McCain gambled big and lost.

[04 Venom]

First it was the selection of Palin--even the right wing of the Republican Party is getting squeamish in a public way. The McCain camp says today that she is going to "debate camp"; not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Then he "suspends" his campaign to go to Washington to work on the crisis--not only did he make himself look superfluous, but the bail out is voted down. Regardless how you feel about the bailout, it almost seems like his own party has written him off and is waiting for 2012 to reload.

He apparently paid too much attention to his own campaign propaganda about "bucking his own party" and being the "maverick". During the past two weeks, he seems intent on making a close election a walk for the Democrats. Bush and McCain may make this a watershed election in the same way as Goldwater's loss in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson.

I wonder if Ross Perot could be persuaded to run against both of them? :lol:

[Rich]

Well lets see...

He went back to Washington to do HIS job! He is still a US Senator. But that is the difference between the two candidates...one who actually works and the other that "stays in touch".

A democratic bailout was voted down by a democratic controlled House...not an indictment on McCain.

[12seclx]

First it was the selection of Palin--even the right wing of the Republican Party is getting squeamish in a public way. The McCain camp says today that she is going to "debate camp"; not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Then he "suspends" his campaign to go to Washington to work on the crisis--not only did he make himself look superfluous, but the bail out is voted down. Regardless how you feel about the bailout, it almost seems like his own party has written him off and is waiting for 2012 to reload.

He apparently paid too much attention to his own campaign propaganda about "bucking his own party" and being the "maverick". During the past two weeks, he seems intent on making a close election a walk for the Democrats. Bush and McCain may make this a watershed election in the same way as Goldwater's loss in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson.

I wonder if Ross Perot could be persuaded to run against both of them? :lol:

:agree: I like what Obama said... "I think it is going to be part of the president's job to be able to deal with more than one thing at once."

Palin is a joke... Under her, Alaska received more federal dollars per resident than any other state... just like she opposed the "Bride to Nowhere", when in actuality, she supported the plan and Alaska kept $230 million in taxpayers funds even though they haven't built the fawkin' bridge..



:coo1:

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Well lets see...

He went back to Washington to do HIS job! He is still a US Senator. But that is the difference between the two candidates...one who actually works and the other that "stays in touch".

A democratic bailout was voted down by a democratic controlled House...not an indictment on McCain.

Once again, not sticking up for or bashing anyone, but if a person is to be the president of our country, then he needs to be able to multitask, and if he can't handle his campaign and the bail out crap at the same time then he doesn't have what it takes to take on what he may be faced with if he gets elected...which is likely to be the worst shape this country has ever been in for any newly elected president.

[Rich]

David, I agree but honestly...the "suspend the campaign" was nothing more than lip service.

Did Obama even make an attempt at solving this situation?

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

But did McCain really DO anything? If he had actually totally suspended his campaign, and this Wall Street thing had been drawn out and he really went through with not campaigning, wouldn't he still take the seat if he was voted in?

I understand in a way what he was trying to do, i'm sure he really was concerned, and for that matter i think Obama could've done more, but i don't think suspending the campaign was necessary. It sort of made him look unreliable in the heat of the moment.

[04 Venom]

Well lets see...

He went back to Washington to do HIS job! He is still a US Senator. But that is the difference between the two candidates...one who actually works and the other that "stays in touch".

A democratic bailout was voted down by a democratic controlled House...not an indictment on McCain.

Doing your job is not suggesting that you are any more important than any other senator; it was a stunt and a dumb one at that. By saying that the problem required HIS leadership and he didn't pull it off was a mistake of the first order. The irony is that he was done in by his own party.

Before there was ever a vote taken, Boehner guaranteed a certain number of Republican votes--that number was about 80. The Dems promised at least 140. That way both parties would have some political cover. The members of both parties that were running in tight races got "the wink" to vote against it since the public sentiment was against the bailout.

McCain and Boehner (minority leader in the House) spoke in favor of the bill and they would not have done it unless they thought he had the votes to pass it. Unfortunately for them, some members who agreed to vote for it got cold feet and feared taking heat from the folks back home, or losing their seat, more than crossing McCain and Boehner. The political downside for McCain is that he can't even deliver the votes of his own party. The Republicans are now eating their own, plus you have a President who is hugely unpopular. I really think the Republicans in the House are playing for themselves and looking to 2012.

