Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2008, 12:56:34 PM
-
It's funny that we don't hear a word from the OC about this bailout. Complain about taxes? All the time. Complain about lazy people who want "your money" and social programs to help the poor? Non-stop here in the O'Club.
Paulson intervenes and buys all the banks debt, for $1.1T, and you - the taxpayer - foot the bill? Not a peep.
Shouldn't lazs and others be going nuts on a socialism diatribe right about now? Because this is the biggest government bailout in US history. It dwarfs propping up AIG and everything else that happened.
Amazing...
-
Of course not.. their favorite party line is "Privatize the profits but socialise the losses".
-
whos to blame?
-
Don't worry. They'll be along to blame it all on minorities and whining liberals in a second.
-
you guys are just mad because you can't blame booosh for doing nothing. :lol
-
Don't worry. They'll be along to blame it all on minorities and whining liberals in a second.
not even close. Would you like to try again?
G R E E D
-
It's not welfare when you give it to corporations. It's "a bailout".
-
It's not like this is the first time either..
Dare I say the current Republican nominee John McCain was caught up in the last one and it's amazing it hasn't been talked about much. John McCain was part of the Keating Five who lead to the last Savings and Loan Crisis this country had back in the late 80's early 90's thanks to his "poor judgement".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Kinda starts to make sense now why, McCain has so many lobbyists running his campaign. I'm sure it was obviously somehow the Democrats fault though.
-
not even close. Would you like to try again?
G R E E D
Yup. Greed and deregulation.
-
Suck it up, croquet. Your unqualified messiah has pile of lobbyist money in his campaign.. remember the promise he broke? He's also picked the Credit Card Company Tool that introduced the new credit card usury free pass for credit card companies as his vice. How convenient.
Your saints are are hardly saintly... but watching you and the resta the liberal lackeys tryin to spit-shine yer pet turds is informative... yah must love wallowing in the stuff. When are you and yer your turd polishers gonna quit shining up the dookies and start flushing 'em? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Rangel, Jefferson... start flushing your turds, dems.
-
Hang on, let me go look up a bunch of republicans and call them turds. That will REALLY get a good discussion going...or maybe it won't.
This place cracks me up. :aok
-
Suck it up, croquet. Your unqualified messiah has pile of lobbyist money in his campaign.. remember the promise he broke? He's also picked the Credit Card Company Tool that introduced the new credit card usury free pass for credit card companies as his vice. How convenient.
Your saints are are hardly saintly... but watching you and the resta the liberal lackeys tryin to spit-shine yer pet turds is informative... yah must love wallowing in the stuff. When are you and yer your turd polishers gonna quit shining up the dookies and start flushing 'em? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Rangel, Jefferson... start flushing your turds, dems.
I've never said Obama is a saint.. You have never seen me type anything along the lines of I think he was going to bring change or any other fairy tales to the white house. I'm voting for Obama simply because I know my rights are safe under a Democrat. Protecting my rights as a US citizen is the number one reason I vote. Anything else is secondary.
The current Republican party is controlled by the Religious Reich and they don't seem to like the US Constitution so much. I vote to simply keep them out of office because this country is doomed if not.
-
Bongie.. I'm just as disgusted with the republican tools. Get 'em out. Who has oversight of congress? We do. Lets get 'em all the hell outta there. Rep, Dems.. more than two terms.. any taint at all.. get rid of 'em.
This is long past being a partisan fight. It's time for us all to do the right thing.. flush the freakin toilet on capitol hill.
-
I'm voting for Obama simply because I know my rights are safe under a Democrat. Protecting my rights as a US citizen is the number one reason I vote. Anything else is secondary.
The current Republican party is controlled by the Religious Reich and they don't seem to like the US Constitution so much. I vote to simply keep them out of office because this country is doomed if not.
Then you are in fact a freakin useless tool. Anybody that thinks dem's are protecting individual rights needs a brain transplant.
-
Then you are in fact a freakin useless tool. Anybody that thinks dem's are protecting individual rights needs a brain transplant.
Obviously you haven't kept track of the last 8 years. Must of had your head in the sand again.
-
I agree but what about all this talk of needing "experienced" leaders? Wouldn't a fresh group have none! Oh noes!
:aok
-
Obviously you haven't kept track of the last 8 years. Must of had your head in the sand again.
really?
wow.
had no idea.
I musta been busy cleaning the guns your liberal socialist agenda wants me to keep, and missed the news.
-
I agree but what about all this talk of needing "experienced" leaders? Wouldn't a fresh group have none! Oh noes!
:aok
ok if we can agree on cleaning the hill up, how do we get it done?
and, I'm sure you'd agree an honest veterinarian or day care worker would be an improvement over a crooked politician.
-
Oh hells yeah!
As far as cleaning up the hill, I'm mostly voting for independents. Unfortunately I'm sure someone will come along to insult me and say I'm throwing my vote away shortly :(
-
Yup. Greed and deregulation.
Yes.
-
the govt is buying non-liquid assets, some time in the future the govt can sell the assets.
BTW, obama is in favor of the "bailout".
-
It's buying worthless assests. It's a bailout dude.
-
they are buying defaulted mortgages, the mortgages are on houses, houses/land are not worth nothing.
-
They were horrendously overvalued and are now worth diddly comparatively. It's taxpayer money buying bad debt.
The lenders/bankers all looked at each other and said "bail!"
Don't try to sugarcoat it.
-
ok if we can agree on cleaning the hill up, how do we get it done?
Re-Regulation. Separation of duties. Remove unitary executive powers. No more talk of line-item veto power.
Oh, and a complete overhaul of how the SEC is run. Bush eviscerated it, time to restore it.
-
ok if we can agree on cleaning the hill up, how do we get it done?
Nuke the site from space....its the only way to be sure :rock
-
Ok.. since it was me that you wanted to hear from dos equality......
I was never for the klinton plan of "a home for everyone no matter if they can afford it or not"
I have no problem with deregulation so long as monopoly and unfair business practice is not part of it.
The housing market and the fact that the feds forced loan companies to loan to "low income" and "minority" is the reason for all this mess... It offered loopholes to the scumbags and forced bad loans on the companies..
Just as making unatractive "minority" business loans allowed for the scumbags to use a front man minority or woman to run their company on paper and get away with murder.. these low income and minority loans caused this mess.
regulation and meddling caused this NOT deregulation... I would just as soon see the loan companies go down the tubes over making bad loans but not over loans that were forced on them.
This bailout will hide the real problem.. the fact that you don't loan money to people who can't pay it back and the fact that doing so created an artificial bubble in the market that could do nothing but pop.
I am sure that this is not the answer that you wanted tho dos equality.
The loan companies can say they were forced to make the loans and.. to an extent they were.. but.. at least half of the problem was their own greed... now.. they know that next time government makes em make a stupid economic blunder in the name of "social justice"....
THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY THAT IT IS BAD BUSINESS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL BAIL EM OUT.
Stop making them make bad loans any more but also tell them any bad loans they make they will be on their own.
lazs
-
Re-Regulation. Separation of duties. Remove unitary executive powers. No more talk of line-item veto power.
Oh, and a complete overhaul of how the SEC is run. Bush eviscerated it, time to restore it.
BAM! This is a good start. I am uneducated on how the SEC has been neutered though. Mind explaining?
-
The housing market and the fact that the feds forced loan companies to loan to "low income" and "minority" is the reason for all this mess... It offered loopholes to the scumbags and forced bad loans on the companies..
Just as making unatractive "minority" business loans allowed for the scumbags to use a front man minority or woman to run their company on paper and get away with murder.. these low income and minority loans caused this mess.
Bam! I knew he'd blame it on minorities.
-
Marketwatch: "Speaking Friday in Miami, Fla., Obama said he fully supported the U.S. plan but also outlined what he said are needed additional steps to help families cope with rising gasoline and food prices and avoid foreclosures. "
-
then you can't read.. I blamed it on the socialists who.. in their "end justifies the means" came up with a complex and unworkable solution for a nonexistent problem.
That of not enough people who owning homes who could not afford it.
When you force the companies to make these bad loans you open the flood gates of greed.. the shysters and the scumbags feed at the same trough as the poor downtrodden minorities.. creative loans went to them too... interest only.. ARM's the whole gambit of crap loans all aimed at getting people who shouldn't own homes getting into em..
This created an artifical bubble that had to burst eventually..
The blame rests on the government for forcing the idiotic loans and encouraging them.
lazs
-
Oh, I coulda sworn most of the problems arouse from the deregulations that broke down the barriers seperating mortgage, investing, and banking groups.
Show us the laws you blame the cause of this on.
-
Bam! I knew he'd blame it on minorities.
Yeah, it was a given. Sad.
I like how he says that the Dems "made" private banks loan money to "scumbags" - most of whom in his world are minorities. I wonder what legislation he can point to to prove that assertion, since there was none.
Nope, credit swaps and the republican mantra of "shop until you drop" caused this, the culture of excess greed and consumption and a devalued dollar based on tax breaks for the rich forcing us to borrow. That's the truth. It's way too complex for a guy like lazs to grasp, so xenophobia is all he has left.
-
The republican plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd.'
The democratic plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd from the clean end.'
-
The republican plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd.'
The democratic plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd from the clean end.'
OMG new keyboard pls. :rofl :rofl
-
then you can't read.. I blamed it on the socialists who.. in their "end justifies the means" came up with a complex and unworkable solution for a nonexistent problem.
That of not enough people who owning homes who could not afford it.
When you force the companies to make these bad loans you open the flood gates of greed.. the shysters and the scumbags feed at the same trough as the poor downtrodden minorities.. creative loans went to them too... interest only.. ARM's the whole gambit of crap loans all aimed at getting people who shouldn't own homes getting into em..
This created an artifical bubble that had to burst eventually..
The blame rests on the government for forcing the idiotic loans and encouraging them.
lazs
You do understand that the banking companies were the ones whom pushed for the relaxation in the loan market? Specifically so they could give loans to people who shouldn't really get them. The current day mortgage companies found out what the credit card companies figured out years ago. It's much more profitable to give loans to people that can barely afford to pay them than it is to give loans to people with great credit and the ability to pay on time.
Lazs you do understand these companies make their money by interest rates and fees right? Those people that couldn't afford the houses were gold mines to these companies. The banks & loan companies wanted to lend them money because that's where their big profits are at. They can sell these morons off on interest only or ARM's and laugh all the way to the bank making solid profits. If they are late on the payment they laugh again all the way to the bank because of the late fee they rake in.
These companies got so addicted to these bad loans because of their profits that they went overboard and caused this mess. It damn sure wasn't because of Congress forcing them to lend to low income. low-income is a lenders wet dream.
Now they once again laugh all the way to the bank after all the profits they made they still get bailed out with no risk to themselves. Hell why wouldn't they want to lend to low income, it's a dream come true.. massive interest rates and it's backed by the govt. What more could a business ask for? Oh I know 4 more years to fux over the American tax payers.
-
The republican plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd.'
The democratic plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd from the clean end.'
Yeah, bears repeating that only 10 Senators did not vote for the repeal of Glass-Stegall. It's a bipartisan effort a clogging the toilet and they succeeded very well.
But hey... be a maroon. Vote to return your Senators and Representatives to Congress...after all, they're doing SUCH a GREAT job for you in DC. And don't forget to vote either for Obamessiah or McC because... well, if you repeat the same experiment over and over and get the exact same results... maybe NEXT time you'll get a different result. :rofl
-
Toad, this has probably been the best week politically for the independents ever.
If this economy tanks and two years from now the bailout doesn't head off a depression it'll be curtains for long term congressmen.
Should be now.
I'll be voting independent at the top of my ticket because this state always goes liberal anyway. Further down, I'm implementing incumbent surgery. I don't give a damn what party they get their political power from, I don't care what corporation funds their election.
Bastards. All of 'em. Party hacks and puppets are deserving of no respect.. As a citizen, I haven't voted a party line ticket; ever, it's always struck me as moral & intellectual laziness.
-
Kinda starts to make sense now why, McCain has so many lobbyists running his campaign. I'm sure it was obviously somehow the Democrats fault though.
