42 posts
Disclaimer: This is one of those nice chain e-mails you get on a regular basis. However, I'm not putting this up to start crap. Instead, what I'd really like, is for the educated Lib population here, to go through this and tell me where all it is incorrect or wrong. I have course, have no (stated) opinion on the validity of any of it Just interested in the response it would get from a highly respected, well educated Lib population, such as we have here.
Here it is...
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American home s are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~11,300--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS,
BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YEP , IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!...
Maybe ask the person who sent it to you to explain it to you. I think you're right, the details don't seem to be present and they should back up what they're talking about. I can see where spam mail can be confusing, they usually just makes claims with nothing behind them much like this one I got recently:
Beloved One!
I am Mrs.Rose Ibrahim, the wife of Mr.El Ibrahim both citizens of the
Tunisian . My husband worked with the Chevron in Russia for twenty
years before he died in the year 2003 When my late husband was alive,
he deposited the sum of 7.5 Million POUNDS in a Bank in Europe.
The management just wrote me that the account is DORMANT, and if I, the
beneficiary of the funds, do not re-activate the account the funds will
be CONFISCATED. (Note that you need to activate this account)
Presently,I'm in a hospital in Russia where I have been undergoing
Treatment for esophageal cancer.I want someone, who is God-fearing to
use this money to fund churches, Mosque, orphanages and widows.
Please Contact me on my private email: roseib_2yahoo.com.hk
Remain Blessed
Your Beloved Sister .
Mrs. Rose Ibrahim
I suggest a spam filter to avoid this confusion in the future.
My take on this is someone is trying to blame an awful lot on dems\libs by blaming Congress, I mean even more blame than Fox news is willing to heap on. They usually call them the "do nothing" Congress not the "amazingly quick destructive" Congress. I'd say you can place blame on "Warshington", Wall Street, Big Business, and the American people themselves.
actually, I viewed as a common approach to take blame off of Bush. He gets accused of everything that's wrong. I think that if I had too much salt on my fries at McDonalds, someone in this forum would say it was his fault. :D :D
Well, the biggest point to make is that the Dem congress hasn't been able to do anything because they don't have a large enough majority in the Senate...so blaming them is pretty stupid.
But since you want the facts...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp
FALSE.
Tripper
it's interesting. I see this as more of a "stop blaming Bush for everything" letter, than a "blame everything on the libs" one.
Here's another question for you. I've seen (more than once in these pages) Bush blamed for the mortgage crisis. Several times specifically mentioned the deregulation of the mortgage industry under Bush as the reason for the problem. I searched twice and both times found that deregulation of the mortgage industry happened under Clinton. I haven't looked more since, for more info... But was there more of this under Bush?
This thread is Bush's fault. :D
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 22, 2008actually, I viewed as a common approach to take blame off of Bush. He gets accused of everything that's wrong. I think that if I had too much salt on my fries at McDonalds, someone in this forum would say it was his fault. :D :D
He doesn't deserve credit for everything that's wrong, that's for certain...Moneyed interests in Congress and weak-willed representatives are the source of MANY of our problems as well on both sides of the aisle.
But Bush hasn't done anything that fixes anything, either...and the people who surround him (especially Dick Cheney) are definitely worthy of at least as much blame for his boobery.
His inaction is as much to blame as his action. Look at 9/11 - if he and Condi Rice had acted upon the August 6th PDB that was TITLED "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", maybe it wouldn't have happened, you know? It's possible.
Instead, it did happen, and a few years later, "she who was in charge of national security when 9/11 happened" got promoted to Secretary Of State. Because she was LOYAL to Bush, not because she was competent.
This sort of behavior is rampant in all parts of the government that rely on workers in Bush-appointed goverment positions, so it's pretty clear that there is good reason to steer the blame back to its source - the clusterfuck that is the Bush administration.
And all the Republicans invented theories on how 9/11 was all Clinton's fault...which, as we found out later from multiple sources, was a total crock of crap. Monday-morning quarterbacking at its worst...
That to me is why the conspiracy whackos who claim 9/11 was an inside job are fucking crazy, because the reality is that the Bushies aren't nearly good enough to pull anything of that scope off and not fail miserably.
But it's definitely Ronald's fault if your fries have too much salt...or Ashley's...or Jose's...or Sheniqua's...or Jethro's... (just depends what the poor and/or teenagers tend to look like in your part of the country)
Tripper
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 22, 2008it's interesting. I see this as more of a "stop blaming Bush for everything" letter, than a "blame everything on the libs" one.