The election is now Obama's to lose.

[redfirepearlgt]

Before there was ever a vote taken, Boehner guaranteed a certain number of Republican votes--that number was about 80. The Dems promised at least 140. That way both parties would have some political cover. The members of both parties that were running in tight races got "the wink" to vote against it since the public sentiment was against the bailout.



Wow!!! For a change 228 members of (95 Democrats) congress yesterday listened to the public view and voted on behalf of the people. Well what do you know? Now they can all blame the public. Nice political move. :rolleyes:

[Pops Fun]

Geesh ... for once the people got what they wanted..... This is a great country.
The European markets didn't go down as much as expected...... What does that mean.... we are a global economy.

I believe that McCain went back to give his fellow Republicans some back bone....

It is still a close race. The

Donald Trump says that credit has been tight before.

[04 Venom]

Wow!!! For a change 228 members of (95 Democrats) congress yesterday listened to the public view and voted on behalf of the people. Well what do you know? Now they can all blame the public. Nice political move. :rolleyes:

I made a comment, not a value judgment. If the 228 representatives voted down the bill because they believed it was wrong, more power to them. OTOH, if they did it because they simply feared the political consequences, they didn't do their job. Just because a majority of the public opposes something, that does not mean they are right. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. Politicians followed the public; both were wrong.

There is so much emotion, disinformation and ignorance about this issue that blame and outrage has overcome reason. Real leadership does not blindly follow public opinion polls.

[Rich]

Honestly, if it was such a great plan...the dems could pass it on their own regardless of the republicans. If it's such a great plan, wouldn't the dems want to take credit for it all by themselves?

The majority of the "nay" votes were by Representatives that are in election years...they listened to their constituents.

[Pops Fun]

Wow only if this could really work this is a heck of an idea - not sure who came up with it;

I'm against the $85 Billion bailout of AIG. Or for a matter of fact, spending over $700 Billion to bail them all out.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide adult citizens in the U.S.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $12 7,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college – it'll be there

Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car – create jobs

Invest in the market – capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance – health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dad s to come clean – or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

[k062693w]

Wow only if this could really work this is a heck of an idea - not sure who came up with it;

I'm against the $85 Billion bailout of AIG. Or for a matter of fact, spending over $700 Billion to bail them all out.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide adult citizens in the U.S.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $12 7,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college – it'll be there

Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car – create jobs

Invest in the market – capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance – health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dad s to come clean – or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

Do the math !!! LOL it's $425.00 not $425,000.00 :lol:

[Pops Fun]

Oh well... that's what i get never was any good at math!!:lol:

[facemelter71]

Why do you want to give YOUR money away?

[04 Venom]

Why do you want to give YOUR money away?

Well to be accurate, it isn't all our money. We borrow much of it from the governments and individuals who buy Treasury bonds. And, we obviously pay interest for their willingness to finace our debt.

[Black92LX]

What about your boy Obama who stated I will bring the votes????? He cam up short too. Don't get me wrong I am glad it failed.
But actually I think Pelosi is the reason it failed. She needs to keep her mouth shut if she wants to get anything done. With that Blatant partisan speech she spewed prior to the vote, I think she pissed a lot off folks off even in her own party. I mean she couldn't even arm twist them in the 11th hour.

I really don't feel it hurt McCain or Obama. The government need not even be meeting over the bailout. The bailout should not be taking place.

The market will bounce back. We have been through it before it's the natural ebb and flow of the economic cycle.
I wish I had more to invest in the market right now. Putting all I can in now. It will only pay off in the future because the market will not stay low forever.
This is a good time to be investing. Just built a house when prices were low and the builder was offering huge incentives, plan on being here at least 10 years so there will be a nice return. Just wish I had a little more capital to put in the market to hang for about 10 years as well.
It's a great time to be investing folks not only in the US market but foreign markets. Lots of folks are investing in metals but I think they are peaking for the time being and I am staying away from them for a little bit. (sorry for the sidetrack, I just get tired of all the doom and gloom that the media spews, when it's not doom and gloom)1

Is Palin the best choice. nope but she will be able to get the job done far better than anything Biden could ever do.