They must really suck at their jobs, because "lobbyist-free" Obama is out in front in taking money from financial institution interests. Not that the others are far behind, but those wall street types must really be "hoping for change" in Washington with Kid Dynamite. Something I've pointed out here for months, though I still contend they are giving him and the others the payola to get a real neat carbon credit trading scam going for the next financial balloon to build and burst and not so much as protection for the current mess. Perhaps both though.
The financial industry has invested heavily in that dialogue, giving $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, and $19.6 million to Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178601242954941.html
Where lobbying and Fannie and Freddie are concerned, it does start to get far more lopsided. Obama, the "non lobbyist" just cream all the competition:
Going back to 1989 Obama comes in at second (amazing given his short time in office during that period) to Chris Dodd (D), chairman of the Senate banking committee (in office since 1980). John Kerry runs a close third to Obama.
(Figures: Total/PAC/Private)
Dodd, Christopher CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
A few other names:
Reid, Harry NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500
Clinton, Hillary NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050
Pelosi, Nancy CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250
McCain, John AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
The donations to Obama just since 2005 are impressive, even by "no change" Washington standards:
The federal takeover of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may stabilize the economy and help the housing industry. But politicians could take a hit, particularly Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Employees of the government-sponsored firms, which own or guarantee half of the nation's mortgages, have donated almost $4.3 million to federal elected officials and their various campaign committees since 2005.
Obama is the largest individual recipient at about $112,000, federal campaign finance reports show.
And don't worry. Not only will the criminally negligent financial firms be bailed out in a bi-partisan Washington manner at the expense of responsible tax payers, but Obama will cover the moron borrowers as well!
While campaigning Thursday, Sen. Obama said that the Fed's effort to pump billions of dollars into global financial markets to ease liquidity problems was important to "maintain the functioning of our financial system and the flow of credit to American households and businesses."
Sen. Obama said he planned to meet Friday with his top economic advisers to craft a "Homeowner and Financial Support Act" that would provide capital to the financial system, liquidity to the markets and help for families who need to restructure mortgages they can't afford.
But, this is not new territory for the left. While the leaders of these financial institutions certainly made highly questionable, greediest decisions they had some encouragement from the progressive side of the aisle:
Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won't mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_rest_of_the_meltdown_story.html
Obama did accomplish something as a community organizer! :aok
Cont.
-
I post this not to pump McCain up on the issue. I believe he is marginally out in front ethically but not enough from any true Maverick sense. He did have this to say though, in 2006:
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
They should have written McCain a few more checks, I guess...
Getting back to this line:
Kinda starts to make sense now why, McCain has so many lobbyists running his campaign. I'm sure it was obviously somehow the Democrats fault though.
Let's look at how both candidates have staffed and remember the whole glass houses and stones thing. There's plenty on McCain's staffing here, but for a reminder about our Boy Wonder:
The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.
They've stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama’s original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House.
...A spokesman for the Obama campaign declined to comment, noting only that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson stepped down from his campaign post in June. His resignation came in the wake of charges that he collected more then $7 million in home loans at special, below-average rates. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080716/pl_politico/11781;_ylt=Aqra8AQGuKZ7chQBIo7D5e2s0NUE
Oops!
The Obama coolaid drinkers are going to be mighty surprised when "the one" turns out to be a younger, charismatic version of "Ted Kennedy Goes to Washington!" (Minus the reckless homicide stuff, of course.) And with a Democratic congress to support Obama's every program, I imagine he will work many of the same types of unrestrained miracles GWB worked under similar circumstances during his terms.
I can honestly say I voted for candidates other than Bush in 2000 and 2004. Didn't think Bush was qualified for the job, and disliked his overall attitude and positions. I will be able to say I saw the same great potential for Obama in 2008 that I saw in Bush in 2000. What about you? Where McCain is concerned, I think he will cause less damage than Obama -- potentially much less damage. And since the Libertarians drafted drug war Barr, well, they are being knuckleheads as well. I contend I am far less likely to be embarrassed by a vote for McCain than a vote for Illinois democratic machine hack Obama.
Of course, the good news is that an Obama win will remove him as my state Senator. The bad news, is that the likely approved replacement will be Jesse Jackson Jr. (who I actually like a bit more on the "real guy" level though.)
Charon
-
You guys need to read your History to understand how the mortgage crisis or housing bubble was created by Democrats.
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off.
The Act, which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, grew out of the complaint that urban banks were "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, refusing to lend to their residents while using their deposits to finance suburban expansion. CRA decreed that banks have "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered, and that federal banking regulators should assess how well they do that when considering their requests to merge or to open branches. Implicit in the bill's rationale was a belief that CRA was needed to counter racial discrimination in lending, an assumption that later seemed to gain support from a widely publicized 1990 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finding that blacks and Hispanics suffered higher mortgage-denial rates than whites, even at similar income levels.
And for Laz, in this article the high lighted text is the zinger.....
Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html
Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.
President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.
In writing this blog entry, I’m following the lead of Joseph R. Mason, who is a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics. Here is a link to a piece that he wrote on Feb. 26.
http://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/20080226%20Market%20Commentary.pdf
The Clinton-era document that Mason cites—“The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”—was hiding in plain sight
on the website of the Department of Housing & Urban Development until last year, when according to Mason it was removed (probably because the housing bust made it seem embarrassing to the department). Mason credits Joshua Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co. with saving a copy of it before it was expunged.
The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.
Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.
Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."
-
I don't see how this bailout or any other B.S. the government has done recently (Fannie/Freddie and whoever else came along last spring/summer) has anything to do with party lines. I claim ignornace as to why it would be along party lines. What am I missing? Is it the bailout itself that is in question or is this more fingerpointing as to whose fault it is that the bailouts are even needed? I don't see this as a party problem at all, I see it as bad management from top to bottom and CEO bonuses that are obscene.
Let em fail and accept the fallout. There's nothing I can do about the implications of a bailout or the implications of a fallout. Those stupid companies need to stand up and accept some responsibility for the screw job they've done, and it's nobody's fault but their own.
-
Fury,
You need to study our 20th century political history and the core phylisophical differences in how Democrats\Liberals\Socialists view the economy\free market versus Republicans\conservitives view the economy\free market.
The housing bubble and subsiquent credit failure was due to the Democrats general SOP violation of the law of unintended consiqunses by trying to use the force of law to make the free market produce social justice outcomes with no losers\greatfull voters(minorities) rather than allow it to reward those who work hard to win the reward by their personal efforts(more often republicans or conservitives).
When Clinton mandated that the Community Reinvestment Act be used as a club to force the previously sound and responsible free market banking industry to give away garbage unsecurable loans to get minorities into homes or suffer the Ire of the federal government. What do you think had to happen to make those loans possible?
The law of unintended consiquenses was violated. To make those loans possible the system had to become corrupted and finessable by anyone greedy enough to do it. So it created the housing bubble based on speculation of short term turn around on property. It then created the credit crunch because of the many hands that the garbage loans passed through so money could be made on the worthless paper.
Now its 14 years later and Clinton has slithered under a rock like a good Democrat\Liberal and takes no responcibility for using the weight of the federal government to force the banking industry to cut it's own throat.
-
It's funny that we don't hear a word from the OC about this bailout. Complain about taxes? All the time. Complain about lazy people who want "your money" and social programs to help the poor? Non-stop here in the O'Club.
Paulson intervenes and buys all the banks debt, for $1.1T, and you - the taxpayer - foot the bill? Not a peep.
Shouldn't lazs and others be going nuts on a socialism diatribe right about now? Because this is the biggest government bailout in US history. It dwarfs propping up AIG and everything else that happened.
Amazing...
Well actually you folks are jumping the gun. Laz was complaining about these bailouts in another thread and I agreed. But you're correct, why have it both ways. I sure don't like it. It's a terrible thing to do. Some republicans are calling it bail out mania to show their resentment toward these bailouts.
-
Thanks bustr, I need to read your earlier link too. I missed the original news about 1.1 trillion and am just catching up after getting home....I thought this thread was along the lines of AIG and whoever else the government bailed out earlier this week. If being for bailouts like this mean Republican, then I'm going to have to change my card. Am I living in a Socialist country now? What else is the government going to bail out or take over? All I'm hearing this week is the govenment is saving this, the government is saving that. One of these days it's not going to work; all they are doing right now is delaying the inevitable. They're too stupid to make any real change. I think it's time for me to vote for anyone without a D or R after their name, straight ticket. They can't be any worse than this.
-
The republican plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd.'
The democratic plan.. 'we gotta pick up the turd from the clean end.'
The independent plan... 'we gotta stop electing turd collectors.'
-
Fury,
Remember the bad paper I talked about? Everyone bought and sold it in the domestic and international financial community as part of business as usual in the free market. The bail outs are part of the usual violation of the "law of unintended consiquences" by Democrats\Liberals they always enact for social justice.
Unfortunately the unintendid consiquences are world wide and the United States tax payer is once again saving themselves and the free worlds kester from a Liberal well meaning blunder. Remember Prime Minister Chamberlain and Hitler? How many millions of English citizens died for Chamberlains unintended consiquences?
The unintended consiquences Clinton put in place 14 years ago have now screwed the free market so extensively world wide that we better pray there is enough taxpayer money to save our financial institutions. By doing that we then save the free world once again from some Liberal elites attempts at peace and social equality in our time.
-
Fury,
Remember the bad paper I talked about? Everyone bought and sold it in the domestic and international financial community as part of business as usual in the free market. The bail outs are part of the usual violation of the "law of unintended consiquences" by Democrats\Liberals they always enact for social justice.
Unfortunately the unintendid consiquences are world wide and the United States tax payer is once again saving themselves and the free worlds kester from a Liberal well meaning blunder. Remember Prime Minister Chamberlain and Hitler? How many millions of English citizens died for Chamberlains unintended consiquences?
The unintended consiquences Clinton put in place 14 years ago have now screwed the free market so extensively world wide that we better pray there is enough taxpayer money to save our financial institutions. By doing that we then save the free world once again from some Liberal elites attempts at peace and social equality in our time.
I disagree with the bailouts. However, you are right about the unintended consequences. This all goes right back to the liberals who thought they knew more about business than the owners.
-
People seem to be forgetting who controlled the Senate and House of reps during the Clinton era...
-
People seem to be forgetting who controlled the Senate and House of reps during the Clinton era...
People seem to forget both sides were equally deep in the turd forest.
-
(http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif)
-
Clinton signed the Gram-Leach-Baily act into law which repealed the old Glass-Steagall act that kept strict oversight on banks and did not allow them to become Banks\mortgage lenders\investment houses at the same time. This paved the way for the subprime loans which were frowned on by the Glass-Steagall act. Alan Greenspan was the head of the fed at that time and he wanted Glass-Steagal repealed. He helped with the subprimes by lowering the rate.
Clinton gladly signed Gram-Leach-Baily because it was the vehical that allowed banks to issue subprime funny money loans to minorities because of his dictating the Community Reinvestment Act had to be jammed down americas throat. Minorities and the under privleaged had to be placed in their own homes or else.
The greed factor came in by the banks because GLB threw much of the GS oversight out the window to allow flexibility in creative banking.....unsecured loans for alomost anyone. And its why so many of the large invulnderable institutions no one thought could fail are now going under.
Thank you Bill Clinton for giving america a hot carl and not even flowers and dinner first.
-
Clinton signed the Gram-Leach-Baily act into law which repealed the old Glass-Steagall act that kept strict oversight on banks and did not allow them to become Banks\mortgage lenders\investment houses at the same time. This paved the way for the subprime loans which were frowned on by the Glass-Steagall act. Alan Greenspan was the head of the fed at that time and he wanted Glass-Steagal repealed. He helped with the subprimes by lowering the rate.
Clinton gladly signed Gram-Leach-Baily because it was the vehical that allowed banks to issue subprime funny money loans to minorities because of his dictating the Community Reinvestment Act had to be jammed down americas throat. Minorities and the under privleaged had to be placed in their own homes or else.
The greed factor came in by the banks because GLB threw much of the GS oversight out the window to allow flexibility in creative banking.....unsecured loans for alomost anyone. And its why so many of the large invulnderable institutions no one thought could fail are now going under.
Thank you Bill Clinton for giving america a hot carl and not even flowers and dinner first.
huh?
Actually called Gram-Leach-Bliley Act.
