StrangeSox

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) But you should know what you can afford in a payment. Your credit score shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that the 100k car is out of your reach. The dealer is at fault. But how do you not know that the car payments require payment. Just easy math, take the amount of the loan and divide by the months in the term of the loan. Now thats without interest rate and all but you can get a baseline if it fits. With the plethora of payment calculators online, there's no reason not to know.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) But that isn't this situation. In this situation the buyer would not legally qualify for the purchase. Time to look for a less expensive car. But this sales rep realized she is stupid and an idiot and he can convince her to commit fraud so he can sell a more expensive car. Yep, seems to be the situation. How is it not her responsibility to take care of and manage her own financials again? If someone convinces me to hold up 7/11, am I not responsible for my own actions? Is this crime different because it was committed on paper?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:24 PM) This is a particularly tough case because the woman went along with the fraud to a degree. But there is a certain level of trust and good faith involved in these contracts, and one example of that is that one should assume that after the terms have been discussed and agreed to, one party won't alter those terms and ask the other party to sign the contract still unknowing of the changes. The salesman's clear intentions were to make a sale, but did not alert the customer to the change in terms that were necessary to make the sale a possibility. And while the courts will repeat that one should fully review all the terms of a contract they are signing, they're also fully cognizant of the fact that in the real world, we all don't have all the time in the world, we can't all hire lawyers to review every contract we sign, etc. There's a difference between a Best Buy CC application and a lease on a $100k car. If you're signing a lease like that, you better sit your ass down and read it through several times and make sure you completely understand it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) No it doesn't change that. But again, does that mean that there are no victims of fraud? We could sit back and say anyone who falls victim to a con man should have known better, so they are at fault? She couldn't afford it, and the lender would not have approved the application she signed. The lender approved the altered application. Does that count for anything? You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 12:30 PM) You are absolutely correct. But look at where that leads. If you go through that same thought process, then you would never be able to call anyone who falls for a con, fraud, or gets swindled a victim. Certainly it is possible to be a victim of a fraud, isn't it? And how would you react if later they changed the information? Remember her copy shows $6000 in income, their copy says $8,600. HOw would you protect yourself from that? That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 11:50 AM) The simple answer is...a lot of them served in various locations, i.e. Congress, during the Clinton years. Which means they all probably owe the Clintons a lot of favors. Or what? If Hillary loses the nomination, what power and sway do they have? They'll be pushed aside for the "new guard" brought in by younger, more energetic politicians like Obama and they know it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:41 AM) She was on temporary disability, which means she was recovering from something. Typically that would mean a major illness (cancer, heart attack, stroke) or accident (car accident, etc.). A very common side effect of a disability is depression. It sounds like she is getting back on her feet and close to working. Perhaps getting out of the house a little. Expecting to get her job back or similar. She wonders into a car dealership "looking". She thinks to herself, there is no harm in looking because she will not qualify for a loan. Certainly they will not let me out of here with one of these. Greedy because she was looking at the cars? Then everyone that has ever looked at something they can't afford is guilty of being greedy. Then the con begins, this was not a sale, the dealership obviously commits fraud in this transaction. The salesperson convinces her that all she has to do is state what she will be making, give him all her savings, and the car is hers. Later, the con man or stealership, inflates her income even farther. To believe that taking advantage of someone, even those dumb and stupid would make it open season on anyone who could be conned into buying something over their heads, or worthless. Hey I just sold that old lady furnace for $25,000 Woo Wooo! She has a tiny house, but I convinced here having one sized for a mansion would be better! She's stupid and an idiot!! Damn I screwed up, I should have added a $3,000 filter!! She's stupid and an idiot and deserves it. She was greedy and wanted the best furnace available. You all can think it's OK to screw someone out of their life savings as long as they are stupid and the item is expensive enough. Let's say she was stupid and an idiot. Based on this, it's