discussion comment
16 years ago
"Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
That amounted to an appalling accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee: 'Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country.'" http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/705651.html
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi casualguy,
You think it is over? That was just round one.
Besides hardly seems like a democracy if the reason for its failure was because Republicans had their feelings hurt by Pelosi's speech. Easy to believe these gentlemen are that shallow.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"'There is probably some small subset of borrowers that benefit from ARMs.'
When interest rates go up??"
Some borrowers have no intention of staying to the point where interest rates spike; they view an ARM mortgage as ideal because of the upfront savings over a fixed mortgage. Add in some wrinkles in the terms of the ARM and it would be difficult for some relative short term borrowers to want anything but an ARM. The Miami Herald, perhaps 20 years ago, had an excellent tutorial on evaluating the costs of an ARM compared to a fixed rate mortgage.
Depending on the borrower's needs and the initially savings of the ARM even presuming rising interests wouldn't create a deal killer for the savy ARM consumer. It is about very carefully working the numbers.
These banks, at least the ones that I've dealt with seem determined to keep sample contracts secret until the day of the closing. Most people unfortunately aren't in the position to walk at that point. I guess the individual is almost forced to get a lawyer or find a more honest bank.
"Who do you think was preyed on the most??"
The poor; and the problem I have is that the government creates a market for this filth by accepting this paper. If a company isn't using government resources e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., and there is clear and timely disclosure, then that is one ballgame. This mortgage market is pretty much a government game and thus there needs to be protections for poor people assuming the business wants to play inside the government's market.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I keep hearing that the taxpayer is getting stuck with the $700 Billion bailout. Seems to me the taxpayer was so broke that just a few months ago the government was sending out stimulus checks to try and get the economy moving. Anyway, the typical taxpayer is probably even broker than the government---it still has Fort Knox, but maybe that gold has little relative value. Oh this idiocy about foreign governments lending the U.S. government hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars: They've just been hoarding U.S. dollars in warehouses? If it is invested, then seems like cashing their non-U.S. government investments to lend money to the U.S. government would create even more pain.
This money has to be PRINTED---No, few dollars actually are physically PRINTED nowadays. By PRINTED, I mean a computer bookkeeping entry. This PRINTED money is practically required. Can you imagine if the number of U.S. dollars in circulation was the same in 2008 as 1968?
The big difference is the U.S. dollar used to be backed by "hard assets" eg gold and silver. Now it is backed by debt e.g. T-Bills and bonds. It is a gimmick. The government PRINTS a dollar today and guarantees to repay it with interest over let's say over 30 years. And, where where does the government get this money for repayment plus interest? It PRINTS the money. Anyway, whether PRINTING money hurts an individual or not is an interesting question. The taxes? For the most part that is for 1) illusion to make it seem like the government isn't just PRINTING money and 2) for control.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'd love to think of the bailout by Congress as just another example of government robbery and perhaps it is, but if this is robbery then the policy of endless war could also be seen as robbery. Even moreso the sugar program----government again transferring wealth from ordinary people to the super rich. Probably should be just a given that part of government services include robbery of the ordinary people.
IF Congress's giveaway saves the the ordinary working family far more money, then just doing nothing and gambling the meltdown won't be so brutal is it still robbery? Does the end result make a bit o difference? A thief could rob a bank and then he takes the proceeds and finds a cheap easy wonderful cure for cancer. He is still a thief. I'd say like a Robin Hood, but Robin Hood was stealing the people's money back from a crooked government.
Anyway, in the scheme of the U.S. government this robbery by Congress is hardly the most nefarious.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi MisterGuy,
Thanks for the good links. There is probably some small subset of borrowers that benefit from ARMs. *I* don't mind upfront (i.e. clear timely disclosure of terms) predatory lending against low income consumers IF the government isn't providing liquidity for the loans, backing the loans, and or subsidizing the companies. What is reprehensible in my view is when government assists companies in preying against people. A zero down loan that they may or may not be able to pay isn't preying, imo, because it is probably a better deal than renting and at least it is an attempt to get them some ownership.