Phil Gram (R-TX) Jim Leach (R-IA) (I worked on Jim Leach's first campaign)
From Wiki:
"The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [3]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[4]"
President Clinton gladly signed? It was "Veto proof". Voted along party lines.
-
There probably aint a single event where you guys will not think its the party lines fault.
After 10-20 years, when the tax-money river is dried out, you will see who got what. Its time to fill pockets with some unaccounted hazard money and the greed doesen't stop on the party lines.
-
huh?
Actually called Gram-Leach-Bliley Act.
Phil Gram (R-TX) Jim Leach (R-IA) (I worked on Jim Leach's first campaign)
From Wiki:
"The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [3]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[4]"
President Clinton gladly signed? It was "Veto proof". Voted along party lines.
shhhhh it's easier if they can blame Clinton.. The fact is it was widely supported by both side of the govt and the bill was written by big business.
I really think we need to get the two Bob's on the case because I'm trying to figure out exactly what the politicians happen to do here at Initech. Every time I see a politician on TV I can't help but think of the scene of Tom Smykowski being interviewed by the two Bob's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR7HDERBCQE
-
I just finished reading the whole bill. It was a compromise which gave the Dems support and strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act while the Repubs got a loosening of the oversight rules for banking and investment processes.
Effectively the rules on oversight became what ever the Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs decided based on how the economy was going or how many minorities were not getting loans. The SCC and Fed would only realy take notice when the comittee gave marching orders or standard banking rules were broken or turned up in scheduled audits. It also has a provision for small state banks to restructure themselves as Federaly insured banks. Thus all the bailing out going on right now.
The bill gives a lot of wiggle room to turn a blind eye and not provide the same intensity of oversight by the Fed and SCC as did the Glass-Steagall act. No wonder the Dems didn't fillibuster it. They got what they wanted along with being able to vote no and look like a party united. Clinton got his strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act to insure bad loans to minorities. Everybody got what they wanted on both sides of the ilse. The american taxpayer took a hot carl in the kester and never knew it happened until this year.
Yay Congress writing itself a law letting it secure bad loans with our money. There is a whole section in the bill on federal protection of a certain amount of bad structure with federal money. The language is very vauge and loose with wide room for interpritation. The unsecured loans came in towards the end as devices to give loans to poor or minorities. We got took my fellow americans....took without even flowers or dinner...just took.
And Clinton smiled all the way to being named america's first Black President.
-
crack me up.... the dollar socialists and their closet cronies are proving my point better than i ever could.
so.... now foreign central banks have to used their hard earned dollars to bailout the bankrupted american market... and the neoclowns have to socialize the american dream to keep the reverse pyramid of worthless paper from collapsing... ironic the frothing at foreigners here and then it's palms open come bailout.
-
Well.. this is complicated but.. one thing is certain.. some of the most heavily regulated loan companies like freddie and fannie.. are in trouble.. some of the most regulated like some of the banks.. are not... some of the least regulated are in trouble and some of the least regulated are doing fine... it does not appear that regulation or deregulation is all that important.
It is simply people getting credit who should not have gotten it. It is simply a bubble that was in value of collateral that was false.. if the loan companies make bad loans they should fail ... if they are stupid enough to not see that someone who paid 200K for a home last year and is asking for a 400k loan on it based on it now being worth 600k one or two years later.. well.. they deserve to have to eat a 600k home that is worth 220k The homeowner who had to have that new Pickup and skeeeeeedooooo and trailers and new everything... he deserves to be homeless... they are 1% of the population.
In the end.. it all boils down to the fact that people who could not afford homes were allowed to buy em.. that created an artificial bubble that had to pop sometime..
Things will adjust with or without a bailout.. Loan companies will make better loans in the future with or without regulation but.. with regulation they can more easily stand in line with their hands out if they screw up again... and again.. and again...
I am not sure that it could even be called "socialism" in any real sense of the word tho if it is a loan. Unless you consider getting a home loan a "bailout" and socialism. It is a stretch.
The only socialism involved would be regulation.. the more regulation the more socialism.. the less regulation the less socialism.
lazs
-
Obviously you haven't kept track of the last 8 years. Must of had your head in the sand again.
I have, in 2000, Al Gore lost, and called 'oh noes! you h4xx t3h l337 vot3rs!! r3c0unt!!!!1!'
In 2001, 9/11, and we went to war.
In 2003, we went to war in Iraq, and by then, everyone cried 'BUSH IS T3H N4Z1!!!!!!!111!!11!!1 H3 H4XX3D AL G0R3!!!!'
And, in 2004, you elected him again.
In the following years, it was the same as 2000 and in 2003, you all just said he was a bad president and he is awful. As gas prices went up due to Nancy Pelosi, you pointed at Bush and cried h4xx!!! again. :rolleyes:
-
People seem to be forgetting who controlled the Senate and House of reps during the Clinton era...
It's called mental conservatism.. they are are conservative about what they choose to remember.
-
Absolutely NONE of these bailouts should have happened without a VOTE in congress and a signature by the president. If we are being saddled with the debt, we should have had a voice in it. From what I understand, much of the AIG debt was foreign!!! I am as conservative as they get, I think Bush and mccain are both flaming liberals and anyone who supported this bailout needs a kick in the pants. Even worse, the debt for this is going to be 'off budget'... So now, I suppose we are dealing with like 5 different sets of books now?
This is America, businesses can and should be allowed to fail when they are improperly managed. Many of these *cant use the word i want to here* should be in jail for their mismanagement, not receiving 40M retirement packages on our dime. Capitalism works... It is healthy and normal for the economy that people who do business in a shoddy manner fail... Some outright failures would have untangled the web of deceit that many of these banks have operated under. Paulson should be tarred and feathered or at least jailed... the fed has put the value of our dollar in the toilet and more important - subverted the constitutional principles that caused the very founding of this country... Taxation without equal and fair representation. He spent trillions of our dollars in a short period of time without so much as one congressional debate or even much of a warning.
I am angry and I do not care where the investigation leads or who gets trampled by getting to the truth - but heads should roll in the streets for this one.
-
In the end.. it all boils down to the fact that people who could not afford homes were allowed to buy em.. that created an artificial bubble that had to pop sometime..
lazs
Like it or not and politics aside, that is the best simple explanation there is and one that everyone can and should understand.
Because all the taxpayers are getting stuck with the bill. Oh, wait... not ALL of the taxpayers. In fact the very ones that couldn't afford the homes they bought are not going to pay anything. Latest numbers are that the number of "non-payers" has grown to more than 43 million, or one out of every three Americans who file a tax return. Many of these may well get money given to them through the Earned Income Tax Credit.
So rejoice you top 20 percent of taxpayers that pay about 86 percent of all the income taxes; your bill is going up.
So vote Republican or Democrat this time and make sure that you get in on this daisy chain of the two major parties taking turns screwing your poop chute while you obligingly bend over the barrel for them.
Me? Bob Barr/Libertarian all the way. Second election in a row I'm voting Libertarian.
-
And if you want to quit crying over spilled milk and trying to assign blame to one party or the other, instead of both where it belongs, you might take 5 minutes and read this. Because a giant dildo is headed your way if you pay taxes and it is homing in on your tailpipe.
Guess who is going to benefit from this giganto bailout.... go ahead... guess....
Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle
Financial-market wise guys, who had been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully stampeded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the crisis: dump it all on the taxpayers. That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous rotten assets and make the public swallow their losses--many hundreds of billions, maybe much more. What's not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with extinction?
If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. ......
.....The failed S&Ls held real assets--property, houses, shopping centers--that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value--not just the notorious mortgage securities but various derivative contracts and other esoteric deals that may be virtually worthless.
Despite what the pols in Washington think, the RTC bailout was also a Wall Street scandal. Many of the financial firms that had financed the S&L industry's reckless lending got to buy back the same properties for pennies from the RTC--profiting on the upside, then again on the downside. Guess who picked up the tab? I suspect Wall Street is envisioning a similar bonanza--the chance to harvest new profit from their own fraud and criminal irresponsibility.
They're coming for your money... somebody has to pay for the new boats and airplanes of the thieves that got us into this mees.
Enjoy!
-
Guys read the full text of the Gram-Leach-Bliley hot Karl act. Its long, vauge and you will miss the parts very easily that setup letting the Federal government as law bail out all these entities. Because of how vauge the language is, they would have to go to the SCOTUS to prove the bail outs are not legal.
-
In the end.. it all boils down to the fact that people who could not afford homes were allowed to buy em.. that created an artificial bubble that had to pop sometime..
lazs
Many who purchased the homes could afford them, until gas skyrocketed along with every other item a family needs to live. :aok
-
Yah, right. Grab anything you can to cover the facts.
As usual, you just haven't done your homework, teacher. Allow me to help.
Note the date on this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12975777
As rates rise, home foreclosures surge
Thurs., May. 25, 2006
...RealtyTrac, an industry organization that maintains a nationwide database of foreclosures, says mortgage defaults between January and March of this year numbered 323,102 compared with 188,122 during the same period last year — an increase of 72 percent...
Gas prices in '06 were much lower than they are now.
(http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png)
Inflation was ~ 3%
Year CPI - Inflation Rate*
2008 5.0%
2007 2.8%
2006 3.2%
2005 3.4%
2004 2.7%
2003 2.3%
2002 1.6%
2001 2.8%
2000 3.4%
1999 2.2%
Cliff's Notes version is that the loan foreclosures and devaluation of the banks holdings started long before oil spiked and while inflation was relatively stable and reasonably low.
Nice try though. Laz still has it nailed.
-
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.jpg
-
Yah, right. Grab anything you can to cover the facts.
As usual, you just haven't done your homework, teacher. Allow me to help.
Note the date on this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12975777
Gas prices in '06 were much lower than they are now.
(http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png)
Inflation was ~ 3%
Year CPI - Inflation Rate*
2008 5.0%
2007 2.8%
2006 3.2%
2005 3.4%
2004 2.7%
2003 2.3%
2002 1.6%
2001 2.8%
2000 3.4%
1999 2.2%
Cliff's Notes version is that the loan foreclosures and devaluation of the banks holdings started long before oil spiked and while inflation was relatively stable and reasonably low.
Nice try though. Laz still has it nailed.
September 2003, crude was $25 dollars a barrel, by summer of 2006 it was $75 a barrel. july of 2008 140+ a barrel.
"The number of new mortgage holders entering foreclosure in the second quarter stood at 1.19 per cent of all US mortgages - the first time the rate has topped 1 per cent in the 29-year-history of the association's record keeping.
The seasonally-adjusted foreclosure rate is up from 0.65 in the second quarter of last year and nearly triple the 0.39-per-cent figure in 2005 - the height of a decade-long housing boom in the US."
So, before gas rose, it was a housing boom, after gas rose, it's been a forclosure boom. :aok
-
As usual, I am going to be extremely rude and talk about you as a professional with great disrespect. Allow me to be a complete arse hat.
Go ahead. :aok
-
If anyone around here is a complete arse hat, it would be you. You post the purest BS and unsupported rumor and when called on it you either dance away or fall back on insulting people. Your "I was only repeating a rumor, I didn't say it was true" is a fine example of your disingenuity in these political discussions.
From the previous gasoline graph, gas prices bounced between ~ $2.40 and $3.00 from '05 to '07. Figure that as an average of 30 cents increase over the previous few years or ~ $2.60/gallon average price for the period. Note that for the period in question inflation which includes gasoline prices can best be described as low. If those people couldn't pay their mortgages in a period of 3% inflation there never was any hope for them.
2007 2.8%
2006 3.2%
2005 3.4%
2004 2.7%
I think it is obvious that if a 30 cent rise in the price of gas makes it impossible for you to pay your mortgage then you should never have qualified for a mortgage and shouldn't own a home. If that small of an increase makes you unable to pay your mortgage, what happens when the car transmission goes out or you have to buy 4 new tires? Or any of the other unfortunate happenings of daily life occur?
These 0 down/interest only loans were given to people that never did have the ability to repay except in all but a perfect economic situation. It was idiocy and it befits our Idiocracy that the plan was ever allowed to come to fruition.
And now the taxpayers....well, the top 20% that pay 83% of all the taxes.... will have to bail out the Wall Street bastards. That's those rich folks, right? The ones making more than ~ $80k.
That's what happens when you loan money to people that could never possibly pay it back. Just like Laz said.