her tough luck for being stupid and if anyone can take all your money, more power to them. Free season on the stupid. Nice f***ing morals America. Mourn the loss of rugged individualism? How about mourning the loss of common decency? The kind of common decency that stops a con man from taking the life savings from someone, simply because they can? Do you really want to have a society that everyone can screw anyone if they can? GMAFB. How many times do we have to say THE DEALERSHIP ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY, POSSIBLY CRIMINALLY, AND SHOULD ALSO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 08:19 AM) Its nice to see that adults going to a dealership have the same self control as my 3 year old when chocolate is put on the table. Did the salesperson jingle the keys so the lady would react like cat to the can opener. She bolts toward the car, looks ooooh its my favorite color RED. Can I have it. The dealership was wrong, the moron who bought the car was equally as wrong. I say that as I am about to get into my 1999 Honda Accord with 160k miles on it. Then again I realize that a car is transportation, and you dont get caught up in the moment. I could go and buy a Mercedes tomorrow, but then again I dont need a Mercedes and would rather take any discretionary income that I would use for a fancy new car and put it towards my house note so I can pay it off quicker. Hi my name is Kelly can I use your bathroom. "You dont need to use the bathrooom" Salesperson "I dont need to use the bathroom" Kelly "You want that 100k Red BMW" Salesperson "I want that 100k Red BMW" Kelly "Please sign here" Salesperson "I signed here" Kelly "Move along" Salesperson "Move along" Kelly "WTF Just happened. I am a victim. Damn Jedi" Kelly Ok, ok, if they really used Jedi mind tricks, I'm willing to give her a pass.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 11:05 PM) Well, not really. There is really not much anyone can do to prove Clemens took anything. You have to take his word or the word of McNamee, basically, and even if you believe McNamee, no one is going to put Clemens in jail based on that testimony. People have been convicted of much more serious crimes (drug trafficking, murder) based solely on witness testimony from questionable sources and circumstantial evidence.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 07:13 AM) She was on temporary disability, went into Autonation to look, got caught up in the excitement created by the salesperson. Agreed to use an income figure of $6000 which was her expected income after she was off disability, which the dealer later changed to $8,600 to get her the loan. She did manage to accumulate $30,000 in savings, but we don't know if that was from her job or some other means. Let's hear it for the salesperson! Found someone he could create excitement for and get the stupid idiot to take the car after cleaning out her life savings I'll bet they can't wait until the next stupid idiot walks through the door so they can pull the same stuff. Every car guy in America must have tipped a glass to that guy. How many times do we have to say that the dealership acted improperly too? That doesn't change the fact that she made a very dumb decision all on her own and agreed to lie about her current income (I don't think a bank cares about your 'expected' income) on the application. I liken her to those ripped off by Nigerian scammers -- yes, the scammers are wrong and should be locked away for a while, but if it wasn't for your own greed, you wouldn't be in this mess.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) So why does the dealer have no responsibility to make sure that the loans he's sending to the bank aren't pieces of garbage? I've sold stuff on credit before when I was selling vacuums, and I'll tell you up front that I always took efforts to try to qualify people before even writing up a contract. If a person was unemployed or had a recent bankruptcy, even if they wanted the thing, I didn't waste my time on it. For an even more expensive piece of equipment, like a BMW, the person actually dealing with the consumer should have some responsibility. At least I felt that way when I was selling those. Like I said, they're BOTH in the wrong, but the woman is not, in any way, shape or form, a victim.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) If a college student walked in to a BMW dealership, declared no provable income, and the dealer leased him a car anyway, who is responsible there? Why is there no responsibility on the lender to verify these things? Yes, she was clearly wrong. But If I walked in to a BMW dealership 8 years ago and tried to lease a car, I'd have been laughed out of the place. Why isn't it the job of someone above them to actually verify income levels before giving out a loan? This exact same thing was done all the time in the mortgage business, people would just ask a person for a number, and sometimes even suggest an income level in order to give them a loan. Should that be ok? No, it shouldn't be ok and isn't. But its still her fault that she's in this situation. She signed the terms of the loan knowing what the payments would be. This isn't even like an ARM where it adjusted and the people didn't realize how high their payments could jump or that their house could lose value. This was a straight "This car is this much, sign here."

