normally) I really still can't work out what it was all about TBH except Misha either read more into my post than was there or was trying to defend Mike by any means - but then it was Evan who put words in my 'mouth' that I reacted to - either way, to make my position clear - I SUPPORT the idea that anyone who has shown themselves to be untrustworthy AND coninuing in that business should be controlled.
They're not going to stop unless forced to. Usually this means revolution, but we may be among those who avoid that, like most of Eastern Europe during the fall of Communism.
In USA, it is "Guilty until proven innocent".
In India, it is "Innocent until proven guilty".
Even in the case of "honor killings"? Is the bride given a chance to defend herself, or do they just execute her on the presumption of guilt?
Honour killings are done only by the parents or inlaws... They need not presume that the bride is guilty. Every movements of girl children in India are under scanner of someone else. Only if the "other people around" assist the girl, she cant do a crime.
Eventhough some people are against these "honour killings" in India, it is that discipling which makes Indian culture rich. Instead of killings, the girl can be sent to serve the temples in her locality or sent to "Homes for women".
"Innocent until proven guilty" is just something that looks good on paper, along with a lot of nice ideas. It's not how things really are anyway, so why pretend otherwise..
Oh boy! I feel so much safer now. A centralized registry and fingerprinted. Works for sex offenders. Why not mortgage lenders (restraining myself from crude reference to ...up the butt)...
Yeah, I just had that done.
When i was getting it done, I joked that "aw, man, now I can't commit any crimes"...
and then the guy who was doing the fingerprinting was like " you can, just wear gloves"
... it was brilliant.
I also had to be fingerprinted to re-enter Japan. And, now, to use air-travel in the US you have to be "whole body printed" via a porno-scanner.
ain't life grand!
Indeed, teachers get fingerprinted before they're even accused, much less proven guilty, of any crime. You want to teach, you get fingerprinted first.
Fair? Not really. Just? Not really.
Should a mortgage lender get to remain anonymous? No, heck no! But do we really need to fingerprint them? I don't think so. We should be able to track which loan guy wrote which loan without the fingerprinting, and we should absolutely be able to trace which loan guy wrote which loan. I reckon loan people ought to get paid not by how many loans they write (which was the case during the real estate boom) but rather how many performing loans they write.
i can tell that you realize there's something wrong with this picture --- use the force, Jeff, realize that this government intervention will make the world worse off!!!
Oh, I do. Fingerprinting people before they've done wrong (on the supposition that they might do wrong, I guess) is bad, no question, no matter who is being fingerprinted.
I would imagine that any bank that wants to stay in business would keep track of which employee wrote which loan, and will be able to pick out the guys who write bad loans and either sack them or mentor them so they won't do that anymore.
I guess this is the issue - the banks appeared not to - how many bankers did we here getting taken to court - or even being made accountable ??
As to the issue of fingerprinting before someone has doen wrong, collectively how much more wrong can they do before we pin them down ?
The same crowd in fervent defense of the rights of bankers not to have their privacy infinged upon - this same crowd was in full-throated defense of wireless wiretapping. Remember 'If you aren't doing anything wrong, then the government wiretap shouldn't bother you.' You have to wonder if there's a screw loose somewhere.
My mother got fingerprinted - this was almost 50 years ago - when my folks opened up a billiard center - and it was the law. People who run pawn shops and as Rose pointed out - teachers submit to fingerprinting. What's the big deal?
I think that the same people who launched us into the war in Iraq should be allowed to listen to and record my phone calls and then they should be allowed to have my fingerprints!!
...that doesn't sound like a recipe for a disaster, does it?
Remember those antiquated notions of the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments!? Well I sure as heck don't! I demand that we spit on the rotting heroes who freed us from British tyranny!
This forum has made me bonkers.
So let me get this straight....
Some guy in the shadows with a hat on offers you some Bread in a dark dank alleyway. you ask what his name is, and he replies "I ain't gonna tell you! Now, do you want the 5 cent bread, or not?". Then you ACTUALLY BUY THE BREAD FROM HIM...
... and now we want to throw HIM in jail?!
This is nonsense!! EVERYONE on this forum is yelling "THOSE GUYS ARE CROOKS!!! EVEN THOSE WHO AREN'T!!! FINGERPRINT EM!! THE GOVERNMENT'S PROTECTING US FROM CRIMINALS!!!"
what about the idiots who ACTUALLY TOOK A LOAN FROM AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE!!!!???? why aren't we all calling for their heads?!
I demand that we fingerprint anyone who wants to accept a loan - because the government needs to protect us from ourselves!! Sure, our elected officials are just random everyday folk, just like us... but for some reason, when we elect them, they become super heroes who know how to solve all our problems!!
I demand we fingerprint everyone, cuz I just can't trust myself. I would also like to request that the federal government approve every single transaction I make in my life because... what if I'm buying the wrong toothpaste?
why the hub-bub? Notaries have to be fingerprinted in some states for doing a $10 transaction with legal implications?
why not someone who is doing $100k or more transaction with legal implications?
by SunShineSnow8 years ago
What do you believe to be true, innocent until proven guilty or the opposite?Do you have to prove yourself innocent or do they have to prove you guilty? The law says innocent until proven guilty.
by Mike Russo20 months ago
In a criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence prevails until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court of law, the defendant is innocent until the...
by SpanStar5 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the...
by Peeples2 years ago
Why is it so difficult to get disability in this country? (USA)Even if your doctors say you are disabled the disability board brings in their own doctors who see you once and claim you are great. Why should someone have...
by karl4 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … trial.htmlSurely if she knows she is innocent the she should go back and prove it?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.