If 3% annual inflation makes you incapable of paying your mortgage, you should be a renter. It's that simple.
-
Look.. the republicans and the democrats reached across the aisle on this one.. they showed a willing spirit to work together to bend us over and rape us.
The democrats wanted their socialist utopia paradise ideals to go forward so they wanted the loan companies to be forced to loan to low income and minorities.. the republicans wanted their lenders to be able to suck in even more money so they wanted them to have even more power to lend to normal people who couldn't afford it.
In the end.. it created a demand that was false and a building spree that was too much.. it created a bunch of sleazy "investors" who survived only so long as the bubble stayed alive and it gave homes to low income and minority folk who had no chance in hell of every making the payments 3 years or less down the road.
No way anything like this could have gotten by the democrats unless if had the low income and minority full blown socialist aspect and no way it coulda got past the republicans if it didn't loosen up lending for their fat cats.
Those of us who know what we can afford and didn't believe the inflated prices are fine.. that would beeee... 99% of us.
skycrock is.. as usual.. full of it but Toad took him apart this time.
lazs
-
Look.. the republicans and the democrats reached across the aisle on this one.. they showed a willing spirit to work together to bend us over and rape us.
lazs
The the only time they will work together, is when they can equally screw over the American public. See that's why I don't mind having a Congress that does nothing. I see some of you complain that the Democratic Congress is doing nothing, well I'm glad they aren't doing anything. I'd rather they do nothing than actually pass the typical bills that get passed.
In fact the perfect world, it would be one party has the presidency and the other party had the house and senate, thus insuring nothing gets done. While I don't think I could stand another Republican president for another four years, I'd like to see a Democrat president and then see the Republicans take control of the house and senate.
-
No crock-it... they should be busting butt working for us by lowering taxes and shrinking government. Once they have gotten it down to revolutionary size then they can sit around and do nothing.
lazs
-
No crock-it... they should be busting butt working for us by lowering taxes and shrinking government. Once they have gotten it down to revolutionary size then they can sit around and do nothing.
lazs
Sorry but neither side is going to do that, so I'd rather them do as little as possible because at least that way they can't screw anything up. Think about it, how often do they ever do anything that's good for you.
-
If anyone around here is a complete arse hat, it would be you. You post the purest BS and unsupported rumor and when called on it you either dance away or fall back on insulting people.
lie #1 Show me a quote of me insulting anyone in the O'club that didn't insult me first.
Your "I was only repeating a rumor, I didn't say it was true" is a fine example of your disingenuity in these political discussions.
Lie #2. I never said that.
Now, back to the topic.
During the housing boom(as illustrated by your chart), gas was at or around $1.20-$1.60 per gallon. May of 2007 gas was $3.10 per gallon, an increase of around 100%.
food prices
percent change from %increase
2002 to 2003
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. ....176.8 180.5 2.1
Food ............................. ............................. .........................176. 2 180.0 2.2
Food at home ............................. ............................. .............175.6 179.4 2.2
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 198.0 202.8 2.4
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ................... 162.1 169.3 4.4
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................ 168.1 167.9 -.1
Percent change from
2003 to 2004
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. ....180.5 186.6 3.4
Food ............................. ............................. ........................180.0 186.2 3.4
Food at home ............................. ............................. ............179.4 186.2 3.8
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 202.8 206.0 1.6
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ...................169.3 181.7 7.3
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................167.9 180.2 7.3
percent change from
2004 to 2005
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. ...186.6 191.2 2.5
Food ............................. ............................. ........................186.2 190.7 2.4
Food at home ............................. ............................. ............186.2 189.8 1.9
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 206.0 209.0 1.5
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ................... 181.7 184.7 1.7
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................ 180.2 182.4 1.2
Fruits and vegetables ............................. ............................. ... 232.7 241.4 3.7
percent change from
2005 to 2006
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. .... 191.2 195.7 2.4
Food ............................. ............................. .........................190. 7 195.2 2.4
Food at home ............................. ............................. .............189.8 193.1 1.7
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 209.0 212.8 1.8
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ................... 184.7 186.6 1.0
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................ 182.4 181.4 -.5
percent change from
2006 to 2007
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. ....195.7 203.300 3.9
Food ............................. ............................. .........................195. 2 202.916 4.0
Food at home ............................. ............................. .............193.1 201.245 4.2
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 212.8 222.107 4.4
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ................... 186.6 195.616 4.8
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................ 181.4 194.770 7.4
percentage change from
2002 to 2007
Food and beverages ............................. ............................. ....176.8 203.3 13
Food ............................. ............................. .........................176. 2 202.916 13
Food at home ............................. ............................. .............175.6 201.245 12
Cereals and bakery products ............................. .................... 198.0 222.107 12
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ............................. ................... 162.1 195.616 16
Dairy and related products ............................. ........................ 168.1 194.770 13
Gas up 100% and food up 13%, people spend 17% of their income on these two items. I believe that this increase put many, not all, but many people into forclosure.
"The gas price spike popped the housing bubble," according to a new report from the group CEOs for Cities, which adds, "Growth in housing prices was fueled by low and stable gas prices from 1990 through 2004."
In fairness, it is only right to state that this was in conjunction with several causes, one large part being people given loans that would stretch them to be able to pay back. So, why was it that this type of "obviously" stupid practice was able to flourish?
I am partial to this explanation though.......
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl56220.swf&video_id=Gl27UziYXjE&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/Gl27UziYXjE/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKXAuMnX2v4VSmgz28k8CN0&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en
:aok
-
Look.. the republicans and the democrats reached across the aisle on this one.. they showed a willing spirit to work together to bend us over and rape us.
The democrats wanted their socialist utopia paradise ideals to go forward so they wanted the loan companies to be forced to loan to low income and minorities.. the republicans wanted their lenders to be able to suck in even more money so they wanted them to have even more power to lend to normal people who couldn't afford it.
In the end.. it created a demand that was false and a building spree that was too much.. it created a bunch of sleazy "investors" who survived only so long as the bubble stayed alive and it gave homes to low income and minority folk who had no chance in hell of every making the payments 3 years or less down the road.
No way anything like this could have gotten by the democrats unless if had the low income and minority full blown socialist aspect and no way it coulda got past the republicans if it didn't loosen up lending for their fat cats.
Those of us who know what we can afford and didn't believe the inflated prices are fine.. that would beeee... 99% of us.
skycrock is.. as usual.. full of it but Toad took him apart this time.
lazs
This is pretty close to being spot on, except Toad tearing me apart, see my above post. Toad likes to be an arse hat and insult me personally, even though I have not insulted him personally. :aok
-
Look.. the republicans and the democrats reached across the aisle on this one.. they showed a willing spirit to work together to bend us over and rape us.
No, it was partisan all the way up to Clinton's signature Lazs, led by Phil Graham, who went on to become a lobbyist for the banking industry. And don't believe for one second the Democrats in office actually give a rat's arse about minorities, any more than getting their vote- they accept money from the same lobbyists the republicans do.
-
Suck it up, croquet. Your unqualified messiah has pile of lobbyist money in his campaign.. remember the promise he broke? He's also picked the Credit Card Company Tool that introduced the new credit card usury free pass for credit card companies as his vice. How convenient.
Your saints are are hardly saintly... but watching you and the resta the liberal lackeys tryin to spit-shine yer pet turds is informative... yah must love wallowing in the stuff. When are you and yer your turd polishers gonna quit shining up the dookies and start flushing 'em? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Rangel, Jefferson... start flushing your turds, dems.
They are NOT on watch, YOUR party IS, get used to facts. THIS is what Deregulation gets you, get used to that fact too. And Yes Bush is part to blame as he did NOTHING as usual until it's too late. Obviously if he's (and McCain) stupid enough to boast the economy is strong when it's crumbling he obviously won't do something about something he closes his eyes to. Regulation is what he SHOULD have done. But remember,.. even 8 months into the housing crisis Bush claimed the economy is strong. 1 day after McCain says the economy is strong, the folds,.... these are th emost out of touch people I have seen in office in decades.
This is NOT a Lefty, Liberal not Dem fault, get off it. Maybe stop talking politics since you know so little about it.
McCain has proven to be an idiot. He speaks how he knows nothing about economy, yet turns around and thinks he knows everything about economy. The man is sickishly whacked, as much as Bush is.
And BTW,... the people McCain says he's fighting against, those who messed up the economy,.. that's funny since he IS one of those people himself, he's part of that board,... he was on the board that over seeing the economy remember? What, he's going to fight himself now,.. that's smart. Can't beleive the man has a single vote,.. but then the party-liners will give him that if his brain fell out on the floor.
Sheeeesh, I wasn't going to say anything but you people get down right pathetic ridiculous.
-
not even close. Would you like to try again?
G R E E D
Unregulated greed. :)
-
They are NOT on watch, YOUR party IS, get used to facts. THIS is what Deregulation gets you, get used to that fact too. And Yes Bush is part to blame as he did NOTHING as usual until it's too late. Obviously if he's (and McCain) stupid enough to boast the economy is strong when it's crumbling he obviously won't do something about something he closes his eyes to. Regulation is what he SHOULD have done. But remember,.. even 8 months into the housing crisis Bush claimed the economy is strong. 1 day after McCain says the economy is strong, the folds,.... these are th emost out of touch people I have seen in office in decades.
This is NOT a Lefty, Liberal not Dem fault, get off it. Maybe stop talking politics since you know so little about it.
McCain has proven to be an idiot. He speaks how he knows nothing about economy, yet turns around and thinks he knows everything about economy. The man is sickishly whacked, as much as Bush is.
And BTW,... the people McCain says he's fighting against, those who messed up the economy,.. that's funny since he IS one of those people himself, he's part of that board,... he was on the board that over seeing the economy remember? What, he's going to fight himself now,.. that's smart. Can't beleive the man has a single vote,.. but then the party-liners will give him that if his brain fell out on the floor.
Sheeeesh, I wasn't going to say anything but you people get down right pathetic ridiculous.
The rest of the economy is in good shape...the banks are in trouble because of stupid, greed driven mistakes.
Read this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt)
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
That was from September 1999!
In the words of Obama's pastor...."the chickens have come home to roost".
-
The rest of the economy is in good shape...the banks are in trouble because of stupid, greed driven mistakes.
Read this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt)
That was from September 1999!
In the words of Obama's pastor...."the chickens have come home to roost".
You don't know what your talking about either.
-
You don't know what your talking about either.
Oh really? Enlighten me, oh wise one.
Did you read the article?
-
Oh really? Enlighten me, oh wise one.
Did you read the article?
You enlighten me first, I've already done my part if enlightening on many levels. Why don't you take your turn?
Inspire me. :)
-
Then you are in fact a freakin useless tool. Anybody that thinks dem's are protecting individual rights needs a brain transplant.
Anyone who think the rep party dind't screw the pooch for 8 years is brain dead.
-
You enlighten me first, I've already done my part if enlightening on many levels. Why don't you take your turn?
Inspire me. :)
I posted the article from 1999....apparently you cannot read or just don't want to be bothered with facts.
You've enlightened us to nothing....except the fact that YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about
-
Yeah, someone put a gun to coutrywide's head and forced them to make bad loans. No one forces anyone to make a loan, that's a load of BS. But they might make those loans if they know they will get bailed out.
I agree with the dems in the fact that if they are going to bail out people on wall street, they should bail out people on main street. They want all this money for the guys making millions, but don't want to do anything for the poor shmoes losing their homes.
I wonder if Bush is still bragging about the fact that more people own their own homes than ever before? All they owned was a bad loan, but it sounded good at the time eh?
-
I agree with the dems in the fact that if they are going to bail out people on wall street, they should bail out people on main street. They want all this money for the guys making millions, but don't want to do anything for the poor shmoes losing their homes.
Some of the "guys making millions" are/were members of Congress: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSEtGBXG0C0s&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSEtGBXG0C0s&refer=worldwide)
-
Year CPI - Inflation Rate*
2008 5.0%
2007 2.8%
2006 3.2%
2005 3.4%
2004 2.7%
2003 2.3%
2002 1.6%
2001 2.8%
2000 3.4%
1999 2.2%
Again, there's your annual inflation rate which includes gas and food.
If you can't manage to pay your mortgage when inflation is essentially less than or equal to 3% you should NEVER have been given a loan.
