Lawyers do pro bono. ERs treat the indigent. Why not banks?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:58 am

Don't they owe it to society, especially now that we saved their sorry asses? Without us they'd have no industry. So why do we let their greed continue unabated? I think it's time they actually give something back to the community.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:03 pm

no

lawyers are in the business of interpreting and bending the law to suit their needs

banks are in the business of making money and nothing else.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:05 pm

and you should read up first on some of the philanthropical things banks/bankers do for the community....post tax.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:19 pm

no

lawyers are in the business of interpreting and bending the law to suit their clients' needs

banks are in the business of making money and nothing else.

Fixed it for you. And shouldn't banks be in the business of making money for their clients?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:20 pm

and you should read up first on some of the philanthropical things banks/bankers do for the community....post tax.

I'm not talking about philanthropy. Lawyers and doctors do that too. I'm talking about free services for those who need it most.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:31 pm

People with no money don't need banking services.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:36 pm

people with no money are trying to preserve capital...not trying to capitalize.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:43 pm

People with no money don't need banking services.

Sure they do. How about the folks who are unemployed and the bank kicks them out of their house and doesn't even take title to the house? The bank does nothing with the asset except waste its value...and yet they need to kick people out of their home? Please.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:43 pm

people with no money are trying to preserve capital...not trying to capitalize.

Plenty of people are preserving capital because they're underwater on loans....loans owed to banks...hmm...seems pretty straightforward to me.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:44 pm

i don't get you wes...seriously.

so you're essentially saying that it's ok to enter into an agreement with a counterparty over the course of "X" amount of months and NOT fulfill your obligation?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:19 pm

No I'm saying that plenty of people expected to be able to fulfill their obligations and now they're fucked through no fault of their own...they could use some help...and the bank that holds their note is in the best position to help them...but the banks would rather fuck them further.

I'm not saying it's OK I'm not saying it's good that these people can't pay...I'm saying maybe the banks should find a way to give something back to society rather than sucking the life out at every turn. The banks had an obligation to underwrite the loans from the beginning and if people didn't have the ability to pay them back, then the bank is at fault as much as the people. But the bank holds the cards and they wring every penny possible out of their customer before moving on to someone else with more money to take.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:34 pm

I'm not saying the banks aren't at fault but where is the personal liability. A lot of people were suckered and uneducated enough to not to know they couldn't afford the house they had. Yes, there were shady lenders out there, but these individuals also have to take responsibility for being idiots.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:43 pm

Up until this point 100% of them are certainly taking responsibility for being idiots because there's no other way out. Too bad the banks never have to take responsibility. They just lie or hide stuff off their balance sheet.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:30 pm

bro

the banks offer you an opportunity to buy/use/enjoy things today that you can't pay for all in one shot...in return, you have to pay it back...you pay it back with an additional cost...that cost is the cost of loaning that money to someone else...a rate. if you enter into an agreement like that, you're hooked...that's it...i don't understand how to look at it any other way....the banks provide opportunities...through their programs, they provide people the opportunity to realize dreams...the dream makers...all YOU have to do is pay them back.

the alternative would be to go to a loan shark...going to them though will cost you more if you don't pay...forget about letting people slide.

but back to the banks...OF COURSE THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY...they're fronting you the money.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:37 pm

They generally don't take responsibility these days. They either hide the loss using fraudulent accounting or they run to the government for a bailout.

Back to the topic at hand: why do they need to have every customer on the hook? Why can't they serve the needs of those less fortunate? Why do they need to suck every last penny from someone who's in the process of losing their home, car, access to credit? You say there's no free lunch but other industries help people out who are in need...but you're saying the banks are just too greedy to do it? If so, that's fine...so long as we're all being honest here.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:47 pm

AA...did you see that video I sent you with Milton Friedman talking to Phil Donahue...you are talking about a charity, not a business. If a business is NOT making a profit, it goes OUT of business...it's as simple as that. Yes, the banks should have told these people they couldn't afford these loans, but unless the banks were holding guns to people's heads and forcing them to taking the loans, I don't see how they are more at fault than the people who got in over their heads...and this isn't even mentioning the moron house flippers who had no idea what they were doing.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:57 pm

I'm not saying it's all the banks' fault. I realize they're a business and they're out to make a profit. Law firms are businesses too and they wouldn't exist if they didn't make a profit. And yet just about all of them find a way to give away free services to some extent to those in need. They don't do it for all clients or even most clients--but they do it nonetheless.

I just don't see why banks couldn't do the same thing. I'm not saying they should let every borrower off the hook. I'm simply saying that they should have some equivalent. Don't get me wrong, most folks who get screwed up on their finances deserve it because of their own stupidity...but there are certainly people out there who are simply down on their luck and could use their bank looking out for them instead of looking to screw them over to make as much profit as possible before they're completely broke.

People always talk shit about lawyers being greedy self-serving bastards but they seem to have nothing on the banks.

I haven't watched the Friedman video yet but I will.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:23 pm

you assume every lawyer does pro bono.

I don't. Probably won't.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 pm

Seems to me that working for the state (aka the people) is close enough to count as pro bono for this convo. You're certainly giving up profit to serve society's best interests. Same principle.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:36 pm

look....banks give out toasters every time you open an account...FREE CHECKING...wtf?!

on a serious note - banks are doing what they can to help out...they're restructuring mortgages...they're modifying loans...they're willing to work it out so long as THE BORROWER comes to them for help...lots of times, the borrower doesn't seek out the bank to try and work things out...lots of times, the borrower just skips a payment here and there and doesn't give a fuck...file chapter 11 and start fresh with a new alias...and the banks are not being responsible? i don't know about that.

if your gripe is with the banks not treating each case on a situation by situation basis, i think you're mistaken...i know of people who were given leeway because a) they had no income due to layoff b) had a good track record of reliable payment c) sought out the bank for assistance when their loan was STILL current (didn't wait til it was past due in other words) d) were cooperative in providing information on debts/other obligations.

the banks are working for the individual...but they need help to help...they need to learn about the situation before it becomes delinquent...responsible people would inform their creditors before it becomes an issue.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:48 pm

I'm so confused now. Did you just not understand what I was getting at with this thread? Because at the start it sounded like you were saying that banks couldn't do pro bono work because their line of business doesn't work that way. Now you're saying they do it all the time.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:01 pm

well...no one's lending money for free...no one's letting anyone go scott free as you desire.

i'm just meeting you halfway and arguing that they are in their own way...

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:21 pm

Yeah, wes, you kind of changed that argument when you said that what I was doing was the equivalent of pro bono for this conversation. Thus, rad's examples there are equivalent to pro bono for this conversation.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:30 pm

well...no one's lending money for free...no one's letting anyone go scott free as you desire.

i'm just meeting you halfway and arguing that they are in their own way...

So you assumed I was being completely irrational from the beginning? I never said anything about them never making a profit. I never said anything about letting everyone off scott free. Lawyers don't do only pro bono. ERs charge people that can afford to pay.

It seems to me that you responded with your normal kneejerk reaction in defense of the status quo while assuming that I'm some sort of nutjob. Kinda shitty, but there's not much I can do to change it I guess.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:32 pm

Yeah, wes, you kind of changed that argument when you said that what I was doing was the equivalent of pro bono for this conversation. Thus, rad's examples there are equivalent to pro bono for this conversation.

I didn't change my argument. rad made a ridiculous assumption that I had to go back and correct because he assumed I'm a nutjob.