Here's another question for you. I've seen (more than once in these pages) Bush blamed for the mortgage crisis. Several times specifically mentioned the deregulation of the mortgage industry under Bush as the reason for the problem. I searched twice and both times found that deregulation of the mortgage industry happened under Clinton. I haven't looked more since, for more info... But was there more of this under Bush?
Yeah, it was a trio of Republicans, including McCain Campaign co-chair Phil Gramm who co-wrote the bill that made the deregulation, and Clinton signed it into law (mainly because it was veto-proof). But the argument can easily be made that the breakdown in oversight by the Republican congress and the overall ineptness of Bush administration definitely helped all of this happen.
This is a BIG mess that's been a long time coming...blaming Bush for it is silly, but blaming those who are big fans of deregulation and acted to make sure it happened (without really working out the consequences of it) is appropriate. McCain falls into that camp.
Tripper
since this is my thread, I can hijack it, so, how much of our problems do you thing relate to...
1) the constant "party line" voting and the two parties seemingly working against each other, rather than FOR the people.
2) The big money lobbyists and their influence on policy/voting being more important/influential in the voting than the actual good of the country.
I kind of follow both of those beliefs basically, and have friendship/acquaintance with several people in government who have told me many things about how this stuff works and it seemed to support both of those beliefs.
I guess the point being, as long as our system is the way it is, it really is hard to pick who is best because neither one can accomplish their potential due to the other party, influence of big money, etc.
2002
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bush.minority.homes/index.html
Under one of the initiatives launched by Freddie Mac, consumers with poor credit will be able to obtain mortgages with interest rates that automatically decline after a period of consistent payments, he added.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061902a.htm
2004 - hail the official advent of the liar and the NINJNA loan policy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568925/
One of the approaches, the American Dream Down Payment Act, will help low-income Americans afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. Bush is asking Congress to provide $200 million a year for the program. He also proposes to make zero down-payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.
In addition, Bush is proposing a tax credit to encourage builders to provide 200,000 affordable homes over five years for low-income families.
These and other steps, he said, will push the nation toward his goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade.
Not that his his aspiration is wrong in principle , as usual he couldn't manage it or make it work and created the huge fuck up executed by Wall Street.
Bush, in contrast, sees private sector solutions, saying he has encouraged the real estate and mortgage finance industry to join our efforts in closing the home ownership gap.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks -- the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages -- will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said.
Hmm... yes encourage them.
And meanwhile this lot is going on he goes on a huge government borrowing spree himself to fund tax cuts and Iraq.
One other point - about this rescue 700 billion dollars, maybe trillions - who knows, this is not your money it is foreign money on loan backed by the tax payer.
It is no more the tax payers money than mortgage loan money belongs to a Sub Prime borrower.
This bail out is absolutely essential or things are completely fucked. I give Bush credit for acting.
People in the US and West generally need to be grateful that they can still get people to lend money to them to shore things up and bide them over.
The shit will really hit the fan if that flow of funds dries up - a complete and abject economic crash.
Definitely punish all those responsible in the coming years and there is plenty of blame to go around.
Bush is not solely to blame.
BUT the more immediate issue is that the "victim" is currently stable but still in intensive care and that is the priority.
Noel, this is to address your "Freddie initiative" quote above... most people would never really understand this without all the facts...
This initiative was created to STOP or at least CURB predatory lending. In the real world, here's what it did. You have a borrower who wants to buy a house. They have less than perfect credit and do not qualify for a standard Fannie or Freddie loan. Pre-initiative, they would go to a "sub-prime" lender, who would place them on a 2 year fixed rate mortgage that would begin adjusting every 6 months after the initial 2 years. Without getting into a detail explanation of ARMs, these arms were "indexed and margined" to where they were automatically going to go up after 2 years NO MATTER WHAT the markets did. The lender would sell it as a "band aid" loan. "This gives you two years to fix your credit and then we'll refi you to a Fannie loan" was the thing the borrower would always be told. In fact, a large percentage of them would not rebuild their credit and would then be stuck on a high rate loan. For reference, a very common loan term might be 8.0% for the first two years, but then it would go up to 10% or 11% after two years. Now, you have people who are struggling anyway, and their mortgage payment just went up $200 per month. In addition, this loan would have a pre-payment penalty that (depending on what state it was in) could be as much as 6 months interest, and was at least 1-2%.