As I pointed out, these loans were iffy at best in a perfect world for the borrower. These people couldn't make a downpayment so they sure as hell were unprepared for a transmission failure in their auto, the furnace in their old cheap homing failing or any of the other normal affairs of everyday life.
Dress it up anyway you like, they were unable to afford these homes from the get-go when the normal ups and downs of life are factored in.
As far as the rumor mongering, that was Crockett. I find it very easy to confuse you two Palinophobes. I apologize for confusing you with Crockett and posting that bit about the rumors.
-
LOL Toad... 'Palinophobes'.. destined to become a lexicon of liberal whining.
:aok
-
I know it was COMMON for 125% of the cost of the house to be loaned out... First the real estate was priced at about double its' actual VALUE. That means people who were risks anyway were given loans for 250% of true value for the property. Not that many years ago, when real estate and homes were priced closer in line with actual value, it usually required the person who wanted to borrow money to buy a home to have 10% to 20% and decent credit to even hope to get a mortgage.
The impulsive buying on the real estate market (buying simply because 'i am willing to pay anything to get in that home' not based on real value) caused the market to have an artificial bubble... It is time to let that bubble pop... if your poor judgment led you to sign a mortgage that you cannot afford or you used your mortgage like an ATM card - IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!.... if your poor judgment led you to write an excessive loan on over-priced property to a person that was high risk - IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!
I am livid enough over this bailout stupidity to tar and feather those responsible!
-
Again, there's your annual inflation rate which includes gas and food.
I spoke about the cost of fuel and food, you keep giving me stats that include, but do not specify how much those two rose. Nice dodge, fuel and food is up 100% and 13% respectively since 2002. Those two played an integral part in the housing collapse. Tool...errrr Toad<------ownt! :aok
-
I spoke about the cost of fuel and food, you keep giving me stats that include, but do not specify how much those two rose. Nice dodge, fuel and food is up 100% and 13% respectively since 2002. Those two played an integral part in the housing collapse. Tool...errrr Toad<------ownt! :aok
The only reason that those two played and integral part was the fact that these people were way beyond their means. Like Toad pointed out...something breaks or goes up in price and they are screwed.
-
I know it was COMMON for 125% of the cost of the house to be loaned out... First the real estate was priced at about double its' actual VALUE. That means people who were risks anyway were given loans for 250% of true value for the property. Not that many years ago, when real estate and homes were priced closer in line with actual value, it usually required the person who wanted to borrow money to buy a home to have 10% to 20% and decent credit to even hope to get a mortgage.
The impulsive buying on the real estate market (buying simply because 'i am willing to pay anything to get in that home' not based on real value) caused the market to have an artificial bubble... It is time to let that bubble pop... if your poor judgment led you to sign a mortgage that you cannot afford or you used your mortgage like an ATM card - IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!.... if your poor judgment led you to write an excessive loan on over-priced property to a person that was high risk - IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!
I am livid enough over this bailout stupidity to tar and feather those responsible!
There are other, more appropriate ways of dissuading them from repeating the mistakes.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n216/cbrayton/01079204100.jpg)
-
The only reason that those two played and integral part was the fact that these people were way beyond their means. Like Toad pointed out...something breaks or goes up in price and they are screwed.
I agree, I never said they were good loans, quite the contrary, but also, many would still be in there houses without the fuel and food spikes. I believe in home ownership, but not all can afford homes, and some just barely hang in there. :aok
-
Remember how 1929 happened and why all of the restrictions were put in place to not allow speculation with bad paper in the stock market by separating banking from insurance from securities? Making them 3 separate industries with separate regulation?
Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a bi-partisan effort because the Senate Banking committee is bi-partizan and you cannot get any kind of finance related bill through the senate without the committees say so. By allowing banks to own insurance and securities companies, you can issue bad loans, insure them and float the investment structure through your securities holdings. Yep one stop shopping fedraly insured.......
OH, don't forget Alan Greenspan dropping the Fed rate to help get minorities and ilegals into homes with the subsiquent abuse of the rate drops, easy money and housing speculation bubble. I think Greenspan is a Democrat\Liberal and his crystal ball got clouded by his personal image of utopia.<---Law of Unintended Consiquences.
The full 1999 committee helped the House draft their version to address what both parties wanted. NOT the republicans rammed it down the poor defencless democrat\liberals throats. Every gun toating republican, loony elite Liberal, and dissacociated angry libertarian on this board got screwed equaly by the members of the 1999 Senate Banking committee and Bill Clinton. Pure American non-partizan GREED and subsiquent bi-partizan Banking committees did the rest........Look at all those cable TV turn your house for profit shows from 2001-2005 that sprang up.
We were all asleep at the wheel and I thought all the Liberal\Progessives on this board were political elite geniuses who know everything there is to know about all U.S. politics.........
FULL BANKING COMMITTEE TO SERVE ON CONFERENCE
FOR S. 900, FINANCIAL SERVICES MODERNIZATION
The U.S. Senate has approved the appointment of all 20 members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to the conference on S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act.
Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, made the recommendation to the Senate Majority Leader that the full committee be appointed to the conference.
"Congress has been working for 20 years to remove the Depression-era barriers that separate banking, insurance and securities," Gramm said. "And for the first time in 20 years, both houses of Congress have passed bills to do that.
"Members of the Banking Committee had a key role in shaping this legislation, and their expertise will be needed as we convert it into law," Gramm said. "It is a historic bill that has potential for benefiting all of our constituents, from Texas to South Dakota and from New York to Idaho."
In addition to Gramm, the Republican members of the Banking Committee are Richard Shelby of Alabama, Connie Mack of Florida, Robert Bennett of Utah, Rod Grams of Minnesota, Wayne Allard of Colorado, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
The ranking member of the Banking Committee is Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. The other Democrat members are Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Richard Bryan of Nevada, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Chuck Schumer of New York, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and John Edwards of North Carolina.
The members of the Senate Banking Committee will work with House members to combine the two versions of S. 900. The Senate Banking Committee approved its version March 4, and it was passed by the full Senate May 6. The House approved H.R. 10 on July 1, and set the stage for conference on July 20 by substituting its language in S. 900 and sending the bill to the Senate.
-
I spoke about the cost of fuel and food, you keep giving me stats that include, but do not specify how much those two rose. Nice dodge, fuel and food is up 100% and 13% respectively since 2002. Those two played an integral part in the housing collapse. Tool...errrr Toad<------ownt! :aok
<Sigh>
I weep for your students.
How about Consumer Price Index?
"A Consumer Price Index of 158 indicates 58% inflation since 1982, the commonly quoted inflation rate of say 3% is actually the change in the Consumer Price Index from a year earlier. By looking at the change in the index we can see that what cost an average of 9.9 cents in 1913 would cost us about $1.82 in 2003. "
So ALL GOODS that people commonly rose by roughly 3% a year for the years you single out. Actually it probably averaged a little less than 3%. ALL GOODS... everything they needed to buy.... ALL GOODS.
You continue to ignore the basic problem. People with no reserves, no capital were put into mortgages with nothing down, paying interest only on adjustable loans. The assumption was made by all parties involved that either nothing would change in the economy (an incredible flight of fancy easily disproved by a quick look at historical record) or that any changes in the economy would better enable these people to pay(another incredible flight of fancy easily disproved by a quick look at historical record).
The whole program was a pipe dream. An uptick in interest rates and these people were on the streets. An uptick in consumer prices of < 3% and these people were on the street. A major paycut at work (common in this time period) and these people were on the street. A blown engine or transmission in their auto and these people were on the street.
This is the really, really simple explanation for you. These people could not afford these houses. Period. They could not qualify under ANY normal mortgage program. A special program was created for them and it was a flawed creation.
Do you really think it was a realistic expectation to count on the CPI continuing to decline for 30 years until the mortgage was paid off....ooops... these mortgages would NEVER be paid off; they were interest only.
Ya get it yet? The people would NEVER have owned those houses. NEVER. They were not paying any principal.
As soon as the slightest downturn in the economy occurred they were SOL and on the street and they HAD NO EQUITY because..... they WERE NOT PAYING ANY PRINCIPAL.
The poor slobs were bent over the barrel and hosed and all the while they smiled because hey..they owned a house.
They were renting houses by paying interest only. It was only a matter of time and the clock started ticking the moment the first deal was done.
I can't help you any more than this. Ponder on it; you'll eventually figure out the scam.
-
So ALL GOODS that people commonly rose by roughly 3% a year ALL GOODS...
except for food and fuel, which has risen much higher. :aok
you'll eventually figure out the scam.
I know the scam: http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl56220.swf&video_id=Gl27UziYXjE&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/Gl27UziYXjE/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKXAuMnX2v4VSmgz28k8CN0&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en
-
Toad,
When the controls put in place after 1929 were repeald in 1999, it took us less than 8 years to pull a 1929 style fiasco again. The 1929 fiasco was enabled by the same players, congress and big business and robber barons. It took roughly the same amount of time in the 1920's brought along by the roaring 20's financial bubble to blow up in 1929.
Human nature caused both fiascos. People at all levels of income took part in the con because it was a get rich scheme of immense proportions. Just like Netscape going IPO in the 90's made everyone think they could get rich quick with tech, turning homes, mandated federal loans and easy money made everyone think they could get rich in the 2000's. The rest of the world thought so and either invested in the U.S. or mirrored the same housing scams in europe.
The federal controls on banking, insurance and securities protected us from the 1930's untill 1999. Then one bank robberbaron in the 90's wanted to build the largest and most diversified bank in america\world via the 1998 Citicorp/Travelers merger. By the old law protecting us for 60 years the merger was ilegal. So guess what. We got deregulation and a 1929 style fiasco. And the fiasco even screwed Citicorp/Travelers in the end who the deregulation was implimented for to create one of the largest banks in the world.......
Human beings are the Perfict Law of Unintended Consiquences!
-
except for food and fuel, which has risen much higher. :aok
And other goods went down in price thus making an average inflation of ~ 3%. One item goes up, another goes down; I'm sure you follow this.
-
skycrock.. the reason toad ripped into you was because your statement was that of a fool.. gas and food did not cause anyone who could afford a house to begin with to lose said home.. period.. it is stupid to even think it.
buster.. The one thing wrong with the deregulation causing meltdown theory is that.. many of the institutions that are doing well are the least regulated and many that are failing are heavily regulated like fannie and freddie...
The other wild card is that if you force companies to make bad loans to low income and minorities.. if you add socialism to the mix.. it opens floodgates for the shysters to pour in. Everyone wants to get in on the boom created by socialism.
In the end.. people who should not have gotten loans got em.. the credit companies should have known better but.. backed and forced by big government.. they thought they could get away with it.... Long enough to get rich anyway.. or..a few more years.
I don't think anyone in the finanacial market didn't realize there was an artificial bubble... these bailouts will just encourage them to do it again 20 years down the road.
lazs
-
James J. Cramer wrote this (Mad Money guy). Pretty decent view of how the whole mess happened. Good read, a bit long. It may help Skyrock.. but maybe not.
The Great Shakeout
http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/50520/
...But then the chickens began coming home. The Fed started what proved to be an inexorable rise in interest rates, and the housing market cooled. The borrowers, legions of whom had used adjustable-rate mortgages, began defaulting at record rates. Even though only a small percentage of homeowners actually defaulted when all was said and done, those defaults set off alarm bells that led the major bond-rating agencies to downgrade the mortgage-based bonds. That caused a kind of mortgage-bond reflux. In essence, the billions in mortgage-backed loans were called all the way back up the borrowing chain, and no one had the cash to cover them because they were too heavily leveraged. It was that chain reaction that effectively caused Bear, then Lehman and Merrill, to succumb or merge. AIG, the insurer of much of this kind of paper, could no longer guarantee its worth, either.....
.......If you want to be in the incredibly lucrative mortgage game going forward, you are going to have to mimic the Hudson Cities of the world—banks that know their customers and demand down payments and don’t risk giving loans to those who could turn out to be deadbeats. That’s right, what we’re seeing is a return to the era of good, clean, old-fashioned banking, an era in which the winners will be those banks that look just like the Bailey Bros. Building & Loan, or at least have an old-school deposit component at their core. Their owners and operators may not make as much money as the Potters once did, but at the end of the day they get to keep their jobs. And they’re still the richest men in town.
