Re: $700 B Bailout
 

One of my professors spoke about this in a business class the other night. He said that something like this happened in either Sweden or Finland years ago, and they tackled it the wrong way. Basically, in short, the gov't bailed the banks out, but in return they took PROFITABLE ASSETS until the banks could pay them back. It was hard on the banks, but fair, and their economy rebounded and just a lot of the industrialized world, their economy is crushing ours. Amazing how far you can fall in eight years.

(That comment wasn't meant as a Bush comment. But roughly eight years ago, the dollar was soaring, housing was soaring, the economy was absolutely rolling. For the last 2-4 years. Not so much. This is due to a lot of contributions, some from Clinton, some from Bush, all approved by Congress.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;481536]It's not bragging if you can back it up.

Schneed has a very keen grasp of the financial industry and explains it very well, from the personal to the corporate/national levels. His knowledge adds tremendous value to these parking lot threads, if you're willing to listen.[/quote]

I gotta agree with this. I have a Master's in Finance, and he still teaches me a thing or two. He lives in this stuff, while the rest of us don't.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Honestly there are a lot of smart people who can't figure this out. I think if it was easy to figure out it wouldn't have happened.

Right now, in whatever form, the bailout has like a 50-50 shot at righting this stuff at best anways.

That is why it is taking so long. Neither side wants to ram a proposal down not because they want to be seen as working together but more importantly they want to CYA. They both want to be able to say the other side voted for this thing too if it doesn't work.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Rejected.


[url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes]Bailout moves towards congressional approval - Sep. 29, 2008[/url]

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

C'moooon free market! Do your thang!

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=FRPLG;481600]Honestly there are a lot of smart people who can't figure this out. I think if it was easy to figure out it wouldn't have happened.

Right now, in whatever form, the bailout has like a 50-50 shot at righting this stuff at best anways.

That is why it is taking so long. Neither side wants to ram a proposal down not because they want to be seen as working together but more importantly they want to CYA. They both want to be able to say the other side voted for this thing too if it doesn't work.[/quote]
It not at hard to figure out. Too many people had loans which they should not have ever had and they could not afford them. When the housing market was doing so great people with mortgage issues or payments too high could just sell their home at a profit and walk away. Now when the sh&* hits the fan they cannot sell their home in a soft market and the trouble begins. Back before the mid 90's about the only way people lost their homes was do to a loss of a job. Now days people are just loosing their homes and still have the same income as they did when they purchased them. Now its going to get much tougher to buy a home and hopefully we do not repeat this again.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=firstdown;483403]It not at hard to figure out. Too many people had loans which they should not have ever had and they could not afford them. When the housing market was doing so great people with mortgage issues or payments too high could just sell their home at a profit and walk away. Now when the sh&* hits the fan they cannot sell their home in a soft market and the trouble begins. Back before the mid 90's about the only way people lost their homes was do to a loss of a job. Now days people are just loosing their homes and still have the same income as they did when they purchased them. Now its going to get much tougher to buy a home and hopefully we do not repeat this again.[/quote]

Exactly.

The pattern for decades has been you may a substantial down payment on a house (20% at least). Generations before us you waited to buy a house and you put a big chunk down. All of a sudden people get greedy, want more house than they can afford, and we end up with shit like 5/1 ARMs and interest-only mortgages. People somehow feel entitled to the house of their dreams at the age of 25 and figure, "Screw down payments, screw paying the principle and all that, this is the NEW generation! We're living the American dream!"

If people weren't so damned greedy and impatient (the lenders and the borrowers) we wouldn't be in this mess.

1) Don't buy more house than you can afford.
2) That means that you can afford the house now AND 5 years from now.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

I meant how to fic it and prevent it recently. The underlying causation for this goes back to the late 70's. Right now cause doesn't mean much though.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

It's hard for people not to get upset when they read something like this

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428641,00.html]FOXNews.com - WaMu Gives New CEO Mega Payout as Bank Fails - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News[/url]

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=SmootSmack;483589]It's hard for people not to get upset when they read something like this

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428641,00.html]FOXNews.com - WaMu Gives New CEO Mega Payout as Bank Fails - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News[/url][/quote]

It is certainly understandable why people would get upset with that story. It's really tragic that some are making millions while others are losing their jobs, watching the value of their pensions plummet, and losing their homes.