Or, under the initiative, Fannie and Freddie would offer them a Fannie or Freddie type loan... A fixed rate loan with mortgage insurance to insure the lender against default. This rate would be credit graded and would be higher than you or I would get, but still not as high as the sub-prime. Typical Grade Level II loan might get 7.5% for example. In addition this loan would have a feature that would lower the borrowers rate automatically IF the borrower continued to make their payments on time. So now, the incentive is to pay on time and then your payment would actually go down. After a few years, you could be close to the same rate you or I would get, but in NO case would it go up from the initial 7.5%.
This program was well thought out. It gave the borrowers a chance, incentive to pay on time, the security of a fixed rate loan, no pre-payment penalty, and had mortgage insurance to protect the lender.
It should be clear, that this was a great idea, was well thought out and implemented, and was put in place to help the consumer, offer them an alternative to the Sub Prime lenders, and offer them the security of no rising payments. It really did give the borrower a better change to perform.
Did some borrowers get homes that didn't deserve the loans? Yes. No offense, but when you target a group of people for money, a certain percentage of those are in the situation to need that money for a reason, and just giving them money will not suddenly make them a better credit risk. But those same people would have just as easily gotten them in the sub prime market and had far less chance of the loan performing.
In a market as it existed at the time (and had been for years) of constant appreciation and increasing sales, this program made complete sense AND helped the consumer.
The fact is, our society is to "buy now/pay later" driven. In my parents day, you saved for big ticket items, and used credit cards for emergencies. Now, every ad on TV is "buy this big screen and make no payments for 12 months" or "buy new carpet now and no payments til 2010!" Our whole society is becoming a "buy whatever you want and worry about paying for it later" society.
BTW - the Dems potential mistake now will be to play partisan politics now with the rescue.
It might play well be politically easy, playing on the economic and financial ignorance electorate to buy votes now.
But arguing about the size of the "pot" of money (i.e. foreign loans) might play well now - but not when the electorate find they aren't left with a pot to piss in if the rescue fails.
The Dems could well pull political defeat from the jaws of victory and get the blame for a final and most punishing act in this fiasco.
This is one of those few genuinely non partisan issues that crop up in a generation.
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 22, 2008
This program was well thought out. It gave the borrowers a chance, incentive to pay on time, the security of a fixed rate loan, no pre-payment penalty, and had mortgage insurance to protect the lender.
It should be clear, that this was a great idea, was well thought out and implemented, and was put in place to help the consumer, offer them an alternative to the Sub Prime lenders, and offer them the security of no rising payments. It really did give the borrower a better change to perform.
It might have been well intentioned and I am sure the consumer was happy for the short time they owned their homes.
But it didn't work - scrutiny of credit risk is the basis of the financial system.
Bush committed to an implicit state guarantee to artificially raise the credit status of sub prime loans by undermining the credit ratings system for the mortgage backed securities that fund them.
The banks are at fault for playing along with the policy, but they did not originate it, if they did they would be in jail.
It has turned into a rerun of the Michael Milken junk bond scandal but on a huge scale.
It was an exercise in economic fantasy
Well, I agree with most of your post, Fingers and Tripper...but I give credit where credit is due....and that Bush and congress.
I've defended Bush on some things but he is the man, not Clinton or anyone else. If Clinton passed and signed deregulation into law, it was Bush's responsibility to act to stop the crash it is now causing. Not that he is some kind of future predictor or something, but the writing was on the wall for a few years if not more. The bad lending practices should have been caught and stopped. Someone wasn't watching what was happening in our back yard. Maybe they were to busy sticking there nose up people's asses they had no business in, like Iraq.
I think, and give full credit, to Bush and company, especially Bush.
Our government needs to focus on America. Fuck everyone else, at least for a few years. We have no money to give Isreal or anyone else right now and it needs to stop. It's time to fix our own major problems for a while. We can't help anyone with a fucked up economy and broke as hell.
And may I add that one of the stupid motherfuckers we are fixing to elect will make it worse. And that is pitiful. We can't fix our problems by adding to them.
DTR, do you not remember me saying "wait until all these people in 3-5 year ARMs start adjusting" when we were back at the WH? Dems getting the House in 2007 had nothing at all to do with the poor choices people made 3 or 5 years ago.