People look at the campaign like Palin is running for President here. She is the running mate.
Has the media or anyone (other than himself) critiqued Biden as a running mate in the fashion as they have Palin?? Nope.

I will lay it out here:

McCain will be President by a fair margin nothing substantial. Because when it comes time to pull the lever there are still plenty of folks who are not ready to vote for a black person.
I guess one could call that racist but look at the other side how many people are going to vote for Obama strictly because he is Black. But wait that's not racist that's called being enlightened:lol:
Then in 2012 Romney will Run against Clinton and Clinton will win.

[02mingryGT]

I made a comment, not a value judgment. If the 228 representatives voted down the bill because they believed it was wrong, more power to them. OTOH, if they did it because they simply feared the political consequences, they didn't do their job. Just because a majority of the public opposes something, that does not mean they are right. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. Politicians followed the public; both were wrong.

There is so much emotion, disinformation and ignorance about this issue that blame and outrage has overcome reason. Real leadership does not blindly follow public opinion polls.

I thinking you mean like Clinton? :lol::lol:

[02mingryGT]

Nice article on bailout:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[04 Venom]

I thinking you mean like Clinton? :lol::lol:

That would be one, but she, unfortunately, has lots of company.

[DSSKing68]

Nice article on bailout:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Great read..and it even came from the left news network. :bigthumb

[ewalt]

The fact that the dems wanted political cover is cop-out of the century. How pathetic of them to not stand up for something they say the wanted.

I'm glad it failed. The government got us here in the first place.

The democrats solidly had a hand in all of this. The Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) fueled a lot of the underlying problems, a democratic act. Started by Carter, furthered by Clinton. Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae)? Opps, it is basically a complete failure, another program, started by democrats, fueled by the CRA.

Freddie Mac was created because competition was needed for Fannie Mae..... Um... So now you have two companies that are a complete joke at this point. Both of whom were basically started and sponsored by Democrats in government (FDR started Fannie) to provide secondary home loans. Other banks were held to the CRA as well, giving them incentive (or I guess mandate according to the act) to provide loans to the secondary market. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac has larger incentive to give out subprime loans to anyone that wanted it, because it was backed by government.



In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.

Hmm, and now it comes to light that some Obama people have deep ties to Fannie and Freddie? I can see why Democrats want to push this bailout through now, and I can also see why they so desperately want the Republicans to meet them halfway.

Why do we want so desperately for our wonderful government officials to keep screwing us up? Cut the cord people......

[Waffles]

I made a comment, not a value judgment. If the 228 representatives voted down the bill because they believed it was wrong, more power to them. OTOH, if they did it because they simply feared the political consequences, they didn't do their job. Just because a majority of the public opposes something, that does not mean they are right. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. Politicians followed the public; both were wrong.

There is so much emotion, disinformation and ignorance about this issue that blame and outrage has overcome reason. Real leadership does not blindly follow public opinion polls.

Whoa... for once, I agree with you. As we are a republic, and not a pure democracy, we vote for people who we should be able to trust to make good decisions. All too often, this is not the case. Sometimes politicians should make unpopular decisions. Public opinion is more often than not, ignorant and they react emotionally instead of intellectually.

Having said that, I'll also say this. That's the way it should work, it's rarely the way it does work. You can't trust most politicians to do the right thing. Sometimes it takes a public outcry to force their hand. A good example of that happening was the "comprehensive immigration reform." Thanks to Rush and Hanity for the public education to accomplish that one.

[Waffles]

Wow only if this could really work this is a heck of an idea - not sure who came up with it;

I'm against the $85 Billion bailout. Or for a matter of fact, spending over $700 Billion to bail them all out.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide adult citizens in the U.S.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $12 7,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college – it'll be there

Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car – create jobs

Invest in the market – capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance – health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dad s to come clean – or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

I'm definately more in favor of this than the bail out. However, I'm not really in favor of either. See, the government doesn't have a job where it goes out and earns this money. It's not giving away the government's money, it's giving away the people's money they took it from. So what I'm in favor of, instead of a socialistic redistribution of wealth you describe, is simply not taking it in the first place. What in the hell is the government doing with $85,000,000,000 anyway? That's certainly one thing I agreed with Ron Paul on, even if he was kind of a quack.