Once the government gets in the game providing huge benefits such as liquidity or guarantees it seems like there should be a requirement that the poor aren't treated any worse than the middle class or the rich.
Anyway, the point was the warning bells were ringing years earlier; it wasn't super secret. The government CREATED the foundation and framework for a market that would almost assuredly fail----hardly a free market nor is the U.S economy. If the government will accept any slop that businesses proffer, then that is what it is almost certain to command. You make a $1,000 a month and have NO assets? Sure, a $500,000 home is NO problem because government has already given, by its rules, the thumbs up! When the shit hits the fan blame greedy banker and greedy consumers with the government riding the white horse . . .
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The growing problem was not unnoticed. Hassett quotes Alan Greenspan warning in 2005 that if Fannie and Freddie 'continue to grow, continue to have the low capital they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest risk adversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road....We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.'
Senator John McCain was one of three co-sponsors of a 2005 bill to address this budding crisis by establishing strict new regulatory controls over the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill squeaked through the Senate Banking Committee, but Democrats such as Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the Senate, and Barney Frank in the House, unified to kill the bill." http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13931
BTW, I'm not a fan of McCain. But, I believe this wasn't a secret by any stretch of the imagination in that The Wall Street Journal and I'm sure other major publications were yelping about it. The main negative that I saw in my area was ARMs-----and worse the two-bit government was backing these mortgages for people who would be doing very well to meet the loans initial terms. I was assured by people in the business that banks had no intention of doing mass foreclosure, but just wanted to force these poor people to refinance. Well, refinance time came and where were the wonderful banks? Probably on schedule to get paid by the government.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The root of the problem began with bad, mismanaged monetary policy by the Fed. Earlier this decade, the Fed overexpanded money and credit, reflected in historically low interest rates for far too long. This began a classic boom and bust business cycle, concentrated mostly in the housing bubble that crested with ridiculously high housing prices a couple of years ago. When that bubble burst, housing prices began to tumble.
This would have caused a mild downturn. But other bad government policies have greatly exacerbated the problem. These started with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), adopted during the Carter Administration, but greatly expanded during the Clinton years. CRA regulations demanded that financial institutions provide mortgages to lower income borrowers they thought were too risky, in unstable neighborhoods that they thought exposed their loans to too much risk. Barack Obama's friends at ACORN became major abusers of the CRA, using it to label financial organizations as racist and to block needed regulatory approvals, until ACORN was bought off with money and loans for its favored allies.
This was the beginning of government policies to expand mortgages on easier and easier terms to lower income borrowers, demanding less and less in terms of down payments, documented incomes, and positive credit histories. These practices eventually grew into the subprime mortgage market, where money started to flow even to dubious borrowers with questionable backgrounds.
But it was the federally established and backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that spread the subprime mortgage risk throughout the financial world. Fannie and Freddie issued securities, which the market took as effectively government guaranteed, to raise money to buy mortgages from banks and other financial institutions. They then sold shares in pools of such mortgages to other financial institutions and investors, in America and around the world.
When Fannie and Freddie started selling shares in pools of subprime mortgages, they were spreading serious, unrecognized risk throughout the financial system. With their implicit government guarantee, they were able to borrow huge amounts to fuel an explosion in subprime mortgage lending, and to pump up the housing bubble overall to even greater extremes." http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13931
Blame government 100%, imo.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Lou Dobbs had a couple economists on who are supposed to be real hot shots. They oppose any bailout and say the worst is already over. Also, they stated the Fed has already "injected" a half trillion into various big companies and it has bought in their opinions very little. I don't know why it was felt that more money (another half trillion give or take a couple hundred billion) required rubber stamping by Congress.
discussion comment
16 years ago
If the girls strip, then it's a stripclub.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Looking like it was pre-planned; my 2 cent conspiracy. President Bush declares a financial emergency that has to be solved in less than a week. The supposed solution is only 3 pages giving a blank check and all manner of immunities for those doling out the billions.