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) My example is the furnance isn't broke, just needs a filter change and the contractor charges the victim $5,000. She should have known, she should have taken personal responsibility. that's not the same situation at all. The BMW dealership wasn't dishonest with the customer. They told her the payments. She CHOSE to buy a BMW. In your situation, the person didn't choose to have their furnace break and the contractor was dishonest with the homeowner. That's more akin to how the dealer was dishonest with the lender. edit:changed bank to dealer

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) She could not afford it and the dealer committeed fraud to get her the loan. If we learned she had an IQ of 75 or was 85 years old would your opinion change? No. The dealer didn't trick her or lie to her. She knew what the payment terms were when she signed the lease. The dealer lied to the bank, not her, to get her the lease.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) I didn't read the article that way. We don't know what she knew and when. I don't like the conclusion that someone is not responsible, but then I think of retirees being bilked out of their life savings and see some similarities to this. If we say, she's an idiot and should have known better, should we not also say that old person should have known her furnace would not fail three times in three weeks requiring $10,000 in repairs each time? IIRC banks and lenders have restrictions from making questionable loans, who is that designed to protect? Tex, you have to see the difference between your furnace breaking and someone on a small fixed income with little savings leasing a $100,000 ultra-luxury sports car. She wasn't bilked out of this. She went into the BMW dealership herself and decided to lease a car that costs more than three times her annual income.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Yeah that lady acted like a 13 year old fan. She seemed star struck. And if you compare Roger's body when he was with the Red Sox to what it is now, there is a difference. Anyone with vision greater than 20/400 can see that. And its irrelevant anyway, because you don't use steriods/ HGH only to get bigger.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Ultra-conspiracy theory: Isn't Clemens a Texan? Isn't our President a Texan? Isn't he also a Republican? Heck, didn't he even have ties to the Rangers at one point? He partially owned the Rangers.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) Ain't that something. Seems to me the biggest group of people in favor of this silliness are the politicians ( on both sides of the aisle ) who are falling all over themselves to see who can pander to the masses better than the other. Them and the knuckle-draggers out there who will use their check to put it down on a new ginormus 123451234 inch screen LCD TV that they have no business owning. I got it!!! The newest and greatest in financial products!!! The SUBPRIME big screen TV loan!!!! I'm such a genius. There's so many knuckle-dragging suckers out there that I could make a killing off this in no time. Rent-A-Center is two steps ahead of you.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) I was all about ethanol as an environmentally friendly method of fueling our vehicles. That is, until I read further into it and saw how it was sending food prices to Pluto and causing more environmental damage than it saved due to clearing lands for more corn and such. At least the farmers are getting a better price for the corn they have. Yep, using food sources as fuel crops (and really inefficient fuel crops at that) is a terrible, terrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the "answer" to the sustainable energy question is actually several different technologies spread out instead of one do-it-all. Solar at home, plug-in hybrids, ethanol hybrids, more biodiesel, etc. etc.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) ..................and use those dollars to fund alternative energy research. Preferably something that doesn't do more harm than good like ethanol either. Ethanol can be a good thing. Corn-based ethanol, not so much, but some of the switchgrass stuff is promising.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:36 PM) Iraq: Everybody and their brother, including most Democrats perceived Iraq as some form of "grave threat that needed to be dealt with". Bush does something about it and has been paying the price for it since. I will agree with you that it's time to start drawing down bigger numbers of troops than what is on the table from Bush. After being fed tons and tons of rheotoric along the lines of "you're either with us (Bush admin.) or against us." And a bunch of bad intel. Bush's desire to go to Iraq came first, not the other way around. It would be nice to cut out the billions in subsidies to them.

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) It's funny that Clemens was admonished for meeting with his nanny (the one who may have testified that he was at Canseco's party in 1998) a few days ago, but Clemens has been taking meetings with Representatives for the past few weeks leading up to the hearing. . He was admonished for flying her in and meeting with her before giving up her information to investigators.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) It's absolutely crazy how every Republican I have seen not only sides with Clemens, but lets him use up their time telling stories to make himself look good. I really don't understand how this ended up breaking down party lines.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) Based on everything presented thus far, how does this look for McNamee and Clemens? Who looks like the liar at this point? Everyone but Roger is backing up McNamee it seems.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:01 PM) I agree, she's a moron. But I imagine what the dealer did was criminal, or should be. Definitely should be, and I would imagine that it is. This ties back into the other thread about who's really responsible and should feel the pain from the subprime crisis. Little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.