Don't take money from me, just to hand it to someone else. Don't take money from someone else and hand it to me. Under any other circumstance, that's theft. The only reason it's not theft, is because the government does it. Only take enough money from everyone to be able to sustain a government whose job it is to do what's minimally required by the constitution. And, they should get the hell out of the regulation business. They change one thing with no thought of the ripple it will cause. Forcing lending institutions to lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back just so they can own a house for a few years before they default on it might be a good example of one of those things.

[ADaughen]

Reports from the House: politicians got calls from voters to the tune of 1000:1 AGAINST the bill.

If you want to keep your job, you'll vote what your voters want you to. ;)

[Waffles]

The fact that the dems wanted political cover is cop-out of the century. How pathetic of them to not stand up for something they say the wanted.

I'm glad it failed. The government got us here in the first place.

The democrats solidly had a hand in all of this. The Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) fueled a lot of the underlying problems, a democratic act. Started by Carter, furthered by Clinton. Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae)? Opps, it is basically a complete failure, another program, started by democrats, fueled by the CRA.

Freddie Mac was created because competition was needed for Fannie Mae..... Um... So now you have two companies that are a complete joke at this point. Both of whom were basically started and sponsored by Democrats in government (FDR started Fannie) to provide secondary home loans. Other banks were held to the CRA as well, giving them incentive (or I guess mandate according to the act) to provide loans to the secondary market. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac has larger incentive to give out subprime loans to anyone that wanted it, because it was backed by government.



Hmm, and now it comes to light that some Obama people have deep ties to Fannie and Freddie? I can see why Democrats want to push this bailout through now, and I can also see why they so desperately want the Republicans to meet them halfway.

Why do we want so desperately for our wonderful government officials to keep screwing us up? Cut the cord people......

Excellent post! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Every time the government gets involved in this stuff, they just screw it up worse. We've seen it time and time again. What blows me away is that people see this and think it's a good idea for government to take a bigger role? Tell me one thing the government does well. They don't. Nothing. Not one thing. But hey, let's give them more things to screw up. That makes a lot of sense.

For example, health insurance. I have NO health insurance. I pay out of pocket for everything. The last thing I want, even if it's "free" is for the government to mess with my healthcare. My g/f's kids are on medicaid, and lemme tell you that it is just not a system that I would want to deal with.

[04 Venom]

For example, health insurance. I have NO health insurance. I pay out of pocket for everything.

I assume that you would prefer having health insurance?

[Waffles]

I assume that you would prefer having health insurance?

At my own chosing and my own expense, yes at some point. I admittedly take the risk of not having health insurance because I'd rather have other things at the moment. However, venom, I don't ask you to pay for my insurance. I wouldn't do that to you. And I wouldn't do it to anyone else either. When it happens, it'll happen through work. I run the company, so it's my job to get the company in a position where it can pay for my insurance along with our other employees.

Here's the wonderful thing about the free market. If I buy insurance and I don't like it, I can switch insurance companies. If I don't like that my job doesn't have health insurance, I can get a new job. If I don't like any of my options, I can opt out entirely.

[04 Venom]

At my own chosing and my own expense, yes at some point. I admittedly take the risk of not having health insurance because I'd rather have other things at the moment. However, venom, I don't ask you to pay for my insurance. I wouldn't do that to you. And I wouldn't do it to anyone else either. When it happens, it'll happen through work. I run the company, so it's my job to get the company in a position where it can pay for my insurance along with our other employees.

Here's the wonderful thing about the free market. If I buy insurance and I don't like it, I can switch insurance companies. If I don't like that my job doesn't have health insurance, I can get a new job. If I don't like any of my options, I can opt out entirely.

As you say--your choice, but you are standing on a financial banana peel. Also, the free market is not as free or efficient as you are led to believe. As in many situations, theory and practice may only share a passing resemblance to each other.

[02mingryGT]

That would be one, but she, unfortunately, has lots of company.

I was talking about Bill but hell lets throw Hillary in too. I don't think Bush gives a rats ass what we think he does what he wants. Which is exactly what I would do.

[02mingryGT]

As you say--your choice, but you are standing on a financial banana peel. Also, the free market is not as free or efficient as you are led to believe. As in many situations, theory and practice may only share a passing resemblance to each other.