-
And other goods went down in price thus making an average inflation of ~ 3%. One item goes up, another goes down; I'm sure you follow this.
When you are on the edge, you buy what keeps the family going, food to eat, fuel to go to work. In other words, not all items on the cpi are needed items, they are items factored in that most americans use monthly, yet if one is having a go of it, items dwindle to basic neccesities. When food and fuel spiked, so did housing forclosures. Check it out, I have provided you with the numbers, they match.
Toad, check your PM's.
-
When you are on the edge, you buy what keeps the family going, food to eat, fuel to go to work. In other words, not all items on the cpi are needed items, they are items factored in that most americans use monthly, yet if one is having a go of it, items dwindle to basic neccesities. When food and fuel spiked, so did housing forclosures. Check it out, I have provided you with the numbers, they match.
Toad, check your PM's.
They were on the edge because of stupidity.
The argument that food and fuel prices went up and THAT casued the foreclosures to happen is missing the point.
-
skycrock.. the reason toad ripped into you was because your statement was that of a fool.. gas and food did not cause anyone who could afford a house to begin with to lose said home.. period.. it is stupid to even think it.
lazs
Stupid for you to say that. You act like their aren't home owners who are just making ends meet. :rolleyes:
-
IF you bought a home, had no reserve capital, and further, could barely make the payments when you bought it, then you bought more home than you could afford. It's that simple. The problem is, they don't teach economics anymore, not in school, and not at home. People are taught from childhood that borrowing is good, and smart, therefore borrowing more is better and smarter, and borrowing more than you can afford is great, and brilliant.
The people losing their homes, for the most part, have ARM payments, or even regular mortgage payments, that exceed HALF what they make in a month! And mortgage brokers were not just encouraged, but damned near required, to offer them that mortgage.
ANYTHING causes people like that to lose their home to foreclosure. What would be a minor problem to a family with a house payment of 20%-25% of their monthly income, is an unsurvivable disaster to a family with a house payment of 50%-70% of their monthly income. Even people with a house payment of 30%-40% of their monthly income are flirting with disaster. They're already barely keeping an older vehicle running, they are barely keeping their utilities paid, and if they got their hours at work cut, something would have to give. If their car was wrecked, and it was their fault, they're screwed, because they probably couldn't get coverage on their older car, and even if they could, they couldn't afford it. Even if it only had a major mechanical failure, they'd be screwed. They'd have to try to borrow the money to repair or replace it, and they have no down payment for the loan, nothing to secure it, and even if they did, they can't make the payments.
-
IF you bought a home, had no reserve capital, and further, could barely make the payments when you bought it, then you bought more home than you could afford. It's that simple. The problem is, they don't teach economics anymore, not in school, and not at home. People are taught from childhood that borrowing is good, and smart, therefore borrowing more is better and smarter, and borrowing more than you can afford is great, and brilliant.
The people losing their homes, for the most part, have ARM payments, or even regular mortgage payments, that exceed HALF what they make in a month! And mortgage brokers were not just encouraged, but damned near required, to offer them that mortgage.
ANYTHING causes people like that to lose their home to foreclosure. What would be a minor problem to a family with a house payment of 20%-25% of their monthly income, is an unsurvivable disaster to a family with a house payment of 50%-70% of their monthly income. Even people with a house payment of 30%-40% of their monthly income are flirting with disaster. They're already barely keeping an older vehicle running, they are barely keeping their utilities paid, and if they got their hours at work cut, something would have to give. If their car was wrecked, and it was their fault, they're screwed, because they probably couldn't get coverage on their older car, and even if they could, they couldn't afford it. Even if it only had a major mechanical failure, they'd be screwed. They'd have to try to borrow the money to repair or replace it, and they have no down payment for the loan, nothing to secure it, and even if they did, they can't make the payments.
By giving these loans to anyone, they drove up the value of homes. It got to the point where alot of people who were waiting it out started getting scared they would be priced out of ever buying a home, so they jumped in too.
The loan is bad, letting them put no money down was far worse. If you don't put 30k down on your home, what is the incentive to stick with the loan? If you put nothing down you lose nothing walking away from the loan. What made it worse was some even borrowed more when they got equity on the home, put the money in their pocket, then walked away.
Did some scam? Yeah sure, but most were doing what they had to do to put their family in a home. It fed on itself, if the loans were not written, the prices would not have gone through the roof, and people would not have had to borrow so much to buy a home.
They wrote out these loans like they knew they were going to be bailed out, but most would say I am wearing a tinfoil hat.
The good news is that if you didn't blink, there are some good deals to be had out there.
-
No, most were not "doing what they can to put their family in a home". They were buying absurdly expensive homes they did not need and could not afford, with mortgages they could not pay. They were not forced to buy a home they could not afford. They CHOSE to buy a home they could not afford.
The market where I live is a PRIME example of this. It is one of, if not the fastest growing area in the southeast, if not the country. There were PLENTY of $100K homes available, and idiots making $50K a year were buying $250K and $350K homes because they could get a mortgage written. Then their over time got cut. And they had a car or two leased. The people who were making $50K a year and buying $100K homes made it just fine. The idiots making $50K a year who bought $200K and up homes weren't. They both had the same jobs, their kids went to the same schools. At least until the idiots defaulted. And many STILL haven't learned.
We bought a $70K home, because we made $50K. And even then, when my wife had cancer, then the insurance company and the medical offices disagreed, we got in a tight spot. We made it okay. We could have made it okay if we had a $100K house, maybe even $125K. But we could not have saved a $150K or up mortgage with a high rate. We were not stupid. We have a decent home in a decent area, and not only does my son go to a decent school, but we can afford to help my daughter go to law school. Not much, but enough to get her going. And we're not in a blind panic every time anything goes wrong. We're upgrading the house as we can. We'll soon be in decent shape to refinance to get our rate down. We'll take a little cash out to improve the place more, and my wife wants me to have some extra cash because I made some earlier sacrifices she feels I should be rewarded for. In five years, when my son has been out of school for a year, we'll be in GREAT shape, and our home will possibly be worth $180K to $220K, depending on the market and how smart I am in upgrading and updating. This all worked because we DID NOT feel entitled to the home we wanted, but rather we bought the home we could afford.
-
It's time to drop the pretense that these loans would have been fine if only gas and food didn't increase in price. That theory flies in the face of economic history.
These loans would never have been fine. Read the Cramer article.
There are plenty of loans out there doing just fine. Read the Cramer article.
Unfortunately, those loans are not the 'no down payment, interest only, adjustable rate' loans that people that really couldn't afford a home used to buy a home they could not possibly afford.
There needs to be acceptance of the idea that some families simply don't make enough money to buy their own homes. That is the bottom line.
-
No, most were not "doing what they can to put their family in a home". They were buying absurdly expensive homes they did not need and could not afford, with mortgages they could not pay. They were not forced to buy a home they could not afford. They CHOSE to buy a home they could not afford.
The market where I live is a PRIME example of this. It is one of, if not the fastest growing area in the southeast, if not the country. There were PLENTY of $100K homes available, and idiots making $50K a year were buying $250K and $350K homes because they could get a mortgage written. Then their over time got cut. And they had a car or two leased. The people who were making $50K a year and buying $100K homes made it just fine. The idiots making $50K a year who bought $200K and up homes weren't. They both had the same jobs, their kids went to the same schools. At least until the idiots defaulted. And many STILL haven't learned.
We bought a $70K home, because we made $50K. And even then, when my wife had cancer, then the insurance company and the medical offices disagreed, we got in a tight spot. We made it okay. We could have made it okay if we had a $100K house, maybe even $125K. But we could not have saved a $150K or up mortgage with a high rate. We were not stupid. We have a decent home in a decent area, and not only does my son go to a decent school, but we can afford to help my daughter go to law school. Not much, but enough to get her going. And we're not in a blind panic every time anything goes wrong. We're upgrading the house as we can. We'll soon be in decent shape to refinance to get our rate down. We'll take a little cash out to improve the place more, and my wife wants me to have some extra cash because I made some earlier sacrifices she feels I should be rewarded for. In five years, when my son has been out of school for a year, we'll be in GREAT shape, and our home will possibly be worth $180K to $220K, depending on the market and how smart I am in upgrading and updating. This all worked because we DID NOT feel entitled to the home we wanted, but rather we bought the home we could afford.
Well said! :aok
-
But if you believe the tripe and drivel served up by idiots, EVERY job should support a family, and therefor EVERY family can afford a nice home in the 'burbs. :rolleyes:
I'm all for people having good jobs, making a decent living, and their families having decent homes. The family is the foundation upon which everything else is built. But common sense MUST prevail, as society and the economy can not survive without it.
-
But if you believe the tripe and drivel served up by idiots, EVERY job should support a family, and therefor EVERY family can afford a nice home in the 'burbs. :rolleyes:
I'm all for people having good jobs, making a decent living, and their families having decent homes. The family is the foundation upon which everything else is built. But common sense MUST prevail, as society and the economy can not survive without it.
I also bought my home within my means. My mortgage is 2x-4x lower than any of mine or my wifes freinds in our area because we applyed for what we could afford and be out of work 1 year with $10k down.
When you look into the 1999 Bank Modernisation act, you find the seeds for the creative loans via the reinforced Community Reinvestment Act. Through that vehicle congress forced banks to give creative loans to just about anyone or not be able to do business within major population centers all over the U.S. The act was a federal mandate to get minorities into homes by regulating how and where banks could do business if they didn't pay this bribe to community organizers.
I suspect no one in the banking industry realy expected most of the loans to get paid back, but the language of the bill makes it look like Uncle Sam would ultimently make good. If it were only minorities defaulting at expected yearly rates, it never would have gotten above 2% of the total defaulted home loans in the U.S. at any given time. I worked for Bank of America until 2006 when they began down sizing anyone they could to tighten their asset exposure. My BofA portfolio still looks good because of that action.
The MSM media did not help by trying to create a 1929 CRASH to build up ratings and get the BamaMessiah in the white house. The Media had the choice to help America maintaine confidence and ride this one out! Instead they chose to exaserbate a sad controlable situation into a full blown Katrina melt down for the Obamanator and to prove Bush was a Baaadddd Maaannnn.
-
skycrock... your drivel is becoming a parody of even... your drivel.
Your crock tears and shameless and evil socialism would make marx blush. If people can't afford a house because they can't give up a few hostess twinkies a week or they can't figure out how to cut down on most of the useless trips they drive around for... if those few bucks put them out of a home by your reconning then.. they are even dumber than you are or... think we are.
lazs
-
skycrock... your drivel is becoming a parody of even... your drivel.
Your crock tears and shameless and evil socialism would make marx blush. If people can't afford a house because they can't give up a few hostess twinkies a week or they can't figure out how to cut down on most of the useless trips they drive around for... if those few bucks put them out of a home by your reconning then.. they are even dumber than you are or... think we are.
lazs
blah blah blah, go fret over your ex some more boy, come back and talk when you have something to say! :rolleyes:
-
My wife and I got got an interest only mortgage for our home (it's our first).
We live in D.C. and when we bought the bubble looked like it would never burst... and it seemed like the right thing to do.
We both have masters degrees, both have steady jobs... and we can afford our mortgage just fine. The mortgage lender would have given us more than what we got, but we didn't want to risk it.
As it is, our home is worth 70K less than what we paid for it... but thankfully we don't have a balloon payment we need to worry about (yay good credit) so we're just gonna ride it out.
I can't help but think we were who this type of loan were originally intended for... we're a good risk. We make a nice living but by the nature of where we live we couldn't afford a place in a safe neighborhood without this type of loan. Also, we didn't use this to re-fi or buy a 2nd or 3rd home like many folks...
IMHO it's sad to see that this type of program was abused to the point that it was... and that we're in the state that we're in now because of it (and the many other contributing factors).
-
blah blah blah, go fret over your ex some more boy, come back and talk when you have something to say! :rolleyes:
Is it just me, or is SkyRock getting more personal with his posts?
Are these hopeless posts of desperation?
Those of a defeated individual that just doesn't realize he's defeated?
-
No his style of MA and DA combat won't translate in here and I suspect he is not willing to invest the time on the learning curve like he did for the cartoon airplane game. The shane style of verbal abuse in this arena is not amusing and lacks credibility to the non greifer discussion members. At one point I thought he had loaned his ID to Arlo......