If there was one failing of government, it was not regulating the industry. People who could not afford homes simply should not have been allowed to buy them. The argument that "it's not fair" for someone who makes very little money to not be able to buy a home is the worst argument ever made. What's better? That someone poor now has their credit ruined by a foreclosure, AND they've lost many months of payments into a house they no longer own, AND they've lost whatever down payment they were able to scrape together? Or that they never bought the house in the first place?
A high-risk, sub-prime loan should simply not even be available. Hell, I almost took one out, because I was one of those stupid people who thought it would be better to have a couple hundred bucks extra in my pocket each month, rather than stretch a little.
Who was it who talked me out of the interest-only, negative-am loan? DTR. For which, you have my gratitude. That would have fucked my shit all up. Instead, I got a home equity line of credit, and then, for our new house, we got another 30-year fixed mortgage. But the best thing we did, by far, was to buy somewhere where we knew the value wasn't overinflated. Get within ten miles of the coast, in an area that doesn't have hurricanes. Bottom line.
As for who is responsible for the crisis, it's people. People who are fucking greedy shitty bastards. The one thing I think the government should hold the blame for is not regulating the industry enough. There's no way someone should be able to get a loan that, in two years, is going to cost them 150% of their income. No fucking way.
DTR, who is the party of deregulation? This is a rhetorical question, BTW... you'll vote for your party of choice regardless. As will most everybody else.
Unfortunately, all of those people who shouldn't have gotten those loans are what has screwed things for people in my position... Those with lots of equity that we can't get to without selling for a huge loss. :(
Reagan?
".....in the year 1980. Banking has been deregulated and what we now call subprime loans are completely legal. The ARM (adjustable rate mortgage), balloon (large payment at the end of a loan) , and other non-traditional mortgages are actually "bridge loans" from days gone by. These loans were used by well qualified buyers to cover a real estate or other purchase while a major asset was being sold.
Mostly they were used for real estate as a borrower would buy a home prior to selling the old house. Once banking became deregulated, a number of lenders saw the profit potential of these loans if they offered them to borrowers with questionable ability to pay. As the real estate market boomed in many areas, these loan became more popular with borrowers who wanted to build wealth. Then as now, it backfired on many. Here we are in the year 2008 and history is repeating itself all over again. "
Don't ya just love it Strat? ;D
pickmaster60 — Sep 23, 2008Reagan?
".....in the year 1980. Banking has been deregulated and what we now call subprime loans are completely legal. The ARM (adjustable rate mortgage), balloon (large payment at the end of a loan) , and other non-traditional mortgages are actually "bridge loans" from days gone by. These loans were used by well qualified buyers to cover a real estate or other purchase while a major asset was being sold.
Mostly they were used for real estate as a borrower would buy a home prior to selling the old house. Once banking became deregulated, a number of lenders saw the profit potential of these loans if they offered them to borrowers with questionable ability to pay. As the real estate market boomed in many areas, these loan became more popular with borrowers who wanted to build wealth. Then as now, it backfired on many. Here we are in the year 2008 and history is repeating itself all over again. "
Don't ya just love it Strat? ;D
And who gets these loans?
"Recent studies have shown that subprime lending is most prevalent in neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities or weaker economic conditions (Chomsisengphet and Pennington-Cross, 2006). According to the Federal Reserve, of the loans taken out by African-Americans in 2006, 55% were subprime loans. For Hispanics, the rate was 46%, while for Caucasians and Asians the rate was 17%."
So are subprime loans giving minorities a chance or just hurting them in the long run?
Pretty simple answer to that Pick.
It would have helped people get homes that would usually not be able to afford them. The problem is, these people were buying homes they couldn't afford, even with low interest rates. They were buying, able to buy, to much home for their income.
With rules in place, they still could have taken advantage of low interest rates, but bought homes they could afford with fixed loans instead of arms and shit like that.
Arms are not for people who intend on staying in their home.
They are also better to get when the situation is completely opposite of what it was when these people got loans. Meaning....when the interest rates are HIGH and you hope they will come down, rather than when they are low, with not much chance of getting lower.So if the rates are 8%, an arm wouldn't be bad, like a 7/1 arm, where you would have 7 years to watch the rates and see if they come down. Still a gamble, but the odds would be in your favor, as opposed to the other situation that has put us in the shape we're in today.
The fact is, done correctly, you could have purchased a home for less than it cost for a nice apartment with interest as low as it was. That's pretty damn good and people should have taken this opportunity to improve their financial situation. But, the people got fucked because of basically...no supervision of the lending industry. The government shit on us all it seems.