True but it's better than socialism any day of the week.

Another thought, a lot of people seem to be blaming the actual home buyer for this predicament. I don't think it is really their faults. They were offered a chance to improve themselves and because of not understanding either their loan terms or just falling on hard times, they defaulted. I don't believe that's what they wanted. They probably got put in a two year fixed 28 year adjustable and everyone knows you aren't going to fix your credit in two years to be able to get a 30 year fixed if your already at the limit making a house payment. I find it hard to blame them.

[04 Venom]

I don't think Bush gives a rats ass what we think he does what he wants.

Agree. Unfortunately, he has made some huge blunders.

[04 Venom]

Another thought, a lot of people seem to be blaming the actual home buyer for this predicament. I don't think it is really their faults.

If they failed to read or understand the mortgage they are partially to blame, along with the mortgage broker. If they bought a home on terms that they could just barely afford, leaving themselves little room for unexpected financial events or failed to plan for a financial reserve, they bear substantial blame. Some of the reports I read suggest that it was not just the mortgage payment that was too much, but excessive credit card debt as well.

If someone defaults because of a catastrophic medical expense or unforeseen job loss, sometimes shit happens to responsible people who act prudently. I'd suggest that is a small percentage of the defaults. Too many people believed the housing boom would never end, the value of the property would continue to escalate, and they would be able to refinance or cash in some of the equity to cover expenses that exceeded their cash flow. These overly optimistic homebuyers, and those who simply didn't know what they were getting into, represent the vast majority of the defaults. In those situations, the result was certainly foreseeable, if not likely, and they deserve some of the blame.

[Waffles]

As you say--your choice, but you are standing on a financial banana peel. Also, the free market is not as free or efficient as you are led to believe. As in many situations, theory and practice may only share a passing resemblance to each other.

I'm aware of that, and again, it's my choice. As to the issue of free market corrections, it works all the time. However, every time there is a correction, the government thinks they have to step in and do something about it. It really reminds me of global warming in a lot of ways.


I was talking about Bill but hell lets throw Hillary in too. I don't think Bush gives a rats ass what we think he does what he wants. Which is exactly what I would do.

At least he acts on his conscience. He obviously doesn't just blow with the wind as many other polititians do. Hell, he's pissed me off several times going against conservative values.


True but it's better than socialism any day of the week.

Another thought, a lot of people seem to be blaming the actual home buyer for this predicament. I don't think it is really their faults. They were offered a chance to improve themselves and because of not understanding either their loan terms or just falling on hard times, they defaulted. I don't believe that's what they wanted. They probably got put in a two year fixed 28 year adjustable and everyone knows you aren't going to fix your credit in two years to be able to get a 30 year fixed if your already at the limit making a house payment. I find it hard to blame them.

I spent five years as a mortgage broker, and two of those as a branch manager. Trust me when I tell you that I never met with one borrower that wasn't trying to borrow every nickel they could. They'd stretch everything, even against advice. For a time, we offered a 7 year balloon mortgage with a 40 year amortization. It was a TERRIBLE program, and everyone wanted it. Everyone wanted more house than they could possibily afford, all with the explanation that they'd be making more money in a few years and refinance.


If they failed to read or understand the mortgage they are partially to blame, along with the mortgage broker. If they bought a home on terms that they could just barely afford, leaving themselves little room for unexpected financial events or failed to plan for a financial reserve, they bear substantial blame. Some of the reports I read suggest that it was not just the mortgage payment that was too much, but excessive credit card debt as well.


It wasn't the mortgage brokers fault unless they engaged in fraudulent activity. I can tell you that I've seen it happen. However, a mortgage broker cannot deny a loan to a person who qualifies for a particular program. If they did, it would open them up to all kinds of discrimination suits etc.

The fault lays at the feet of the government (Democrats, if you can believe that) for mandating bad lending practices, and the borrower for taking personal financial responsibility.

[04 Venom]

[QUOTE=hardcore;410556] However, every time there is a correction, the government thinks they have to step in and do something about it.