-
Is it just me, or is SkyRock getting more personal with his posts?
Are these hopeless posts of desperation?
Those of a defeated individual that just doesn't realize he's defeated?
nope, he's still just laying out stinky bait for a lot of conservatives to get their panties in a wad over. I think he's copied lazs, bodhi, and hangs playbook, it appears to be working.
-
dynamite... interest only is a bad way to go but.. if you think that your situation will improve in a few years and are willing to take that chance.. it is a doable thing..
I would not call what you did all that risky to the loan company except... you couldn't afford it.. not really..
What if you had got a divorce? what if one had gotten injured?
The way an American should buy a home.. and the loan companies loan.. is that a certain amount be needed for a down payment. real money that was saved. There would be no bubble that caused your home to be worth 70k less than you paid for it if everyone had done that in the first place.
The thing is.. everyone does not deserve a home.. we should not raise the minimum wage so that every person working at walmart can raise a family of three and have unlimited health care and buy a home.
That is just the reality of it.
My first home was the cheapest house for sale in a city of 50k I put one third down and the total cost per month was one third of my salary.. not mine and my wifes.. mine.. after any other debts.
My next house was better as I had equity and a better job.. next was better yet. Now... first time buyers have to have homes that are as good as middle aged couples can afford.
lazs
-
dynamite, better check your mortgage, i think there is a balloon in a interest only loan when you have to start paying on the principle but it is far down the road, i could be mistaken but you should check just in case.
-
Oh there's a balloon... but it's years down the road (like 99).
We're paying extra on our mortgage which is being applied to the principle... and we've been able to save at the same time. Right now we've got a multi-month cushion (6 i believe), and we both could cover the mortgage by ourselves if the other lost their job or, god forbid was hurt. My lord we would be house poor... but we could make it.
Nevertheless... watching this bubble break has certainly made my back side pucker. I'm a 30 year fixed guy from now on :O ;) :D
-
Is it just me, or is SkyRock getting more personal with his posts?
DOnzo, I dont care for your politics at all, but with all due respect, I have been attacked on a personal level to no end. If you really want to take my last post to lazs as though I am the one who is getting personal, then by all means have at it. He has talked about my children, my profession, and my ability to parent, can't really get more personal than that. :aok
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/94703325_6f78648f3a.jpg?v=0)
-
And so continues the Great Troll Wars of '08.
-
And so continues the Great Troll Wars of '08.
It's tired.
And I agree. Lazs always goes personal first. He starts by messing up your handle, calling me dos equality - or something sarcastic. When the facts really punt all his theories to hell, as this week has shown, they post a snarky picture or graphic, being a tacit admission that their arguments have lost.
-
dos equality.. I am having trouble following your post.. you mix "lazs" and "they" interchangeably or at least in a confused manner. Also.. I don't post graphics. I have linked to charts and graphs from time to time tho.
As far as asserting the my/they theories have been somehow "punted to hell".. I see no evidence of that at all.
as for skycrock.. I am not sure what I have said about his children.. I don't even know them.. I have said things about his profession.. hell.. he is a teacher.. the highest paid part time worker there is.. His ability to parent? I have no idea. I doubt he abuses them or even knows they exist for that matter what with his busy schedule and all.
Heck.. you want to know what people think of you skycrock. just go back over to the site you ran away from.
lazs
-
<insert picture of troll here>
actually, it should be a picture of a troll saying "seriously, he picked on me fiiiiiiiiiiirst!!!!!"
-
skycrock.. I am not sure what I have said about his children I doubt he abuses them or even knows they exist
Heck.. you want to know what people think of you skycrock. just go back over to the site you ran away from.
what site? I guess you're telling yet another lie, because I have never run from any site. Besides, I don't have time for another site, :lol !
Everything you say about me is a lie, unfortunately, the things I say about you are true. You are a small minded (prolly small weenied) hateful racist who wants to blame everyone for your hatred, when in fact, it is just you, all hate and no class. I believe you to be a coward with many guns(to protect you, :rofl) and a small man devoid of most things associated with humanity. Forget your politics, some of it is not bad, but as far as a human, u fail miserably and completely. :aok
-
ya know, I remember listening to a late night radio talk show about 5-6yrs ago (many here know it...some dont like it-coast 2 coast)
regardless I remember a realistate investor talking about the "ousing.realistate bubble and how it will soon burst and when it does it will bring down alot of other institutions.
Guess my point is that there were people that KNEW this was comming...for a long time. Nobody listened. It does matter who is at fault and they should be held accountable for it but, more importantly is how do we get out of it and how do we protect ourselves (individually) from the impact of all this.
I bought a 135k house and closed may 30th. I based the loan solely on my income and left my wife's off. The current state of the economy tho still has my stress level way higher than I like it (the wife dont like my stress neither!)
-
ya know, I remember listening to a late night radio talk show about 5-6yrs ago (many here know it...some dont like it-coast 2 coast)
regardless I remember a realistate investor talking about the "ousing.realistate bubble and how it will soon burst and when it does it will bring down alot of other institutions.
Guess my point is that there were people that KNEW this was comming...for a long time. Nobody listened. It does matter who is at fault and they should be held accountable for it but, more importantly is how do we get out of it and how do we protect ourselves (individually) from the impact of all this.
I bought a 135k house and closed may 30th. I based the loan solely on my income and left my wife's off. The current state of the economy tho still has my stress level way higher than I like it (the wife dont like my stress neither!)
5-6 years ago? Read the article in this post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247607.msg3039779.html#msg3039779 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247607.msg3039779.html#msg3039779))....it was from 1999 and it talks about exactly what is happening now.
Bad situation but many saw it coming...I guess greed won out.
-
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."
-- The 2008 Republican Party Platform, published just before the convention.
-
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."
-- The 2008 Republican Party Platform, published just before the convention.
:rofl republicans....the new democrats! :rofl
-
DOnzo, I dont care for your politics at all, but with all due respect, I have been attacked on a personal level to no end. If you really want to take my last post to lazs as though I am the one who is getting personal, then by all means have at it. He has talked about my children, my professions, and my ability to parent, can't really get more personal than that. :aok
Fixed
-
Obama wins election. All the foreclosed homes get eaten up by the Government at tax payers expence.All said houses go to section 8 housing.Liberals cheer.Jimmy Carter craps his pants.Billy Boy thinks now if we can just get em all free health care too. :rolleyes:
-
James J. Cramer wrote this (Mad Money guy). Pretty decent view of how the whole mess happened. Good read, a bit long. It may help Skyrock.. but maybe not.
The Great Shakeout
http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/50520/
Heeeeeyyyy... What the hell is this flaming liberal osamabamammaamma commie on about!!!???
"How was all of this allowed to happen? Where were the regulators, the agencies that rate these bonds, the early warnings to the investors that maybe this paper was more dangerous than the brokerages let on? First, not only was there no regulation to speak of at any level—federal, state, or local—but the much-worshipped Alan Greenspan and current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke actually encouraged this kind of securitization even as they raised rates ever higher, seventeen times, to stop the very house-price appreciation these securities depended on to be viable. They shared the Republican ideology that promoted homeownership for everyone—including those who couldn’t afford it—and minimal market regulation."
I though the evil dummacommiedorks forced those poor banks to make those almost comically profitable loans to Lazs' favorite poor violent minorities?
-
Urchin, Cramer doesn't get every thing right. In fact, last time I looked he was only correct on his stock picks 47% of the time.
Read Bustr's post about the beginning of bad loans to people that couldn't possibly afford them. See which party was pushing the idea.
Look here to start: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247905.msg3043142.html#new
A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
So, Barney, how are Fred and Fannie doing anyway?
-
From the Wall Street Journal which many on both sides respects.....Enter stage lefty...Barny Frank and our 2008 financial CRASH.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Fannie Mae's Patron Saint
Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen.
There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.
At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.
In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.
Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.
Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."
In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed. Yes, they're certainly "over it" on the Street now that Uncle Sam is guaranteeing their Fannie paper, and even Fannie's subordinated debt.
By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. "What blocked it [reform] last year," Mr. Frank said then, "was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." What really blocked it was Mr. Frank's insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings.
In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.
And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.
But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests.
This is also why Mr. Frank won't tolerate cutting the companies' MBS portfolios. He knows those portfolios (bought with debt borrowed at taxpayer-subsidized rates) were a main source of Fannie's profits before the housing crash, and he figures that once this crisis passes they can do it again. And this time, his fund will get part of the loot.
* * *
Mr. Frank has had many accomplices from both parties in his protection of Fan and Fred. But he was and is among the most vociferous and powerful. In any other area of American life, this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington, he's hailed as a sage whose history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion
-
Most of the damage was done by Clinton, Janet Reno and Barny Frank in the 90's. Clinton ordered the Community Reinvestment Act inforced. Reno made examples of banks that questioned it and Barny Frank chaired the committee that controled Fanni and Freddi and would not allow any legislation to thighten over sight on the two institutions. He helped force them to more creatively underwrite bad loans to undeserving minorities right up to the present.
S.900 was bipartisan and Clinton got a strengthening of the Community Reinvestment act in 1999 which helped speed up the bad lending practices. The deregulation of the banking industry was not able to protect anyone from using the bad fanni and freddi mortgage fund and investment devices for business as usual. The deregulation was modeled on how the EU banking practices had been running for quit some time partly to help american banks to stop being mired in litigation for almost every transaction between themselves or EU banks. Everyone bought the investment devices in the US and abroad because they had always been sound reliable instraments to use as secure trading devices.
Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and Barny Frank screwed america. A philanderer, a lesbian and a Gay horndog bent the US over and used sand.
So grow up, actually read these bills in their entireity and see when the seed was sown and by whom.
-
skycrock.. there you go again.. try to say something that I can't disprove so easily.. you did indeed run from another site.. the flamewarriors one.. unless someone is just using your handle and doing a good imitation of you.
I find it interesting that you call me a racist. I don't believe I am but I will be glad to debate it with you.
Guns? Love em.. wish I could afford more.. great American tradition..
When you get caught being a tool of some rumor mill.. you lie and say you were only "trolling" when you get caught looking stupid as a sack of rocks you say that you are only pretending to be an idiot.
To what purpose.. I have no idea.
lazs
-
skycrock.. there you go again.. try to say something that I can't disprove so easily.. you did indeed run from another site.. the flamewarriors one.. unless someone is just using your handle and doing a good imitation of you.
I find it interesting that you call me a racist. I don't believe I am but I will be glad to debate it with you.
Guns? Love em.. wish I could afford more.. great American tradition..
When you get caught being a tool of some rumor mill.. you lie and say you were only "trolling" when you get caught looking stupid as a sack of rocks you say that you are only pretending to be an idiot.
lazs
:rofl blah blah, lie lie lie, I see why you call people liars, it's to deflect the attention of lying away from yourself.
:rofl I did register at Flamewarriors, I made one post, noone replied. I don't have time to get into another board, so I haven't been back. No running involved. :lol lie #1 debunked.
:rofl You are one of the most biggoted people I've seen on this board, sorry if you don't like it. Constant attacks on minorities and blaming them for all of US problems, when the white majority in power thieves and milks many more dollars from our citizens. :lol
:rofl The last few days you've been leeching to my ankle with a boat load of lies and half-truths and looking like a complete fool for doing so. Like talking about hours in game when your record hours for trolling the O'club is legendary. By all means continue to look and act like a hate-filled, racist, stalker, liar, it doesn't bother me one bit! :lol :aok
Now, go polish a gun and get off my knob.
ty :aok
-
Overall I'd say Lazs is far more respected in the O'Club community that you are Skyrock. :)
Lazs isn't racist, just opinionated like all the rest of us in here.
-
For a guy that nitpicks every stat put up, you sure aren't too careful about what you post yourself.
You made TWO posts at flamewarriors.net; you'd hammer anyone else for being that far off on a stat.
The thread you started, "Flame away biotches" has 50 posts. Of course you opened it with just a smiley giving the finger so it is hard to decipher what you would call a reply to that.
Your other post about spikes in trees in the Masking Hippies thread drew a reply from AckAck but then the thread died. Not much more to say.
So................... you're not as exacting in your own stats as your are towards others. And you're wrong about no replies; you smiley giving the finger drew a lot of replies.