McCain standing tall suspends his campaign so that he can deal with this national emergency and act presidential----plus start yapping about the need to protect taxpayers. Now, very conveniently Republicans are making noise about a free market solution that doesn't use any taxpayer money. Just raise a few fees and according to these Republicans problem solved. Meanwhile those nasty Democrats along with President Bush were going to sell out Main Street for Wall Street millionaires and billionaires.
Message: Trust McCain and the Republicans with your economic wellbeing and not cave-in to the rich wheeler dealers. What surprises me is that Democrats seem so willing to trust this administration. This wasn't some ultra secret problem and the Federal Reserve has plenary power to try and fix it. It is just such a massive giveaway that it probably seemed wise to get explicit congressional approval.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I would choose the hottest one, everytime. However, I'm afraid of nasty smelly pussy and that is without contemplating oral sex.
Next in line would be the one that I've established a long time business relationship with.
I like drunks; despite the fact that the drunks in my family are extremely mean---drunk or not, but the reckless goes up a tad with the booze. Unfortunately, I don't get to meet many alcohol abusing dancers.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named 'Caylee.'" http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/09/24/they_gave_your_mortgage_to_a_less_qualified_minority
Seemed more humorous than factual. The Wall Street Journal did a did a very negative piece on Clinton's plan to help people become homeowners. The article was all up in arms that these borrowers were at a greater risk to default. Jeez, you don't say!
Anyway, at the time I was thinking it was an excellent plan assuming the banks didn't get paid for screwing the poor. Years before this article, I had worked to with Bank Atlantic to get a Veterans Guaranteed loan---I wish I knew the exact details, but supposedly the government guaranteed this loan 100%. The interest rate was nothing special---market rate or thereabout and that was fine. The beauty was the veteran could be low income. Seemed like wonderful way for the government to say the country appreciated your service. I asked the banker what the points would be and he said anywhere from zero to 2 points. The loan just depended on the appraisal. Sounded great. The appraisal and other fees (non-refundable) came to just under $400. The house was a good deal and the appraisal came out higher than the seller had priced it. Fantastic news!!! NO. A huge fraud. I went with my relative to sign the papers and I practically had a heart attack. The sleazy ass bank wanted 8 points. On a $100,000 loan that that is $8,000 off the top. I said what the hell happened to zero to 2 points?! The banker says don't worry you don't have to come up with the money out of your own pocket will just put those points into the loan. Thanks, but NO THANKS. The banker says the fees you paid are non-refundable. I said so? He says you're not just going throw away those hundreds of dollars. I said, listen crook I'd rather my relative lose a few hundred dollars than thousands of dollars. Oh, the banker starts to get angry. I was in his face so quick it wasn't even funny. He was a crook 100% and he backed down real quick.
The government? I don't know if they approved of that filth or not, just as I don't know if the government under President Clinton approved of ARMs for poor people. If President Clinton actually did approve of these ARMs for poor people, then I'd say on that alone that he is a scumbag. Thumbs up trying to help people, but when you're just able to pay the bills the last thing you need in the form of government help is ARMs.
I hope the President Clinton didn't approve of that filth, but I see pretty much non-stop corruption in government so why should he be any different.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Miami has high mileage clubs where dances are $5 and less. Of course, these are black clubs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I didn't understand the plan. And worse it didn't seem worth understanding.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Sounds like it is profitable for the card issuers to force people into default. That new bankruptcy law the card issuers paid for will really come in handy with some individuals never getting a fresh start. Ironically bankruptcy could be viewed as a form of private profits and socialized losses mentioned explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Socialism alive and well in U.S. over 200 years ago! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
President Clinton's mandate or whatever it was that less creditworthy and low income borrower's be included in the home ownership game was, imo, a positive of his presidency: With one gaping exception, and his administration may not have approved of it or they may have, of allowing ARMs for these financially strapped borrowers. Additionally, these reduced stands seem to have been applied to investors; a very bad idea, imo.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi casualguy,
Getting robbed by Congress is very much in the eyes of the beholder. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has "assets" in the form of non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities. These "assets" are like if you borrowed money from yourself. The fraudsters or ignorant would assert that of course these are assets otherwise people who own U.S. government debt might as well set them on fire if they aren't an asset.