Corrections in the market are cyclical and frequent. When did the government intervene previously? In 1987? In 2000? The last bailout I recall was the savings & loan collapse in the late 1980s. And by intervention, it seems to me that the proposed bailout is premised on a theory of a credit contraction and the asserted negative consequences resulting from it, not a correction in the stock market.

[04 Venom]

The fault lays at the feet of the government (Democrats, if you can believe that) for mandating bad lending practices, and the borrower for taking personal financial responsibility.

Blaming the government for everything and anything is like blaming food producers for the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is fat.

Regarding the "bad lending practices", I realize that it is becoming all the rage on the conservative blogs, but I don't see any change during the past 3-4 years, when the sub-prime mortgages were originated, to account for the cause and effect you assert exists. If this truly was the proximate cause, it wouldn't take years or decades (some cite legislation passed during the New Deal period), depending on which regulations are the asserted cause, for the ill effects to appear. In terms of this being a "Democratic" problem, why didn't the Republicans fix it during the six years when Bush was President and they controlled and both houses of Congress? Or even before that when they were a majority party during most of the time Clinton was President? Simply repeating a flawed argument doesn't improve its efficacy or appeal.

[Waffles]

[QUOTE=hardcore;410556] However, every time there is a correction, the government thinks they have to step in and do something about it.

Corrections in the market are cyclical and frequent. When did the government intervene previously? In 1987? In 2000? The last bailout I recall was the savings & loan collapse in the late 1980s. And by intervention, it seems to me that the proposed bailout is premised on a theory of a credit contraction and the asserted negative consequences resulting from it, not a correction in the stock market.

Bailouts are not the only ways the government gets involved.


Blaming the government for everything and anything is like blaming food producers for the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is fat.

Regarding the "bad lending practices", I realize that it is becoming all the rage on the conservative blogs, but I don't see any change during the past 3-4 years, when the sub-prime mortgages were originated, to account for the cause and effect you assert exists. If this truly was the proximate cause, it wouldn't take years or decades (some cite legislation passed during the New Deal period), depending on which regulations are the asserted cause, for the ill effects to appear. In terms of this being a "Democratic" problem, why didn't the Republicans fix it during the six years when Bush was President and they controlled and both houses of Congress? Or even before that when they were a majority party during most of the time Clinton was President? Simply repeating a flawed argument doesn't improve its efficacy or appeal.

I'm not even going to read all of this. Your analogy is just silly.

[02mingryGT]

Well of course the borrower is going to try to get everything he can. Just like Wimpy would try to get 10 hamburgers today and pay you tomorrow. I think Hardcore is right, it was the specific programs backed by the government that allowed it. But i find it hard to believe there wasn't some brokers who steered people to loans they probably couldn't afford, yet qualified for. Where there's money there's greed.

[04 Venom]

Well of course the borrower is going to try to get everything he can. Just like Wimpy would try to get 10 hamburgers today and pay you tomorrow. I think Hardcore is right, it was the specific programs backed by the government that allowed it. But i find it hard to believe there wasn't some brokers who steered people to loans they probably couldn't afford, yet qualified for. Where there's money there's greed.

There is more than enough blame to go around.

[Waffles]

Well of course the borrower is going to try to get everything he can. Just like Wimpy would try to get 10 hamburgers today and pay you tomorrow. I think Hardcore is right, it was the specific programs backed by the government that allowed it. But i find it hard to believe there wasn't some brokers who steered people to loans they probably couldn't afford, yet qualified for. Where there's money there's greed.

Well of course that happened, and probably continues. However, you have to present at least two options.

Now, I did write loans that put little old ladies in 30 year mortgages. I also wrote a ton of adjustible rate loans. I would still recommend these loans in those circumstances.

For instance, first home owners typically stay in their homes for only 3-5 years. If that's the plan, than an adjustible rate mortgage (ARM) will work wonderfully. Paying 4% for 3 years is much cheaper than paying 6% for 3 years. It ends up being $2164 cheaper over 3 years on a $150K house.

The 83 year old woman was widowed and had absolutely had no cash at the end of the month. Her kids were successful, but not helping her. I wrapped her car payments (YES! She was still driving! lol), her credit cards, and ever last other thing into a 6% 30 year mortgage and got her payment down to under $300. Her standard of living for her last years were what's important.

Did I make money? You bet I did. Who works for free?