But, keep in mind that WaMu's new CEO had nothing to do with the bank's failure. Moreover, "golden parachutes" aren't as crazy as they sound. Suppose CEO X has a proven track record of turning around struggling businesses, makes $5,000,000 per year at his current job, and has great job security. He's probably a very hot commodity and will not leave his job unless he's paid handsomely and is given some job security (i.e., guaranteed money). That guaranteed money is typically payable if his employment is terminated for no fault of his own and is forfeited for certain bad conduct (e.g., fraud). It's a form of job security and isn't much different from an NFL signing bonus, except it's paid at the end of the employment instead of at the beginning.

Basically, it does suck, but it makes sense.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;483591]It is certainly understandable why people would get upset with that story. It's really tragic that some are making millions while others are losing their jobs, watching the value of their pensions plummet, and losing their homes.

But, keep in mind that WaMu's new CEO had nothing to do with the bank's failure. Moreover, "golden parachutes" aren't as crazy as they sound. Suppose CEO X has a proven track record of turning around struggling businesses, makes $5,000,000 per year at his current job, and has great job security. He's probably a very hot commodity and will not leave his job unless he's paid handsomely and is given some job security (i.e., guaranteed money). That guaranteed money is typically payable if his employment is terminated for no fault of his own and is forfeited for certain bad conduct (e.g., fraud). It's a form of job security and isn't much different from an NFL signing bonus, except it's paid at the end of the employment instead of at the beginning.

Basically, it does suck, but it makes sense.[/quote]

I understand. I was just saying that if someone were to just pick up the paper (or I guess log onto the Internet) today and see this-and only this-it would enrage them.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=firstdown;483403]It not at hard to figure out. Too many people had loans which they should not have ever had and they could not afford them. When the housing market was doing so great people with mortgage issues or payments too high could just sell their home at a profit and walk away. Now when the sh&* hits the fan they cannot sell their home in a soft market and the trouble begins. Back before the mid 90's about the only way people lost their homes was do to a loss of a job. Now days people are just loosing their homes and still have the same income as they did when they purchased them. Now its going to get much tougher to buy a home and hopefully we do not repeat this again.[/quote]

Sorry First, you are behind on this. What you are describing is the collapse of the US housing market, which is only the first part of the story. The bailout does not purport to address this, which is a major reason why the public is not supporting it. How we went from a correction in an overvalued US housing market to the potential collapse of the global economy is a bit more complicated than you are allowing.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=djnemo65;483597]Sorry First, you are behind on this. What you are describing is the collapse of the US housing market, which is only the first part of the story. The bailout does not purport to address this, which is a major reason why the public is not supporting it. How we went from a correction in an overvalued US housing market to the potential collapse of the global economy is a bit more complicated than you are allowing.[/quote]
I was not talking about the bail out. Someone asked how the whole mess got started and that how it got started. Yes there is more to the whole story but thats how it started.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=mheisig;483419]Exactly.

The pattern for decades has been you may a substantial down payment on a house (20% at least). Generations before us you waited to buy a house and you put a big chunk down. All of a sudden people get greedy, want more house than they can afford, and we end up with shit like 5/1 ARMs and interest-only mortgages. People somehow feel entitled to the house of their dreams at the age of 25 and figure, "Screw down payments, screw paying the principle and all that, this is the NEW generation! We're living the American dream!"

If people weren't so damned greedy and impatient (the lenders and the borrowers) we wouldn't be in this mess.

1) Don't buy more house than you can afford.
2) That means that you can afford the house now AND 5 years from now.[/quote]

I understand what you're saying but what's wrong w/ a 5/1 Arm?

I think what you mean is Option Interest Only ARMs. Big difference.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Pelosi should be ashamed at throwing POLITICS into whether this bill should be passed or not. She was quoted in her speech. Not the right time or place. Regardless, if you think it should or shouldn't be passed let's talk about why and why not rather than who's fault it is.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: For too long this government, for eight years has followed a right wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=redsk1;483791]Pelosi should be ashamed at throwing POLITICS into whether this bill should be passed or not. She was quoted in her speech. Not the right time or place. Regardless, if you think it should or shouldn't be passed let's talk about why and why not rather than who's fault it is.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: For too long this government, for eight years has followed a right wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation.[/quote]

I agree that Pelosi's comments were ill-timed. However, the Republicans who supposedly switched their votes should be even more ashamed. Essentially, they concluded the package was in the best interests of the economy and our country, but they decided to say "f' the best interests of our country," I want to get back at Pelosi.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=mheisig;483419]Exactly.

