D'uh

Post #333,061 by beepster 9/24/10 2:40:32 PM 9/24/10 2:52:48 PM Reply	D'uh what do you think I'm advocating here by instituting a check of the official record? At least one wouldn't have proceeded. And making it harder to file by the banks would also reduce the number..if its more costly, they'll be more likely to make alternatives available to homeowners, won't they...since its all about the benjamins. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Sept. 24, 2010, 02:52:48 PM EDT D'uh what do you think I'm advocating here by instituting a check of the official record? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Collapse All History
Post #333,064 by drook 9/24/10 3:27:44 PM Reply	BeeP, meet Beep ... maybe you guys should talk Post #36193 By beepster 9/24/10 2:09:19 PM Cost of these systems would actually be negative, given the efficiencies created. Post #36201 By beepster 9/24/10 2:52:48 PM And making it harder to file by the banks would also reduce the number..if its more costly, they'll be more likely to make alternatives available to homeowners, won't they...since its all about the benjamins. From earlier in that last comment: what do you think I'm advocating here by instituting a check of the official record? I really don't know. -- Drew
Post #333,067 by beepster 9/24/10 3:34:47 PM Reply	Cost to government /= process cost to bank just proves you aren't paying attention. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,095 by crazy 9/25/10 7:35:58 AM Reply	A unique viewpoint for you Because isn't the standard refrain is that government employees and project cost far more and are far less productive than when something is done via private business? But in this unique case (a pet project of yours is seems) it'll be different. If you really mean in this case it will be cheaper, really, because it'll be different, just you'll inflict more cost to the banks as a side effect. Well, then the standard response from you in that case it they will raise costs somewhere else to make up for it. Of course, in THIS case, it won't happen, or it is OK since it benefits everyone, in some untestable way. How convenient. How do you manage to hold these contradictory viewpoints simultaneously without them bleeding over each other? Oh, yeah, you get to choose which ones will "work". Magical thinking. The pony will be next.
Post #333,103 by beepster 9/25/10 10:56:39 AM Reply	Even it it costs 5x private it will save taxpayer money. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,106 by crazy 9/25/10 11:46:12 AM Reply	Remember that post I get to use it on any subject I want, for now on, since it is a valid viewpoint to you. Since it can't be proven, only postulated, anyone can use it, right? I think I'll use it in the next "health care reform" battle.
Post #333,109 by beepster 9/25/10 1:48:20 PM Reply	Whatever. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!