So...your saying we need to supervise blacks?
Is this a plot from the Repubs to ruin them?
pickmaster60 — Sep 23, 2008So...your saying we need to supervise blacks?
Is this a plot from the Repubs to ruin them?
No, Hooky just doesn't want them in his neighborhood! Brings the trailer values down you know. ;) :D ;D
pickmaster60 — Sep 23, 2008So...your saying we need to supervise blacks?
Is this a plot from the Repubs to ruin them?
Yes, to both???
Supervise the lending industry you fucking idiot.
First response to one of your post and already you can't comprehend what you read. Damn.
Before shit gets started again...I'm not responding to any of your post in the future. :o
Now try it....maybe you can understand it better, ya retard.
Oh!
Who did the unsupervising(deregulation)?
Who gets the majority of these loans?
Furthermore.....You said these people bought too large of homes when they couldn't afford them and in an incorrect way. I guess they do need supervising!
Perhaps the Repubs need supervising!
Are you voting Repub?.....Perhaps you need supervising. ;D
Tripper:
"it was a trio of Republicans, including McCain Campaign co-chair Phil Gramm who co-wrote the bill that made the deregulation"
So.....what Hook? Your on McCain's side?
The people who "fucked the people" through deregulation(non supervision) and allowed blacks and other minorities to buy "too large of homes" with not so good payback potential and loans that were not for people that intended to keep their homes?
"Pretty simple answer to that Pick."
To the simpleton things are so simple ... black and white.
Apparantly they also enjoy foul language.
Like I said before, is it better for these poor people to buy houses they can not afford, and then later get their credit ruined, and lose all the payments they made to the house, plus whatever down payment they put down? Or is it better that they could never buy the place in the first place? Hook, you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing to get houses into the hands of the poor. I do not believe it is good at all. I think it is a false sense of "prosperity"... which is no better than no prosperity at all, in my book.
But to make it fair, Obama's advisers, or at least some o them supported deregulation.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/republican-national-committee-questionable-advice/story.aspx?guid=%7BA78D1EEA-C77C-4E2F-BE25-82DBB02D4B25%7D&dist=hppr
Charger,
there is a blending if issues in some of your comments above. Part of the initiative was to help borrowers who may be well qualified, but just don't have high scores, and/or borrowers who had a blip on their credit that they are past and now a good risk, and to help them get a Fannie/Freddie type loan rather than sub-prime. The second issue was the one of making it easier for minorities. I will not address the second issue. ;)
I'm totally with you on underqualified borrowers not getting a home they can't afford. If someone can afford $750 a month in rent, and that's ALL they can afford, they can not afford a house with a $750 payment. As we who are homeowners know, the expense of maintenance and upkeep on a home can be way more than someone who's "barely making ends meet" can deal with. You are correct in that a large part of the problem lies with this sector. They can afford the house just fine... until the transmission goes on their car, or the furnace goes out. Then they are screwed. Seen it happen MANY times.
Also, I advised you against they type of ARM you were looking at, based on YOUR objectives, and we both agreed it was not right for you. However,we can dismiss out of hand all people who took 3 or 5 year ARMS. I can tell you that every 3/1 or 5/1 ARM I originated has performed. Because, I took the time to ask the questions that determine whether it's really best for a borrower. Example, I did a 5/1 for two medical interns making 35K per, and with 120K plus PER in student loans. They took a 5/1 interest only ARM because they new in 3 years they'd both be making close to 200K and selling this house. Last winter, they came to me, student loans paid off, house sold, looking to buy a 500K home. But, as you indicate, the people who took those loans "just to afford more house" were and are asking for problems UNLESS there are circumstances such as I mentioned. I did a 3/1 for a guy who knew his house would be for sale in two years when he finished grad school and got married... worked as planned.
From the inside, (and not by me personally or our company) I can tell you there were THOUSANDS of loans made that never should have been made. There are unscrupulous lenders, falsely stating incomes to get borrowers into houses they can't afford, etc. We knew this would come to trouble. But even we didn't see it happening on this scale. Mainly because appreciation has been so steady that in most cases it would solve much of the problem. But boy, you have a bad market and some reduction in property values, and HOLY CRAP did it hit the fan.
charger — Sep 23, 2008Like I said before, is it better for these poor people to buy houses they can not afford, and then later get their credit ruined, and lose all the payments they made to the house, plus whatever down payment they put down? Or is it better that they could never buy the place in the first place? Hook, you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing to get houses into the hands of the poor. I do not believe it is good at all. I think it is a false sense of "prosperity"... which is no better than no prosperity at all, in my book.