The pattern for decades has been you may a substantial down payment on a house (20% at least). Generations before us you waited to buy a house and you put a big chunk down. All of a sudden people get greedy, want more house than they can afford, and we end up with shit like 5/1 ARMs and interest-only mortgages. People somehow feel entitled to the house of their dreams at the age of 25 and figure, "Screw down payments, screw paying the principle and all that, this is the NEW generation! We're living the American dream!"

If people weren't so damned greedy and impatient (the lenders and the borrowers) we wouldn't be in this mess.

1) Don't buy more house than you can afford.
2) That means that you can afford the house now AND 5 years from now.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Sorry, it's not the "people" that created these loans and sold them to the buyers telling them "I'll get you into a house no matter what". You want to blame someone?.. then you blame the banks and loan processors. They should go to jail for giving people those options and letting them believe they could afford it. Most home buyers are clueless when it comes to the loan process. They depend solely on their real-estate agent and loan processor for advice. They took the "good faith" out of the estimate and just made it bullshit.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

People who bit off more than they can chew essentially shouldn't simply completely be absolved of blame here.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Assuming you own your own home I am curious as to how many people in here actually read their loan documents in their entirety before they signed them?

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;483840]Assuming you own your own home I am curious as to how many people in here actually read their loan documents in their entirety before they signed them?[/quote]
I didn't read every last document to the letter, but I reviewed the settlement documents and loan repayment schedule and fees in detail on every home transaction I've done. I've never gone for an ARM, only 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

If you're making a six figure financial decision it's definitely your responsibility to understand what's going on or get an independent attorney to review and explain the documents to you.

This financial crisis is about much, much more than the 5% or so of mortgages that are defaulting. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle and from Wall Street to Main St. We all share in some of the blame here. It's just an egregious shame that Congress can't get a package together to stem the crisis.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;483840]Assuming you own your own home I am curious as to how many people in here actually read their loan documents in their entirety before they signed them?[/quote]
I read very little of my loan papers but I also have an established ralationship with the person who did my loan. We did not have any fancy stuff in the loan and put 15% down (conservative traditional banking) and have a fixed 30 year loan with a rate around 5 3/4. We had to buy 4 years ago when the market was just crazy. We found a home that we liked ( could have been bigger) but we also found a home for sale by owner which was about $80,000 below its market value. I'm not the smatest guy in the world but common sense said the market had to correct itself and could not keep up the pace it was on. We have our eye open for another home if we find something that we really like at a good price (I want to live on the water). We can sell our current home and still make around $100,000 with the price we paid for the home. Oh, if I did not have the relationship with my lender I would have read more of the papper work.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;483840]Assuming you own your own home I am curious as to how many people in here actually read their loan documents in their entirety before they signed them?[/quote]

I did. No one should ever expect that people who are in the business of making money off of you (e.g., lenders) are also looking out for your best interests. To absolve people of [B]all[/B] blame for signing documents that they did not read doesn't seem right. The lenders deserve some blame for this crisis, but so do the borrowers.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

By law in most states an independent lawyer is required to be present during the closing process. It is their job to make sure the borrower understands the terms of the loan, as well as to alert them if they feel the borrower is being swindled in any way. This is not true in all states but in most. So, while it's easy to blame the lenders for this mess, the public was eager to buy in. They wanted big screens and new cars; as their homes swelled in value they viewed that as free money to finance a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford. This was fine as long as houses were appreciating at 20 percent per year, and many wanted to believe it would go on forever, but it didn't. While it's politically expedient to absolve the public of all blame in this, the fact is that people largely did understand the terms of their loans. They wanted the cash. They gambled on the US housing market expanding forever and were wrong. So did Wall Street, and that is why we are where we are.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Since YouTube videos seem to be the thing to do I thought this was appropriate. Seems like there is some serious blame lying a the feet of the Dems in this video. At 8:15, President Clinton weighs in also.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM"]YouTube - Democrats Defend Fannie/Freddie from Regulation - 2004 Video[/ame]


