Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 5:14*am, wrote:
Indeed, Hank "Rose Colored Glasses" Paulson is putting a nice bow on the $700B gift he wants to present to the laughing stock of the investing world...Hopefully, congress will see right through it... Instead of letting things settle through natural attrition, where the weak fold, and the strong survive, thus creating a stronger foundation from which to build, he proposes to to shove $700B worth of toothpicks under the house of cards to prop it up... There's so much Funny Money in this economy that the paper is worthless, as can be seen by the falling dollar....Throw another $700B at it, and look out below...I wonder if the other world economies appreciate that the US is being sustained by printing presses? I don't wish companies, or their employees, any harm, but a line must be drawn somewhere....These criminal moves by the FED have open far too many doors and windows....I think this should be put to vote, so the American people can decide how their tax dollars are spent... If you are opposed to the taxpayer-funded "bailout" email your people in congress. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ mitch |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 8:24 am, wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:14 am, wrote: Indeed, Hank "Rose Colored Glasses" Paulson is putting a nice bow on the $700B gift he wants to present to the laughing stock of the investing world...Hopefully, congress will see right through it... Instead of letting things settle through natural attrition, where the weak fold, and the strong survive, thus creating a stronger foundation from which to build, he proposes to to shove $700B worth of toothpicks under the house of cards to prop it up... There's so much Funny Money in this economy that the paper is worthless, as can be seen by the falling dollar....Throw another $700B at it, and look out below...I wonder if the other world economies appreciate that the US is being sustained by printing presses? I don't wish companies, or their employees, any harm, but a line must be drawn somewhere....These criminal moves by the FED have open far too many doors and windows....I think this should be put to vote, so the American people can decide how their tax dollars are spent... If you are opposed to the taxpayer-funded "bailout" email your people in congress. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ mitch Specifically, email Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent. I got the below message this morning and have forwarded it to my entire list. I hope many of you will do the same IN YOUR OWN INTERESTS! .. Apparently he is getting so many messages, his box is sometimes clogged, so don't give up. "I urge you to go to Representative Bernie Sanders' website to sign a petition to protest the giveaway of the Treasury to Wall Street. Rep. Sanders of Vermont is creating a bill to prevent the middle class from having to pay for the Fat Cats' destruction of our economy. Please visit his website at: www.sanders.senate.gov and sign the petition IN YOUR OWN INTEREST! |
#4
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. |
#5
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 2:55*pm, mike wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all, most of them lost their homes. Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned. Jeannie |
#6
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
mike wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I'm not being sarcastic. And it's not a good investment. The ROI is terrible, but, in the end, the government will make a profit. It's not debt at gunpoint either, it's simply the best of several bad alternatives. Even if the $700 billion goes down the toilet, that's still better than several trillion in lost productivity due to a collapse of the credit market. When I say collapse of the credit market, I'm talking banks calling due all loans (car, home, etc.), credit card companies stopping all additional charges and demanding full payment for outstanding balances, and other dire consequences. If a business can't borrow to pay for its Christmas merchandise, it won't have anything to sell in November and December. If it can't make sales, it can't make a profit. That's no wages, rent, etc. You may buy a gallon of milk for cash, but the market bought the milk on credit. Cash transactions make up an insignificant part of the GDP. The rest is credit. No credit - or a damaged credit system - no GDP. |
#7
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 3:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. Those are referred to as NINJA loans - No Income, No Job, no Assets. KC |
#8
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
"KC" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 3:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. Those are referred to as NINJA loans - No Income, No Job, no Assets. KC I had never heard the term "NINJA loans" before but it certainly fits. Now the people who bought the houses they couldn't afford with loans they never read, have a couple of options. The banks will lower their principle, or lower their mortgage interest rate, or lower both. Or, if they don't like those options, they just say "****-it" and walk away from the whole mess. Not to worry, those suckers who worked, saved and rented and then bought a house they could actually afford, will be glad to pick up the tab. Irish Mike |
#9
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
Irish Mike wrote:
"KC" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 3:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. Those are referred to as NINJA loans - No Income, No Job, no Assets. KC I had never heard the term "NINJA loans" before but it certainly fits. Now the people who bought the houses they couldn't afford with loans they never read, have a couple of options. The banks will lower their principle, or lower their mortgage interest rate, or lower both. Or, if they don't like those options, they just say "****-it" and walk away from the whole mess. Not to worry, those suckers who worked, saved and rented and then bought a house they could actually afford, will be glad to pick up the tab. You bet: "More than a negligible amount of the blame for the mortgage meltdown can be traced back to multiculturalism: government-mandated affirmative-action lending, demographic change, illegal immigration, and the mind-numbing effects of political correctness." http://www.takimag.com/site/article/...e_the_housing/ |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
In article ,
"Irish Mike" wrote: "KC" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 3:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. Those are referred to as NINJA loans - No Income, No Job, no Assets. KC I had never heard the term "NINJA loans" before but it certainly fits. Now the people who bought the houses they couldn't afford with loans they never read, have a couple of options. The banks will lower their principle, or lower their mortgage interest rate, or lower both. Or, if they don't like those options, they just say "****-it" and walk away from the whole mess. Not to worry, those suckers who worked, saved and rented and then bought a house they could actually afford, will be glad to pick up the tab. Irish Mike In this state, one can walk away from a "purchase-money" loan without fear of reprisal. Only drawback is a giant stain on your credit. OTOH, many of the people who are now in trouble are those who refinanced when times were headier. A refi is not a purchase-money loan, and the lender can chase your other assets to the ends of the earth to satisfy the debt. Crossposting beyond ahr deleted. |
#11
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 10:24*am, wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:14*am, wrote: Indeed, Hank "Rose Colored Glasses" Paulson is putting a nice bow on the $700B gift he wants to present to the laughing stock of the investing world...Hopefully, congress will see right through it... Instead of letting things settle through natural attrition, where the weak fold, and the strong survive, thus creating a stronger foundation from which to build, he proposes to to shove $700B worth of toothpicks under the house of cards to prop it up... There's so much Funny Money in this economy that the paper is worthless, as can be seen by the falling dollar....Throw another $700B at it, and look out below...I wonder if the other world economies appreciate that the US is being sustained by printing presses? I don't wish companies, or their employees, any harm, but a line must be drawn somewhere....These criminal moves by the FED have open far too many doors and windows....I think this should be put to vote, so the American people can decide how their tax dollars are spent... If you are opposed to the taxpayer-funded "bailout" email your people in congress. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ mitch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I've never missed a mortgage payment on 4 houses over the course of 25+ years. Since I am so dependable I think I should be rewarded by havingg the federal govt help me pay my current mortgage, or at least make a few payments on my behalf. I think I deserve this more than someone who defaulted and the govt doesn't want them getting foreclosed upon. Good behavior should have its rewards and bad behavior its consequences, right. I resent my tax dollars bailing out individuals in McMansions who missed payments because they could not understand the reality their own budget before they signed a balloon loan. What do you think? |
#12
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
|
#13
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
wrote:
"RickH" wrote in message news:822c94ee-15fc-40a5-989f- ... On Sep 23, 10:24 am, wrote: On Sep 23, 5:14 am, wrote: I resent my tax dollars bailing out individuals in McMansions who missed payments because they could not understand the reality their own budget before they signed a balloon loan. What do you think? Bing bing bing, we have a winner. From what I've read, most of the people in foreclosure are losing homes they haven't been in for very long, put little or nothing down, and were paying interest only. So what, exactly, are they losing? They were, in reality, renting palaces that they should have realized they could never afford. And we're supposed to bail these people out? I don't think so. That's not the problem. Assume each mortgage was $100,000. A hundred of these were bundled into one instrument worth $10 million. This was then sold, on credit, to Acme Corp who put it up as collateral to build a new factory. These mortgages are now worthless and the people who loaned money to Acme call the loan. Acme doesn't have $10 million in cash and no way to get it. The close their business putting 100 people out of work. The bank that loaned $10 million to Acme now has a worthless loan and this, coupled with fifty other such loans, causes the bank to close. And so on... The $700 billion in bad mortgages ripples through the $12 trillion credit market and causes most of the credit market to collapse. |
#14
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 24, "HeyBub" wrote:
They were, in reality, renting palaces that they should have realized they could never afford. And we're supposed to bail these people out? I don't think so. That's not the problem. Assume each mortgage was $100,000. A hundred of these were bundled into one instrument worth $10 million. This was then sold, on credit, to Acme Corp who put it up as collateral to build a new factory. These mortgages are now worthless and the people who loaned money to Acme call the loan. Acme doesn't have $10 million in cash and no way to get it. The close their business putting 100 people out of work. The bank that loaned $10 million to Acme now has a worthless loan and this, coupled with fifty other such loans, causes the bank to close. And so on... The $700 billion in bad mortgages ripples through the $12 trillion credit market and causes most of the credit market to collapse. Props on a nice synopsis. Too bad so few people understand finance. However.... let's look at the larger pictu This crash has been a long time coming, for various reasons. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, Hamlet... So, now what? "save the system, restore confidence"? Is the system worth saving? Congress plans to restore FMae and FMac to the status quo - bailout, then back to business! You are running a mild fever, the doctor says: "You can continue like this for a long time, or I can prescribe radical therapy. You will suffer horribly for a couple days, then recover." Which do you choose? |
#15
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
RichD wrote:
On Sep 24, "HeyBub" wrote: They were, in reality, renting palaces that they should have realized they could never afford. And we're supposed to bail these people out? I don't think so. That's not the problem. Assume each mortgage was $100,000. A hundred of these were bundled into one instrument worth $10 million. This was then sold, on credit, to Acme Corp who put it up as collateral to build a new factory. These mortgages are now worthless and the people who loaned money to Acme call the loan. Acme doesn't have $10 million in cash and no way to get it. The close their business putting 100 people out of work. The bank that loaned $10 million to Acme now has a worthless loan and this, coupled with fifty other such loans, causes the bank to close. And so on... The $700 billion in bad mortgages ripples through the $12 trillion credit market and causes most of the credit market to collapse. Props on a nice synopsis. Too bad so few people understand finance. However.... let's look at the larger pictu This crash has been a long time coming, for various reasons. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, Hamlet... So, now what? "save the system, restore confidence"? Is the system worth saving? Congress plans to restore FMae and FMac to the status quo - bailout, then back to business! There is NO plan to restore Mac or Mae to the status quo. But you're right. This debacle has been building for a long time. Since 1977 to be exact when the Carter administration supported the Community Reinvestment Act. This law mandated that mortgage lenders meet government quotas for handing out bad (i.e., subprime) loans. Failure to meet these quotas resulted in "penalties," penalties sometimes so severe as to cause the lender to go out of business. In recent times, these loans under the threat of the CRA expanded dramatically. In the past ten years or so, mortgages to less than credit-worthy applicants increased from 20% of the market to 27% recently. Since 1995, and as recently as 2005, legislation has been introduced to "reform" this crazy law. In every case it was blocked by Democratic opposition. |
#16
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:03:36 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: There is NO plan to restore Mac or Mae to the status quo. But you're right. This debacle has been building for a long time. Since 1977 to be exact when the Carter administration supported the Community Reinvestment Act. This law mandated that mortgage lenders meet government quotas for handing out bad (i.e., subprime) loans. Failure to meet these quotas resulted in "penalties," penalties sometimes so severe as to cause the lender to go out of business. Oh **** this tired old ****. How many times are we going to have to respond to this bull****. In recent times, these loans under the threat of the CRA expanded dramatically. Why? Because Bush amended it with the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 that took away the level of down payment necessary and made them less secure. It was a ****ing GOP measure that caused the increase and sank the boat. The program ran for 25 years with no real troubles until Bush turned it into a get rich measure for realtors and lenders. In the past ten years or so, mortgages to less than credit-worthy applicants increased from 20% of the market to 27% recently. Last five years. 2003 to 2008. Since 1995, and as recently as 2005, legislation has been introduced to "reform" this crazy law. In every case it was blocked by Democratic opposition. The "reform" was taking it out of government supervision combining them into an even bigger bureaucratic entity. . Sheesh. You are correct that the American Dream Downpayment act contributed. But only at the margins. This was a mere $200 million per year program and for the five years since its inception accounted for, at most, $1 billion. From an editorial in today's paper: "[Clinton] turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse. "Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class. "[But] Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else." http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....07149667289804 Once again, most problems in society, and certainly this one, are the result of failed, upstream, liberal programs. |
#17