You know what? The fraudster or ignorant are actually right if you match apples to apples and oranges to oranges. For example, you have a high net worth and you take out a small loan of $100,000 at 5% APR interest from a finance company. That is a real asset for the finance company because you have a high net worth and more likely than not the finance company will be repaid if full. Suppose, however, you give *yourself* a $100,000 at 5% APR interest. Does that still look like an asset or an accounting gimmick?
The fraudsters or ignorant will then come out with the full faith and credit BS as if the U.S. Congress has never repudiated its own debt. And, even if the Congress was contractually honest what difference would it make as far as issuing the debt or not. Ultimately, the Congress will need to print money, raise taxes, and or reduce benefits when the taxes from current workers is no longer sufficient to pay current benefiaries.
It is fraud on a MASSIVE scale. :)
This should be a slap in the face obvious, but some people just can't comprehend the government loaning itself money and creating a Trust Fund to hold this debt is just for cattle consumption.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"1. Coi 14 up, 1 down
ball, family jewel, Testicle in the Romanian Language , kwcoya-'yay Literally
Dá-te la o parte sau it~i trag un s~ut in coaie (Get out of my way or I'll kick your balls).
by Domnul Jack Nov 12, 2003 share this 0 comments " http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=COI
First, that I'd ever heard or seen of COI.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Most of congress, over 90 percent get re-elected, even though they only had a 14 percent approval rating in August, why does everyone keep voting for the same guys?"
Taking from the example above with candidate A. Am I going to vote for him even though he is a lying crook and used tax dollars to build the stadium? Might be the best choice especially if candidate B has openly promised to spend and *borrow* more tax dollars on every imaginable program and service. While candidate A is a proven POS at least he isn't borrowing millions upon millions as candidate B is vowing to do. It is the old voting for the lesser of two evils. Of course, I haven't voted in over a decade and can't imagine ever voting again. Of all my alleged rights that one is totally worthless. Obama or McCain? You choose for me or flip a coin---the choice is meaningless. Ideally, President Bush could serve another decade. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Most of congress, over 90 percent get re-elected, even though they only had a 14 percent approval rating in August, why does everyone keep voting for the same guys?"
Systemic? Sure it is possible that people keep electing individuals who are lowlifes and high quality people needn't run for office as a general rule. It is sorta like the student who gets an F. Blame the student? All 100 students received an F. Still blame the student?
I own some shares of stock that have a net asset value of $20 per share. So, in the supposedly free market economy of the U.S. how much are those shares worth? A penny a share? Thousand dollars per share? For years the shares have been trading at around $1.50 per share; the last price that I saw was 50 cents per share.
The rules of the game are usually all important especially where power is indirest, diversified, or those affected by the rule makers don't have a real voice. I've told the story about the Miami Arena numerous times. Candidate A aggressively opposes using tax dollars to build the stadium. Candidate B aggressively supports using tax dollars to build the stadium. Seems like the voters have a real choice. The operative word is "seems." Candidate A wins the election and within 10 days not only does he use tax dollars to build the stadium he lavishes more tax dollars on it than candidate B proposed. The courts? According to David Paul, a prominent attorney, payoffs where made up and down the line including the judge who heard the case. Just recently the government tore down the Miami arena, which is a small positive. Too bad it wasn't torn down immediately after being built or better yet was never built in the first place.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Glenn Beck is stating that $700 Billion is just a down payment and he is yapping about $2 Trillion. $2 Trillion would be CHEAP! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Sorry, wrong thread! Just watching Glenn Beck get over heated about the melt down that is feared.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Glenn Beck is stating that $700 Billion is just a down payment and he is yapping about $2 Trillion. $2 Trillion would be CHEAP! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he said the legislation President Bush proffered is 3 pages long. :)
About $250 billion a page. Well, actually that is probably just a small taste of what it will cost. Lou Dobbs is going nutso. He is a riot. :)