I do NOT agree with the accusation in the video that "Frank Raines is Obama's economic advisor". I haven't researched any other claims the video makes, but it looks pretty damning for the Dems in that committee.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

The basis for the current credit crunch this country is facing comes directly from our government's deisre to get more people owning houses. Efforts to create a market of "affordable housing" initially forced banks via legislation and litigation to loosen decades of conventional lending practices based on financial sense and empircal evidence. Basically the gov't forced lenders to create programs that allowed people who were broke to buy houses. In a lot a ways this was a good gesture and even smart. Hell they even implemented it somewhat properly initially essentially guaranteeing the loans via Fannie and Freddie. The problem is then they got politcally greedy and really started pushing to open this "affordable housing" market up, despite what smart people knew were probable long term issues. They let Freddie and Fannie become bastions of bad loans and they couldn't support them and they failed. This has sucked the value out of the credit market because all these loans, bundled as securities and bonds so they could be sold(because they were shit and banks knew it) became "valueless" because the net(freddie and fannie) was gone. On top of that the "real value", the actual values of the homes within these loans, aren't considered within the market as part of the asset value of the securities BY LAW. So loans worth 30B in actual property are only worth 10B on paper. Market seizure time baby!

The video Slinggin posts actully has a good timeline of what has gone on from a political standpoint if you just try and ignore the rhetoric.

Make no mistake, the fault on this from a purely politcal standpoint lays at the feet of the democrats and their blind mission to get poor people to buy houses but in all honesty the Repubs had plenty of opportunity to fix this in the 15 years and didn't do it. It would have been politically unpopular to basically end the free ride and none of them had the cajones to what was right. They ignored it out of self preservation while dems were too dumb to even realize what was happening.

What is pissing me off right now though is this bullshit about "8 years of failed economic policies". This has nothing to do with deregulation at all or any of Bush's economics. This crap was going on before Bush and regulators told everyone and everyone basically couldn't figure out a way it helped them politically so they did nothing.

F 'em all. Blame Bush for a lot of crap but this doesn't even remotely have anything do with him from a causation standpoint.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;483840]Assuming you own your own home I am curious as to how many people in here actually read their loan documents in their entirety before they signed them?[/quote]

I did. I got it right at the beginning of the bubble at a 30yr fixed 5.5% rate. I locked it and stayed there. I never refinanced and took money out when my equity started to go through the ceiling. The average American is not financially savvy enough to know the loans the banks are selling were high risk.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;483896]Since YouTube videos seem to be the thing to do I thought this was appropriate. Seems like there is some serious blame lying a the feet of the Dems in this video. At 8:15, President Clinton weighs in also.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM"]YouTube - Democrats Defend Fannie/Freddie from Regulation - 2004 Video[/URL]


I do NOT agree with the accusation in the video that "Frank Raines is Obama's economic advisor". I haven't researched any other claims the video makes, but it looks pretty damning for the Dems in that committee.[/quote]


Man, those people need a beat down. The Dems look like they were bought and paid for by Fannie and Freddie. Waters seems like Raines mistress. :doh:

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=FRPLG;483927]The basis for the current credit crunch this country is facing comes directly from our government's deisre to get more people owning houses. Efforts to create a market of "affordable housing" initially forced banks via legislation and litigation to loosen decades of conventional lending practices based on financial sense and empircal evidence. Basically the gov't forced lenders to create programs that allowed people who were broke to buy houses. In a lot a ways this was a good gesture and even smart. Hell they even implemented it somewhat properly initially essentially guaranteeing the loans via Fannie and Freddie. The problem is then they got politcally greedy and really started pushing to open this "affordable housing" market up, despite what smart people knew were probable long term issues. They let Freddie and Fannie become bastions of bad loans and they couldn't support them and they failed. This has sucked the value out of the credit market because all these loans, bundled as securities and bonds so they could be sold(because they were shit and banks knew it) became "valueless" because the net(freddie and fannie) was gone. On top of that the "real value", the actual values of the homes within these loans, aren't considered within the market as part of the asset value of the securities BY LAW. So loans worth 30B in actual property are only worth 10B on paper. Market seizure time baby!

The video Slinggin posts actully has a good timeline of what has gone on from a political standpoint if you just try and ignore the rhetoric.