-
Overall I'd say Lazs is far more respected in the O'Club community that you are Skyrock. :)
Lazs isn't racist, just opinionated like all the rest of us in here.
Both of those statements made me laugh a little bit. Good to see a sense of humor is alive and well in the o'club.
-
I did register at Flamewarriors, I made one post, noone replied. I don't have time to get into another board, so I haven't been back. No running involved. Hehe! lie #1 debunked.
Actually if you go to the list of members, for Skyrock it says 2 posts. So you are off by a factor of 100%. :uhoh
:devil
-
Overall I'd say Lazs is far more respected in the O'Club community that you are Skyrock. :)
Lazs isn't racist, just opinionated like all the rest of us in here.
:rofl one, respect is only as good as the giver.
opinions are fine, but he enters a new realm with all his hate filled remarks about our citizens. :aok
-
:rofl one, respect is only as good as the giver.
opinions are fine, but he enters a new realm with all his hate filled remarks about our citizens. :aok
You haven't done a whole lot to earn respect here in the O'Club so far. :aok
His opinions aren't hate filled, that is however, how you choose to perceive them.
-
You haven't done a whole lot to earn respect here in the O'Club so far. :aok
His opinions aren't hate filled, that is however, how you choose to perceive them.
Elfie -- Seriously ... are you a born again Christian?
If you do not see the hate and bigotry in his posts
give it up
you are wasting your time
-
For a guy that nitpicks every stat put up, you sure aren't too careful about what you post yourself.
You made TWO posts at flamewarriors.net; you'd hammer anyone else for being that far off on a stat.
The thread you started, "Flame away biotches" has 50 posts. Of course you opened it with just a smiley giving the finger so it is hard to decipher what you would call a reply to that.
Your other post about spikes in trees in the Masking Hippies thread drew a reply from AckAck but then the thread died. Not much more to say.
So................... you're not as exacting in your own stats as your are towards others. And you're wrong about no replies; you smiley giving the finger drew a lot of replies.
Toad, I have only been there twice, and that was a week or two ago, maybe three. I may have posted in another thread, couldnt recall if I did or not, but I do remember about the spiked trees(my apologies for being incorrect). I know I only started one topic and I thought it would be fun, I checked after a day or so, and didnt see any post to it, so I didnt go back. Now, if you want to jump on the lazs liar bandwagon, pleas do, he stated that I ran from that sight, and the simple fact is, I just never returned after I saw noone posting on the thread, no running involved at all. Now, seeing as you say my thread over there has 50 posts, then they must have started posting 24 hours after I left, because trust me, I would have posted a response! :devil The site sounded like fun.
-
You haven't done a whole lot to earn respect here in the O'Club so far. :aok
His opinions aren't hate filled, that is however, how you choose to perceive them.
Like I said, respect is only as good as the giver. :t
-
Elfie -- Seriously ... are you a born again Christian?
If you do not see the hate and bigotry in his posts
give it up
you are wasting your time
Exactly what does my faith have to do with Lazs posts?
-
Exactly what does my faith have to do with Lazs posts?
it has to do with your posts... you made an observation... and you still ignore the question
Like all of your posts - one liners -- without substance of dialogue
you forgot the smiley this time though
-
it has to do with your posts... you made an observation... and you still ignore the question
Like all of your posts - one liners -- without substance of dialogue
you forgot the smiley this time though
Yes I am a born again Christian.
Again, what does my faith have to do with Lazs posts? Oh, just another excuse to attack my faith. Gotcha. ;)
-
Yes I am a born again Christian.
Again, what does my faith have to do with Lazs posts? Oh, just another excuse to attack my faith. Gotcha. ;)
Being a born again christian, nwbie expects you to be honest in your assessment, and not stick wtih the partisan halftruth. Lazs is as racist as they come, don't be fooled. :aok
-
Being a born again christian, nwbie expects you to be honest in your assessment, and not stick wtih the partisan halftruth. Lazs is as racist as they come, don't be fooled. :aok
Lazs just doesn't talk in a Politically Correct manner, that does not make him racist.
I am not worried about what Nwbie, or you, or any other human expects from me regarding my faith. I only worry about what God thinks/expects of me in that regard. :)
-
Lazs just doesn't talk in a Politically Correct manner, that does not make him racist.
I am not worried about what Nwbie, or you, or any other human expects from me regarding my faith. I only worry about what God thinks/expects of me in that regard. :)
rut roh...you're screwed then
-
Two "experts" on Christianity. We are so "blessed". :rolleyes:
-
Freakin liberals, whining about what now?
'it was you.. you were in it to... laz is a racist.. neener, neener, neener...'
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/509210914_a061db00a4.jpg?v=0)
-
rut roh...you're screwed then
One liner.....no substance.....no original thought.....
Hypocrisy at it's finest. :D
-
I only worry about what God thinks/expects of me in that regard. :)
God expects you to love your neighbor, not hate him. :aok
-
God expects you to love your neighbor, not hate him. :aok
I don't hate my neighbor, are you implying that I do? You have that quote partially correct, God expects us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. :)
Lazs doesn't hate his neighbor either, go back and look at some of his posts where he addresses those who call him a racist.
-
Lazs doesn't hate his neighbor either, go back and look at some of his posts where he addresses those who call him a racist.
He can paint, hide, cover all he wants, it is not hard to tell how his heart feels towards people of color. :aok
-
I don't see this topic going anywhere productive anymore. We don't get very far in topics when religion begins to be "discussed".
Another casulty of the Great Flame Wars of '08.
-
yeah, jesus wouldnt give the fed a dime to save their wealth. :aok
-
But if you believe the tripe and drivel served up by idiots, EVERY job should support a family, and therefor EVERY family can afford a nice home in the 'burbs. :rolleyes:
I'm all for people having good jobs, making a decent living, and their families having decent homes. The family is the foundation upon which everything else is built. But common sense MUST prevail, as society and the economy can not survive without it.
That's where you are out of touch, those loans were driving up the price of all houses, not just the 'burbs'. You come here to Lowell or Lawrence ma. and you tell me if those houses that were valued at 300k are nice houses in the 'burbs'.
-
He can paint, hide, cover all he wants, it is not hard to tell how his heart feels towards people of color. :aok
That is simply your opinion of it, it's how you choose to perceive his answers. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt based on answers he has given in the past and let God judge his heart. :)
-
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11290
And you still dont get it
-
That's where you are out of touch, those loans were driving up the price of all houses, not just the 'burbs'. You come here to Lowell or Lawrence ma. and you tell me if those houses that were valued at 300k are nice houses in the 'burbs'.
I'm hardly out of touch. You just made another of my points for me.
-
That is simply your opinion of it, it's how you choose to perceive his answers. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt based on answers he has given in the past and let God judge his heart. :)
Hey Elfie
lots of people can 2 step the 12 step
that guy that has been in the program for years and doesn't talk much ... there is a reason why...
-
Two "experts" on Christianity. We are so "blessed". :rolleyes:
..... who both probably profess to be atheists or believe in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because they are sooooo hip.
-
..... who both probably profess to be atheists or believe in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because they are sooooo hip.
lie. link a quote anywhere on these boards where I profess to be an atheist. I am very far from being an atheist. :aok
-
..... who both probably profess to be atheists or believe in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because they are sooooo hip.
Is it hip to be an atheist?
Cause it certainly ain't popular...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/
-
It seems to be the kewl thing on these boards. Those that profess it are sure eager to rub everyone's nose in the stupidity of religion.
-
It seems to be the kewl thing on these boards. Those that profess it are sure eager to rub everyone's nose in the stupidity of religion.
I certainly do not claim religion is stupidity..
All i say is to say you are a christian, then do as Christ would... isn't that the point?
If you aren't doing as Christ would... then why bother saying you are a christian?
-
It seems to be the kewl thing on these boards. Those that profess it are sure eager to rub everyone's nose in the stupidity of religion.
Religion is stupid. And dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_not_Great
I wish I knew who the other atheists in here were. Cause I feel like I am alone in that.
-
All i say is to say you are a christian, then do as Christ would... isn't that the point?
If you aren't doing as Christ would... then why bother saying you are a christian?
Due to the very nature of being Human it is impossible for any Christian to always do as Christ would do. Christ was the only perfect person (as in sinless) to ever walk this earth.
When we fail, (and as humans, failure is inevitable) we pray and admit our sin and pray for forgiveness and the wisdom and strength to do better the next time.
-
skycrock.. you ran away like a little girl and now you are simply lying about it.. you got 50 replies in just a few days.
Does anyone here actually believe that someone with skycrocks ego would not check back on his flame troll posts for replies? I thought not.
As for me being a racist.. well.. that would be a surprise to my girlfriend and grand daughter and a lot of the people who know me but.. I am willing to debate it.
Please show me anything I have said that could be construed as "racist"
I am waiting. I say a lot of things and negros and minorities get their share of attention from me soooo...
Unless you are just lying about it as usual... It should be childs play.. even for a teacher.
lazs
-
..... who both probably profess to be atheists or believe in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because they are sooooo hip.
I pray the Flying Spaghetti Monster forgives your blasphemy.
-
skycrock.. you ran away like a little girl and now you are simply lying about it.. you got 50 replies in just a few days.
lazs
I stated exactly how that went down earlier in this thread. What amazes me, is why would you even care to lie about it? Why have consistently followed me around in here lying for the last 3 days? I fear nothing, I do not run. So, I ask you now, why do you insist on anklehumping me while lying the whole time? Isn't anklehumping insulting enough for you?
PS, I'll jump over there this evening and really let you know how I feel about you. :aok
-
I stated exactly how that went down earlier in this thread. What amazes me, is why would you even care to lie about it? Why have consistently followed me around in here lying for the last 3 days? I fear nothing, I do not run. So, I ask you now, why do you insist on anklehumping me while lying the whole time? Isn't anklehumping insulting enough for you?
PS, I'll jump over there this evening and really let you know how I feel about you. :aok
I bet if you ran into 10 gang bangers in a dark alley, all of them armed with knives and chains you'd be afraid and run. :devil
-
I stated exactly how that went down earlier in this thread. What amazes me, is why would you even care to lie about it? Why have consistently followed me around in here lying for the last 3 days? I fear nothing, I do not run. So, I ask you now, why do you insist on anklehumping me while lying the whole time? Isn't anklehumping insulting enough for you?
PS, I'll jump over there this evening and really let you know how I feel about you. :aok
You did state how it went down.....
I did register at Flamewarriors, I made one post, noone replied.
The first reply to your post was 46 hours later. I think they were just baiting you or something. :D
Their replies aren't very flattering, I wouldn't have gone back either if they had said those things about me. :)
-
I bet if you ran into 10 gang bangers in a dark alley, all of them armed with knives and chains you'd be afraid and run. :devil
you might be right, and you might be wrong, depends on if I can get to my gun before they can get to me. :aok
-
you might be right, and you might be wrong, depends on if I can get to my gun before they can get to me. :aok
You have a gun? Well then, that changes everything, including the scenario. Your antagonists are no longer armed with knives and chains, instead they are armed with pistols, shotguns and automatic weapons. Time to run punk!! :devil
-
armed with pistols, shotguns and automatic weapons.
With those type of odds, run to the nearest cover for returning fire!
:t
-
With those type of odds, run to the nearest cover for returning fire!
:t
Did I forget to mention they also have RPGs?
-
Did I forget to mention they also have RPGs?
ouch. :(
-
See? At some point everyone is afraid, at some point everyone will run. To state otherwise is simply empty bravado. :salute
-
See? At some point everyone is afraid, at some point everyone will run. To state otherwise is simply empty bravado. :salute
:rofl OK. I promise to do better next time. :aok
I don't run from bravado! :t
-
Lamer.
-
Due to the very nature of being Human it is impossible for any Christian to always do as Christ would do. Christ was the only perfect person (as in sinless) to ever walk this earth.
When we fail, (and as humans, failure is inevitable) we pray and admit our sin and pray for forgiveness and the wisdom and strength to do better the next time.
bravo
-
Lamer.
tard. :aok
-
I'm hardly out of touch. You just made another of my points for me.
Your point was joe truck driver was buying a house in the burbs he couldn't afford, no, he was buying all he could afford, which was more than he could afford, which was no house in the burbs, that's for sure.