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 24, 11:10*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:03:36 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: There is NO plan to restore Mac or Mae to the status quo. But you're right. This *debacle has been building for a long time. Since 1977 to be exact when the Carter administration supported the Community Reinvestment Act. This law mandated that mortgage lenders meet government quotas for handing out bad (i.e., subprime) loans. Failure to meet these quotas resulted in "penalties," penalties sometimes so severe as to cause the lender to go out of business. Oh **** this tired old ****. How many times are we going to have to respond to this bull****. In recent times, these loans under the threat of the CRA expanded dramatically. Why? Because Bush amended it with the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 that took away the level of down payment necessary and made them less secure. It was a ****ing GOP measure that caused the increase and sank the boat. The program ran for 25 years with no real troubles until Bush turned it into a get rich measure for realtors and lenders. Now I believe there is plenty of blame to spread around for the current crisis. And that blame goes to both parties, blind greed on wall street, execs at Fannie and Freddie cooking the books to get tens of million in bonuses, the borrowers, etc. However, the above statement is totally inaccurate. The Act referred to above provided assistance to first time home buyers in the form of helping with the down-payment and/or closing costs. First time buyers who were at 80% of the mean income level for the area or below, could get up to 6% of the purchase price or $10,000 toward the purchase. That did not take away or reduce the requirement for a down-payment to secure the loan. It just meant part of the down-payment was coming from the govt. To try to turn that into something Bush did to make realtors and lenders rich is preposterous. The measure was widely supported by Dems too. In fact, the whole idea is exactly the kind of thing Dems are always harping for, ie redistributing the wealth, giving assistance to those with lower incomes, etc. Also, a lot of these loans going bad were made to people who had higher incomes and would never qualify for this program. Cases like 2 income families making $100K+ that chose to push their finances to the limit and buy as big a house as they could, with an ARM set at a below market teaser rate. Many of these people were barely able to make the payment from the start and planned to just hold on to the house for 3 years, then flip it for a profit. Problem is, some of them fell on hard times, lost one income, etc, then had the ARM adjust from 2% to a normal market rate of 6% and then had the house value decline 30%+ as well. If you want to look at root causes, I'd say allowing mortgages to be made with artificially low intro rates so people could qualify is a big one. It makes no sense to me, but lenders have been making these loans for a long time, where people qualify based on their ability to pay the initial and artificial low rate. In 3 to 5 years, the rate gets adjusted up to the market rate, meaning the payment could double. Obviously bad business. In the past ten years or so, mortgages to less than credit-worthy applicants increased from 20% of the market to 27% recently. Last five years. 2003 to 2008. Since 1995, and as recently as 2005, legislation has been introduced to "reform" this crazy law. In every case it was blocked by Democratic opposition. The "reform" was taking it out of government supervision combining them into an even bigger bureaucratic entity. . Sheesh. |
#18
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:03:36 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: There is NO plan to restore Mac or Mae to the status quo. But you're right. This debacle has been building for a long time. Since 1977 to be exact when the Carter administration supported the Community Reinvestment Act. This law mandated that mortgage lenders meet government quotas for handing out bad (i.e., subprime) loans. Failure to meet these quotas resulted in "penalties," penalties sometimes so severe as to cause the lender to go out of business. Oh **** this tired old ****. How many times are we going to have to respond to this bull****. In recent times, these loans under the threat of the CRA expanded dramatically. Why? Because Bush amended it with the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 that took away the level of down payment necessary and made them less secure. It was a ****ing GOP measure that caused the increase and sank the boat. The program ran for 25 years with no real troubles until Bush turned it into a get rich measure for realtors and lenders. In the past ten years or so, mortgages to less than credit-worthy applicants increased from 20% of the market to 27% recently. Last five years. 2003 to 2008. Since 1995, and as recently as 2005, legislation has been introduced to "reform" this crazy law. In every case it was blocked by Democratic opposition. The "reform" was taking it out of government supervision combining them into an even bigger bureaucratic entity. . Sheesh. You are correct that the American Dream Downpayment act contributed. But only at the margins. This was a mere $200 million per year program and for the five years since its inception accounted for, at most, $1 billion. From an editorial in today's paper: "[Clinton] turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse. "Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class. "[But] Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else." http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....07149667289804 Once again, most problems in society, and certainly this one, are the result of failed, upstream, liberal programs. And Clinton iced the cake when signed the repeal of the Glass-Stengal [banking regulation] Act which was put in place in the 1930s after so many banks failed in the Great Depression. The corner stone of the Democrat political strategy is to create welfare, entitlement and hand out programs to buy votes. They have learned that if you rob Peter and pay Paul, Paul is going to vote for you. BTW, liberals conveniently forget that the Democrats have controlled congress and chaired all of the banking and finance committees for the past two years. Irish Mike |