Make no mistake, the fault on this from a purely politcal standpoint lays at the feet of the democrats and their blind mission to get poor people to buy houses but in all honesty the Repubs had plenty of opportunity to fix this in the 15 years and didn't do it. It would have been politically unpopular to basically end the free ride and none of them had the cajones to what was right. They ignored it out of self preservation while dems were too dumb to even realize what was happening.

What is pissing me off right now though is this bullshit about "8 years of failed economic policies". This has nothing to do with deregulation at all or any of Bush's economics. This crap was going on before Bush and regulators told everyone and everyone basically couldn't figure out a way it helped them politically so they did nothing.

F 'em all. Blame Bush for a lot of crap but this doesn't even remotely have anything do with him from a causation standpoint.[/quote]
I agree the Rep had time to fix this but what would the headlines have read if they decided to tighten credit and loans which would affect lower income the most. It would have been a politial suicide and they knew that. Just look back at the early 90's and Newt and all the starving children and hurting old people news articles that went on with everything he tried to do.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=hesscl34;483984]I did. I got it right at the beginning of the bubble at a 30yr fixed 5.5% rate. I locked it and stayed there. I never refinanced and took money out when my equity started to go through the ceiling. The average American is not financially savvy enough to know the loans the banks are selling were high risk.[/quote]
I believe that most people knew what they were doing when they took out these loans. Its just easier to blame someone else now that things have gone south.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=hesscl34;483827][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Sorry, it's not the "people" that created these loans and sold them to the buyers telling them "I'll get you into a house no matter what". You want to blame someone?.. then you blame the banks and loan processors. They should go to jail for giving people those options and letting them believe they could afford it. Most home buyers are clueless when it comes to the loan process. They depend solely on their real-estate agent and loan processor for advice. They took the "good faith" out of the estimate and just made it bullshit.[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

I'm a Mortgage Loan Officer going on my 8th year in the business. I'm not saying that SOME loan officers are not to blame. There are some of them.

I've got to take up for alot of good loan officers that you are just throwing under the bus. I offer recommendations to clients based on their situation.

I've never done an Option Arm (which i'm proud of now). I have done Alt A loans though (less than perfect credit) over the last few years of the housing boom. When a client calls to get pre-approved i routinely ask, "What do you want to keep your payments under?"

Once i tell them what they can afford, I routinely would get.. how much are my payments at this higher sales price? I would consult, advise, and tell them...make sure you are comfortable w/ your payments! That's the #1 thing.

Now should I not offer them or tell them they don't qualify b/c i don't think they can afford it...even when Fannie Mae guidelines say they do qualify? I can only advise but so much. So, when you come out and put a blanket statement that Loan Officers should go to jail...come on. That's what makes me mad.

I've done maybe 2 subprime deals in 8 years and I have done some Alt A's, but 90% of my business is A paper.

Hell, I remember a couple years ago, getting folks qualified for Alt A's, consulting them, and saying theres no way these people can afford this house. They were approved by Fannie Mae's online underwriting guidelines. Maybe i should have let the 10 other lenders that were lining up behind me to do the loan. I did my job and my customers knew exactly what they were getting. I can speak for the majority of other lenders i know that handles things similar to me.

By the way the majority of Alt A's are fixed too....people couldn't afford the fixed payment.

By the way...i have a 5/1 I/O Arm that's fixed for 5 years at 3.5%...not bad huh. When I make my "normal amortizing payment" each month I get more principal reduction that the normal fixed rate that i would have gotten at the time. So structured right and explained right an ARM is not a bad thing. The worst regular ARM adjustment over the last 7 years....was in the 7.5% range...but has averaged in the lower 6's

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=redsk1;484003]I'm a Mortgage Loan Officer going on my 8th year in the business. I'm not saying that SOME loan officers are not to blame. There are some of them.

I've got to take up for alot of good loan officers that you are just throwing under the bus. I offer recommendations to clients based on their situation.

I've never done an Option Arm (which i'm proud of now). I have done Alt A loans though (less than perfect credit) over the last few years of the housing boom. When a client calls to get pre-approved i routinely ask, "What do you want to keep your payments under?"

Once i tell them what they can afford, I routinely would get.. how much are my payments at this higher sales price? I would consult, advise, and tell them...make sure you are comfortable w/ your payments! That's the #1 thing.