I agree.
But you better watch out charger.
If you ask the wrong question or say something he doesn't like,he'll curse you , stamper off and threaten to never respond to you again! ;D
I thought you guys had helped him to be more rational.
I know! I could issue him an subprime rational thought loan. ;D
But he needs to be supervised.
You seem to be right on the money DTR.
I know a young couple right now that took an ARM loan. They could barely afford the house they bought no matter what the rate. Then they bought two new cars which are now falling apart.
They are having a terrible time. They can't sell the house because it's worth a lot less now and in my opinion...not worth the price then.
They have destroyed their credit. They will probably loose it all.
pickmaster60 — Sep 23, 2008But to make it fair, Obama's advisers, or at least some o them supported deregulation.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/republican-national-committee-questionable-advice/story.aspx?guid=%7BA78D1EEA-C77C-4E2F-BE25-82DBB02D4B25%7D&dist=hppr
That's a press release from the Republican National Convention... it's not a legit piece of reporting. Oh, and look who's at the head of McCain's transition team:
At the McCain campaign, Republicans said, transition work is being coordinated by William E. Timmons, a longtime Washington lobbyist whose clients have included the American Petroleum Institute and the mortgage company Freddie Mac.
Ah... I see charger.
My bad.
charger — Sep 23, 2008[quote author=pickmaster60 link=1222050095/0#24 date=1222196494]But to make it fair, Obama's advisers, or at least some o them supported deregulation.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/republican-national-committee-questionable-advice/story.aspx?guid=%7BA78D1EEA-C77C-4E2F-BE25-82DBB02D4B25%7D&dist=hppr
That's a press release from the Republican National Convention... it's not a legit piece of reporting. Oh, and look who's at the head of McCain's transition team:
At the McCain campaign, Republicans said, transition work is being coordinated by William E. Timmons, a longtime Washington lobbyist whose clients have included the American Petroleum Institute and the mortgage company Freddie Mac.
charger — Sep 23, 2008Like I said before, is it better for these poor people to buy houses they can not afford, and then later get their credit ruined, and lose all the payments they made to the house, plus whatever down payment they put down? Or is it better that they could never buy the place in the first place? Hook, you seem to be arguing that this is a good thing to get houses into the hands of the poor. I do not believe it is good at all. I think it is a false sense of "prosperity"... which is no better than no prosperity at all, in my book.
What I'm saying is that it's better to spend $500 a month on a home at 6% interest than pay 6 or $700 on an apartment. If credit is good, why not? They deserve a chance at home ownership and may never get the opportunity to do so again.
I'm "not" saying that same person should be able to get a $200,000 loan or home, period, if they can't afford it. A person making 20 or 25,000 a year should have this opportunity while rates are low. For the 40 thousand range home. I see no problem with that.
Prosperity is a guaranteed 0 on a apartment, vs. growth on a home value over time. I'm talking about investment on a home vs an apartment's rent.
The ability to own a home doesn't guaranty wealth, but it isn't throwing money in the garbarge either.
Hookbender — Sep 23, 2008[quote author=charger link=1222050095/0#23 date=1222194179]
The ability to own a home doesn't guaranty wealth, but it isn't throwing money in the garbarge either.
How about when the value of the house falls below the outstanding mortgage.
The borrower decides they have thrown enough of their money into the garbage can and defaults leaving the lenders to thrown their loan into the garbage after it.
If that pattern is repeated with enough frequency the whole financial edifice comes tumbling down.
Saying it doesn't guarantee wealth is pretty funny actually considering the fall out. :D
Well then....that person may have to wait a little longer to see the fruit of his labor. ;D
These things go in cycles, the economy, home values, interest rates, etc.
The problem here is absolute piss poor government. Just think what would happen if we removed all law in this country. People would take advantage of that to. Oh wait, that happened in the mortage industry....no need to imagine, just take a look for yourself.
I guess when you look at the horrible place America's now in....all you can do is laugh.
I just think this whole mess is a real statement on our national priorities. When is the last time the government leaped up and took notice when someone in the middle or lower class went flat broke and ruined his life on a bad investment, when some small mom and pop store went bankrupt because a big chain moved in and undersold them? No one gives a shit until it's the guys making $20 mil a year who are threatened.
The market cures all - except when it doesn't.