#19
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 6:34*am, "Irish Mike" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:03:36 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: There is NO plan to restore Mac or Mae to the status quo. But you're right. This *debacle has been building for a long time. Since 1977 to be exact when the Carter administration supported the Community Reinvestment Act. This law mandated that mortgage lenders meet government quotas for handing out bad (i.e., subprime) loans. Failure to meet these quotas resulted in "penalties," penalties sometimes so severe as to cause the lender to go out of business. Oh **** this tired old ****. How many times are we going to have to respond to this bull****. In recent times, these loans under the threat of the CRA expanded dramatically. Why? Because Bush amended it with the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 that took away the level of down payment necessary and made them less secure. It was a ****ing GOP measure that caused the increase and sank the boat. The program ran for 25 years with no real troubles until Bush turned it into a get rich measure for realtors and lenders. In the past ten years or so, mortgages to less than credit-worthy applicants increased from 20% of the market to 27% recently. Last five years. 2003 to 2008. Since 1995, and as recently as 2005, legislation has been introduced to "reform" this crazy law. In every case it was blocked by Democratic opposition. The "reform" was taking it out of government supervision combining them into an even bigger bureaucratic entity. . Sheesh. You are correct that the American Dream Downpayment act contributed. But only at the margins. This was a mere $200 million per year program and for the five years since its inception accounted for, at most, $1 billion. From an editorial in today's paper: "[Clinton] turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse. "Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class. "[But] Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else." http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....07149667289804 Once again, most problems in society, and certainly this one, are the result of failed, upstream, liberal programs. And Clinton iced the cake when signed the repeal of the Glass-Stengal [banking regulation] Act which was put in place in the 1930s after so many banks failed in the Great Depression. Um... Who drafted and voted for the repeal of Glass-Stengal? Didn't Phil Gramm draft the bill and push it through with a veto-less Republican majority? *The corner stone of the Democrat political strategy is to create welfare, entitlement and hand out programs to buy votes. How did the Republican repeal of Glass-Stengal push forward this "Democrat[ic] political strategy"? Clinton is a pragmatist. If you're not in the game you can't win or even score points. *They have learned that if you rob Peter and pay Paul, Paul is going to vote for you. *BTW, liberals conveniently forget that the Democrats have controlled congress and chaired all of the banking and finance committees for the past two years. Republicans can't take responsibility for any of their actions and philosophies, that is clear. |
#20
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:35:12 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: The "reform" was taking it out of government supervision combining them into an even bigger bureaucratic entity. . Sheesh. You are correct that the American Dream Downpayment act contributed. But only at the margins. This was a mere $200 million per year program and for the five years since its inception accounted for, at most, $1 billion. 200,000 mortgages. It shows you that they were at work after all. -- C-SPAN3? http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:808.../schedule.csp? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28670 Oops: http://openthread.dailykos.com/story...735/868/609334 |
#21
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 9:14*am, wrote:
The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. Bingo! People who cannot come up with 20 pct should not own THAT home, period. But they can own a home that represents 20 pct of what they can come up with. People can blame the banks and the investment firms as much as they want, but the bottom line remains, and that is, that the regular folks buying homes got greedy, denied their real abilities to uphold their ends of the deals, and irresponsibly defaulted. Many of those folks were sub-prime and unworthy in the first place to be considered for a loan, but the govt made the banks do the bad loans anyway. I feel most sorry for the investors who puchased the securities, because they were buying lies that started with Mr. and Mrs. Smith on Main street. And the shareholders are OUR retirement and savings. |
#22