Now should I not offer them or tell them they don't qualify b/c i don't think they can afford it...even when Fannie Mae guidelines say they do qualify? I can only advise but so much. So, when you come out and put a blanket statement that Loan Officers should go to jail...come on. That's what makes me mad.

I've done maybe 2 subprime deals in 8 years and I have done some Alt A's, but 90% of my business is A paper.

Hell, I remember a couple years ago, getting folks qualified for Alt A's, consulting them, and saying theres no way these people can afford this house. They were approved by Fannie Mae's online underwriting guidelines. Maybe i should have let the 10 other lenders that were lining up behind me to do the loan. I did my job and my customers knew exactly what they were getting. I can speak for the majority of other lenders i know that handles things similar to me.

By the way the majority of Alt A's are fixed too....people couldn't afford the fixed payment.

By the way...i have a 5/1 I/O Arm that's fixed for 5 years at 3.5%...not bad huh. When I make my "normal amortizing payment" each month I get more principal reduction that the normal fixed rate that i would have gotten at the time. So structured right and explained right an ARM is not a bad thing. The worst regular ARM adjustment over the last 7 years....was in the 7.5% range...but has averaged in the lower 6's[/quote]
So in your last paragraph can we reason that people did not take the savings and pay down the principle thus making their principle much lower when it adjusted to the higher rate? Caould we also assume that these people did not pay down the principle and used the money for new cars etc... now tying up that money ment for their mortgage in other things?

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=firstdown;483998]I agree the Rep had time to fix this but what would the headlines have read if they decided to tighten credit and loans which would affect lower income the most. It would have been a politial suicide and they knew that. Just look back at the early 90's and Newt and all the starving children and hurting old people news articles that went on with everything he tried to do.[/quote]

Not only do they not get a pass from me for avoiding fixing this because it would have been political suicide, they also get to share the blame. They had a job to do and didn't. Just like the dummies who supposedly didn't vote for the bill because of Pelosi's speech. I hated the bill and I am glad they voted against it but if their reason for voting against this truly was that her speech was mean then they all need to get kicked in the head.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=FRPLG;484068]Not only do they not get a pass from me for avoiding fixing this because it would have been political suicide, they also get to share the blame. They had a job to do and didn't. Just like the dummies who supposedly didn't vote for the bill because of Pelosi's speech. I hated the bill and I am glad they voted against it but if their reason for voting against this truly was that her speech was mean then they all need to get kicked in the head.[/quote]
I was not giving anyone a pass just making a statement of how it would have gone down if they tried. Have not heard anything about people not voting on a bill because of what Pelosi said.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=firstdown;484013]So in your last paragraph can we reason that people did not take the savings and pay down the principle thus making their principle much lower when it adjusted to the higher rate? Caould we also assume that these people did not pay down the principle and used the money for new cars etc... now tying up that money ment for their mortgage in other things?[/quote]

Yeah, no doubt there's alot of instances like that. As lenders, we try to offer different options while at the same time educating the client on how each option works, and maybe even making a recommendation to what might fit them best. But it's not really the normal ARM that's causing all these issues it's 100% financing, Alt A, subprime, second mortgages, decreasing value, and then mortgage backed securities/Wall Street.

So, all I'm saying is you can't just say "lender's are bad and should go to jail."

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

Please explain to me what this guy is saying:

[yt]-i0su1roQLI[/yt]

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;484309]Please explain to me what this guy is saying:

[yt]-i0su1roQLI[/yt][/quote]

Like any politician, circumventing the question. A much better answer would be to mention the system is flawed but overall it was the best choice for it's other benefits.

Or better yet, just bullshit from the beginning, do not dig yourself in a hole.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

saden, do us all a favor, keep posting these you tube moments. its hard to dispute what they are saying, when we hear it right from the horses mouth

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=saden1;484309]Please explain to me what this guy is saying:

[yt]-i0su1roQLI[/yt][/quote]
I don't even care what he said, once I saw the graphic of the pork, I just blanked out. I wish MSNBC had named names. Whoever is pushing pork in this should be hit in the head with a tire iron.

Damn, I wish there was a Line Item veto right about now.

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

how is McCain going to veto all of the bills that contain pork, when he is voting for them?

Re: $700 B Bailout
 

[quote=dmek25;484531]how is McCain going to veto all of the bills that contain pork, when he is voting for them?[/quote]
I don't care who the President is, that Line Item veto will stop a lot of this pork garbage.