Greedy fucks.
Tripper
charger — Sep 24, 2008I just think this whole mess is a real statement on our national priorities. When is the last time the government leaped up and took notice when someone in the middle or lower class went flat broke and ruined his life on a bad investment, when some small mom and pop store went bankrupt because a big chain moved in and undersold them? No one gives a shit until it's the guys making $20 mil a year who are threatened.
Amen brother!
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 24, 2008[quote author=charger link=1222050095/25#33 date=1222235424]I just think this whole mess is a real statement on our national priorities. When is the last time the government leaped up and took notice when someone in the middle or lower class went flat broke and ruined his life on a bad investment, when some small mom and pop store went bankrupt because a big chain moved in and undersold them? No one gives a shit until it's the guys making $20 mil a year who are threatened.
Amen brother!
I second that. And I add that somewhere along the line we forgot the whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" thing that Lincoln was talking about.
I mean, we could send the Declaration of Independence to Congress and have many similar grievances.
I just hope "the big stupid" isn't so strong as to pull Obama further into the void of backbiting Karl Rove politics to the point where it affects his overall sense of how to govern. AND it's not so stupid as to give McCain the presidency. But that's just my opinion...I could be totally wrong about John McCain, and perhaps one of these days he'll show proof of not being completely unqualified to serve as President.
Shit, even George Will is questioning McCain's ability:
McCain Loses His Head
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21
"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
Ouch. And that's from a very respectable, very rational member of "his team"...
Tripper
charger — Sep 24, 2008I just think this whole mess is a real statement on our national priorities. When is the last time the government leaped up and took notice when someone in the middle or lower class went flat broke and ruined his life on a bad investment, when some small mom and pop store went bankrupt because a big chain moved in and undersold them? No one gives a shit until it's the guys making $20 mil a year who are threatened.
Mom and Pop businesses don't spread their contagion through out the economy if they fail.
This is about a serious systemic risk to the economy.
Perfectly good banks and financial institutions that have had no hand in this Wall St fiasco will fall over like a stack of dominoes if the system is simply allowed to fall over.
What does that mean ?
It means you will pay for this regardless, it is really only a choice about how you pay for it and which choice is in your best interests.
You can either choose national bankruptcy and depression like the sub prime lender handing in the keys or you tough it out.
I have changed my mind somewhat in the last few days, I favour letting larger swathes of the investment banking arms of Wall St to fold now, losses to be taken squarely on the chin by the investors and that includes everyone who has a pension fund, equity etc. btw.
i.e. a serious destruction of wealth that doesn't actually exist now anyway.
And use government money to backstop and guarantee the retail and corporate banking sector of institutions, keeping the day to day financial functioning of the economy running and safe. i.e. banks cannot use deposits to offset wild investment losses they can only be used as capital against the conventional business of banking.
This will sharpen the crunch to an extreme and the investment losses will be terrifying.
There will be a huge recession but so long as the economy can still function - i.e. people can still buy stuff and get paid wages by companies doing stuff then things will eventually recover however painful it is.
It means a tsholtz firm has a shot in riding things out.
If the banking system falls over in it's entirety like 1930's good companies will go to the wall overnight, stripped of all assets to pay for this shit and left only with their debts.
People just have to get used to a huge reduction in their perceived wealth - think of it a zero.
BUT keeping the economic engine functioning is the ONLY priority and the ultimate need for a backstop.
Kill that and everyone here is out of work and that is a little more immediate and worrying than the value of your investments if you have any.
People who rely on investment income will have to go get a fucking job.
So Kev will have to get his spade out again :)
The government will have to help out pensioners as they don't have the option to rebuild, but rich ones will have to accept that shit happens to investments and they ain't rich anymore.
But nothing at all is possible if the entire economy collapses into a Mad Max movie scenario
:D
"ALL HAIL LORD HUMONGOUS!!"
Shit - Armageddon out of here :)
"You wanna get out of here? You talk to me."
charger — Sep 24, 2008I just think this whole mess is a real statement on our national priorities. When is the last time the government leaped up and took notice when someone in the middle or lower class went flat broke and ruined his life on a bad investment, when some small mom and pop store went bankrupt because a big chain moved in and undersold them? No one gives a shit until it's the guys making $20 mil a year who are threatened.
Yeah but the mom and pop store guy can keep on going and won't affect the rest of the world.
I agree with the basis of your post though. Always the middle class who pays, and always the good suffers from the bad to.