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 10:14*am, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Now I believe there is plenty of blame to spread around for the current crisis. *And that blame goes to both parties, blind greed on wall street, execs at Fannie and Freddie cooking the books to get tens of million in bonuses, the borrowers, etc. * However, the above statement is totally inaccurate. * The Act referred to above provided assistance to first time home buyers in the form of helping with the down-payment and/or closing costs. * First time buyers who were at 80% of the mean income level for the area or below, could get up to 6% of the purchase price or $10,000 toward the purchase. * *That did not take away or reduce the requirement for a down-payment to secure the loan. * * It just meant part of the down-payment was coming from the govt. It meant THE down payment was coming from the Gov. *The lenders were accepting that amount. The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. It meant at least part of the down payment was coming from the govt. There was nothing in the American Dream Down Payment Act that had anything to do with or changed how much the down payment had to be. If you get a mortgage secured by a down payment of X%, with all other things, ie salary, credit history, honest appraisal, etc being equal, it provides the same security cushion for the lender regardless of where the down payment came from. Plenty of down payments come at least in part as gifts from parents to children. In this case, it came from the govt. Isn't that what liberal Dems want? For the govt to help out those less fortunate? |
#23
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 10:54*am, RickH wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:14*am, wrote: The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. Bingo! *People who cannot come up with 20 pct should not own THAT home, period. *But they can own a home that represents 20 pct of what they can come up with. People can blame the banks and the investment firms as much as they want, but the bottom line remains, and that is, that the regular folks buying homes got greedy, denied their real abilities to uphold their ends of the deals, and irresponsibly defaulted. *Many of those folks were sub-prime and unworthy in the first place to be considered for a loan, but the govt made the banks do the bad loans anyway. *I feel most sorry for the investors who puchased the securities, because they were buying lies that started with Mr. and Mrs. Smith on Main street. And the shareholders are OUR retirement and savings. So, you feel sorry for Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG? Interestingly, if you believe the concept that Wall Street did all this out of greed and not stupidity, then why is it that BS, Lehman, Merrill and a whole list of others wound up holding these mortgage backed securities themselves? If they knew how things were going to turn out, why didn't they just make sure to sell them all off? |
#24
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Also, a lot of these loans going bad were made to people who had higher incomes and would never qualify for this program. Cases like 2 income families making $100K+ that chose to push their finances to the limit and buy as big a house as they could, with an ARM set at a below market teaser rate. Many of these people were barely able to make the payment from the start and planned to just hold on to the house for 3 years, then flip it for a profit. Problem is, some of them fell on hard times, lost one income, etc, then had the ARM adjust from 2% to a normal market rate of 6% and then had the house value decline 30%+ as well. I didn't say it was the whole problem. Unscrupulous lenders were a huge part - especially when they could pass the paper quickly. The people who bought houses and got these mortgages based on the fact that they could sell them for much more money in a few years showed just as much greed as the Wall St. dudes yet they get to slide, if not actually encouraged to do it again. |
#25
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 10:17*am, wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:54*am, RickH wrote: On Sep 25, 9:14*am, wrote: The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. Bingo! *People who cannot come up with 20 pct should not own THAT home, period. *But they can own a home that represents 20 pct of what they can come up with. People can blame the banks and the investment firms as much as they want, but the bottom line remains, and that is, that the regular folks buying homes got greedy, denied their real abilities to uphold their ends of the deals, and irresponsibly defaulted. *Many of those folks were sub-prime and unworthy in the first place to be considered for a loan, but the govt made the banks do the bad loans anyway. *I feel most sorry for the investors who puchased the securities, because they were buying lies that started with Mr. and Mrs. Smith on Main street. And the shareholders are OUR retirement and savings. So, you feel sorry for Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG? Interestingly, if you believe the concept that Wall Street did all this out of greed and not stupidity, then why is it that BS, Lehman, Merrill and a whole list of others wound up holding these mortgage backed securities themselves? * *If they knew how things were going to turn out, why didn't they just make sure to sell them all off?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bottom line remains that Mr and Mrs smith on Main street defaulted, they signed things they should not have, and the bankers let them do it. I feel sorry for the investors who bought the securities from BS, LB, AIG, etc. because they are me (and probably you too if you have a 401K, SEP, IRA, or Keough plan), that is who I feel sorry for. Mr. and Mrs. smith on Main street are just as culpable in the lie about the quality of these securities as the bankers are. I feel sorry for the investors because they are the only ones who didn't lie, but they get burned because they took the risk in capital to back these securites on unworthy homebuyers. Main street has plent of investors too these days, its not all trillion dollar pension funds who look for quality mortgage-backed securities to invest. The homebuyers and the bankers all put pretty bows on these unreliable securites, in their own ways. |
#26
