|
IMDB rating: 5.60 Plot: The four-inch-tall Clock family secretly share a house with the normal-sized Lender family, “borrowing” such items as thread, safety pins, batteries and scraps of food. However, their peaceful co-existence is disturbed when evil lawyer Ocious P. Potter steals the will granting title to the house, which he plans to demolish in order to build apartments. The Lenders are forced to move, and the Clocks face the risk of being exposed to the normal-sized world. |
Available versions:
DivX Version (Normal Quality), iPod/iPhone Version
Actors: Goodman John,Williams Mark,Broadbent Jim,Felton Tom,Pickard Raymond,Pierce Bradley,Gillett Aden,Laurie Hugh,Dunford Andrew,Goody Bob,Monckton Patrick,Ward Dick,Yiasoumi George,Winter Alex,Hewitt Michael,Comedy,Family,
Should the bank be responsible if the borrowers borrow beyond their means?
Thanks for the help!!
This is for school, and I need help showing that banks should NOT be responsible. However, if you have any ideas why they SHOULD, please say that too. Thanks!
No.
It’s an adults responsibility to know what is their means.
When you take out a loan….YOU go to the bank and ask them to give you money in exchange for an agreement to pay them back plus interest.
As such, its YOUR responsibility to know what is and is not your means.
It’s time that people stopped making excuses and started to accept responsibility for their own poor decisions.
If YOU borrow more than YOU can afford….it’s YOUR fault and YOU should be held responsible.
MSAD | Nov 11, 2009
In terms of reducing the balance or interest rate, no.
Common Sense | Nov 11, 2009
That’s the $64,000 question to the current mortgage crisis.
Should not borrowers share responsibility for taking a loan whose repayment schedule is beyond their means? Should not borrowers make sure they can afford the full rate of their mortgage after the teaser rate expires and they cannot refinance to a new loan?
Gaytheist Buddha | Nov 11, 2009
Yes.
What did they think would happen when they offered "no documentation" loans ?
Bankers are supposed to be very conservative with money and cautious with loans.
When they threw those axioms (truths) to the wind, they deserved everything that should have happened to them. Instead, they got "bailed out". 
Bruce | Nov 11, 2009
That is the same stupid thinking as a bar being responsible for drunks. No one forced people to have credit cards, and everybody wants to blame some one else for making really bad decisions. What part of live within your means is so difficult to understand, and do? GREED is the reason to over spend, greed has caused people to rack up many thousands in debt, and greed caused people to expect to get into TOO large of a mortgage. Don’t get me wrong, GREED was why banks, and loan officers paid on commission to force bad loans through the system as well.
In my opinion, drinkers not bar tenders are guilty of accidents they cause. Greedy people getting into loans they can’t pay and tried to hide the facts with no document loans are guilty of their own fraud, as well.
what | Nov 11, 2009
That’s the reason why the USA was the worse hit by the crisis and they are now working towards making them responsible for it. Changes are been called for how Futures are handled as well.
Watch out for the name "Berlusconi" associated with the changes.
Maccherone Pazzo | Nov 11, 2009
No, I’ve never borrowed as much as I qualified for. The only person who knows your your financial situation well enough to know what you can afford is yourself. To rely on a loan underwriter to make that determination is sheer stupidity. A lot of stupid people out there borrowed much more than they ever should have. It was their fault.
David M | Nov 11, 2009
People know how much they make and how much they can afford to pay on a loan. The bank didn’t force you to borrow the money, so no they should not be held responsible. On the other hand, maybe the banks should act responsibly and not even offer loans to people who can not afford to pay them back.
Shannon | Nov 12, 2009
Bank loans can be real confusing. When we went to get a loan for our house the bank had this calculation and told us we could afford a $1,500 monthly house payment. Luckily for us we knew this wasn’t true. We could afford that without car payments, utilities, food, or clothing. Hopefully the banks have rethought their calculations. We ended up with a house payment of just under $400.00 ( this was in the 70’s.) Buyer Beware! Unfortunately it is up to the consumer to pay the loan once it is approved. Why should the bank be responsible? The consumer shows the bank all their finances and credit report. The bank takes that information in good faith. Some car dealers now have a built in safety net for borrowers in that if they lose their jobs the car company will pay the car payment for up to so many months. Due to the economy home loans may offer some kind of insurance where the same happens so your home isn’t forclosed on. The borrower is responsible for all loans the only way out is bankruptcy. Good luck on your school project.
moochi | Nov 14, 2009
The borrowers can only borrow what a bank will lend. The bank should be responsible for its decisions just like everyone else. If a bank made a poor investment by lending to someone who cannot pay back the money, the bank should suffer the consequences of its poor investment. It would be good for you to mention in your homework that if the bank doesn’t suffer the consequences, then who does? It’s not as though no one loses wealth when a poor financial investment is made. If not the bank, then the government or the public are usually who loses. This means that we all lose (since the government devalues the dollar in an attempt to hide the lost wealth). So your question could be reasked: "Who should be responsible if a borrower borrows beyond their means from a bank: the borrower and the bank or everyone else?"
Rich | Nov 15, 2009
Tim Prince