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 10:13*am, wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:14*am, wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Now I believe there is plenty of blame to spread around for the current crisis. *And that blame goes to both parties, blind greed on wall street, execs at Fannie and Freddie cooking the books to get tens of million in bonuses, the borrowers, etc. * However, the above statement is totally inaccurate. * The Act referred to above provided assistance to first time home buyers in the form of helping with the down-payment and/or closing costs. * First time buyers who were at 80% of the mean income level for the area or below, could get up to 6% of the purchase price or $10,000 toward the purchase. * *That did not take away or reduce the requirement for a down-payment to secure the loan. * * It just meant part of the down-payment was coming from the govt. It meant THE down payment was coming from the Gov. *The lenders were accepting that amount. The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. It meant at least part of the down payment was coming from the govt. There was nothing in the American Dream Down Payment Act that had anything to do with or changed how much the down payment had to be. If you get a mortgage secured by a down payment of X%, with all other things, ie salary, credit history, honest appraisal, etc being equal, it provides the same security cushion for the lender regardless of where the down payment came from. * Plenty of down payments come at least in part as gifts from parents to children. *In this case, it came from the govt. *Isn't that what liberal Dems want? * For the govt to help out those less fortunate?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A down payment from anyone but the potential homeowner is not truly a down payment, its just another loan. The whole purpose of down payment is that the new homeowner FEEL and HAVE a real stake in the property. Without painful and REAL downpayments, the system is doomed because Mr and Mrs Smith can walk away too easily knowing they have no large stake in the property, and are just walking away from two lenders instead of one, the morgager and the down-payment lender. |
#27
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, Jeannie wrote:
On Sep 23, 2:55*pm, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all, most of them lost their homes. Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned. Jeannie People who loan money to people who can't pay it back are irresponsible. |
#28
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 23, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I'm not being sarcastic. And it's not a good investment. The ROI is terrible, but, in the end, the government will make a profit. It's not debt at gunpoint either, it's simply the best of several bad alternatives. Even if the $700 billion goes down the toilet, that's still better than several trillion in lost productivity due to a collapse of the credit market. When I say collapse of the credit market, I'm talking banks calling due all loans (car, home, etc.), credit card companies stopping all additional charges and demanding full payment for outstanding balances, and other dire consequences. If a business can't borrow to pay for its Christmas merchandise, it won't have anything to sell in November and December. If it can't make sales, it can't make a profit. That's no wages, rent, etc. You may buy a gallon of milk for cash, but the market bought the milk on credit. Cash transactions make up an insignificant part of the GDP. The rest is credit. No credit - or a damaged credit system - no GDP. Not at gunpoint? Great, then I guess I can stop paying taxes and the gov't won't do a thing. (chuckle) The entities who caused the problem should fail. That will keep the problem from occuring again. I agree that PC legislation is behind the mess. A real solution isn't a bailout that will just destroy another sector of the economy (taxpayers). A real solution is to lower taxes for everyone (capital gains, etc) and slash non-essential gov't spending. Taxes are 5 times too high, and non-essential gov't spending should be zero. |
#29
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 11:35*am, RickH wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:13*am, wrote: On Sep 25, 10:14*am, wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Now I believe there is plenty of blame to spread around for the current crisis. *And that blame goes to both parties, blind greed on wall street, execs at Fannie and Freddie cooking the books to get tens of million in bonuses, the borrowers, etc. * However, the above statement is totally inaccurate. * The Act referred to above provided assistance to first time home buyers in the form of helping with the down-payment and/or closing costs. * First time buyers who were at 80% of the mean income level for the area or below, could get up to 6% of the purchase price or $10,000 toward the purchase. * *That did not take away or reduce the requirement for a down-payment to secure the loan. * * It just meant part of the down-payment was coming from the govt. It meant THE down payment was coming from the Gov. *The lenders were accepting that amount. The old 20% down rule was a thing of the past. It meant at least part of the down payment was coming from the govt. There was nothing in the American Dream Down Payment Act that had anything to do with or changed how much the down payment had to be. If you get a mortgage secured by a down payment of X%, with all other things, ie salary, credit history, honest appraisal, etc being equal, it provides the same security cushion for the lender regardless of where the down payment came from. * Plenty of down payments come at least in part as gifts from parents to children. *In this case, it came from the govt. *Isn't that what liberal Dems want? * For the govt to help out those less fortunate?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A down payment from anyone but the potential homeowner is not truly a down payment, its just another loan. * Nonsense. A loan comes with an obligation to pay it back. In the case of the Amercian Dream Act, there was no obligation to ever pay it back. In the case of a gift that a parent gives a child, there is no oblgation to pay it back, it's a gift. The whole purpose of down payment is that the new homeowner FEEL and HAVE a real stake in the property. *Without painful and REAL downpayments, the system is doomed because Mr and Mrs Smith can walk away too easily knowing they have no large stake in the property, and are just walking away from two lenders instead of one, the morgager and the down-payment lender.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - While it's certainly true that putting up the down payment means the homeowner will feel they have a real stake in the property, it;s certainly NOT the whole purpose of a down payment. The main purpose of the down payment is so that there is enough cushion for the lender to be able to foreclose on the loan if necessary and still recover 100% of the loan. |
#30
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
mike wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I'm not being sarcastic. And it's not a good investment. The ROI is terrible, but, in the end, the government will make a profit. It's not debt at gunpoint either, it's simply the best of several bad alternatives. Even if the $700 billion goes down the toilet, that's still better than several trillion in lost productivity due to a collapse of the credit market. When I say collapse of the credit market, I'm talking banks calling due all loans (car, home, etc.), credit card companies stopping all additional charges and demanding full payment for outstanding balances, and other dire consequences. If a business can't borrow to pay for its Christmas merchandise, it won't have anything to sell in November and December. If it can't make sales, it can't make a profit. That's no wages, rent, etc. You may buy a gallon of milk for cash, but the market bought the milk on credit. Cash transactions make up an insignificant part of the GDP. The rest is credit. No credit - or a damaged credit system - no GDP. Not at gunpoint? Great, then I guess I can stop paying taxes and the gov't won't do a thing. (chuckle) The entities who caused the problem should fail. That's what happened in 1929. The stockbrokers ALL went broke. So did the farmers in the midwest who couldn't even SPELL "stockbroker." And everyone else. There are great similarities to the stocks of 1929 and the mortgages of 2008. Both were WAY over-valued. Both were used for collateral for loans. When their underlying value was made known, the loans failed. When the loans fail, everything depending on the loans fails. That will keep the problem from occuring again. I agree that PC legislation is behind the mess. A real solution isn't a bailout that will just destroy another sector of the economy (taxpayers). Taxpayers are minimally involved. The government may even make a profit on the deal, thereby lowering taxes. Remember, the government made a profit on the Mexico, New York City, and Chrysler bailouts. By most accounting practices, the federal government made a profit on the S&L rescue scheme. A real solution is to lower taxes for everyone (capital gains, etc) and slash non-essential gov't spending. Taxes are 5 times too high, and non-essential gov't spending should be zero. We Republicans also believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate bee-bites. |
#31
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 12:35*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
We Republicans also believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate bee-bites.- Bee bites? No. Morbidly obese goverment sucking the life out the economy? Yes. They're the ones that brought this food-stamp backed mortgage crisis. If these bad mortgages packages can turn a profit, put _your_ money where your mouth is and snatch them up. The houses behind them are being reclaimed by nature as we speak. |
#32
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
You know, when I refinanced last year, a mortgage company (actually,
country wide) offered me all kind of deals. If I didn't have a suspicious mind, I might have taken one of them and now be in one of those "upside down" positions. I went with somebody else because there stuff looked problematic to me. But I can see how someone might have gotten sucked in...a five year balloon or an interest only or....etc, etc, etc. Suppose, for example, you took one of those low interest, five-year, refinances. Suppose you could have afforded the higher interest rate but you thought this made more sense. Now your five years is up and you have to refinance. Suppose your house appraised at $200,000 when you refinanced and now it is worth $150,000. Suppose you put 20% down. Now, you owe $160,000 on a house worth $150,000. In this credit market, you are probably going to have to put 20% down. Do the math; you will have to come up with $40,000 to refinance. Good luck. Not everyone was greedy or stupid. Some might have been naive. Priscilla On Sep 23, 3:10 pm, Jeannie wrote: On Sep 23, 2:55 pm, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all, most of them lost their homes. Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned. Jeannie People who loan money to people who can't pay it back are irresponsible. |
#33
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 9:05*am, mike wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, Jeannie wrote: On Sep 23, 2:55*pm, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all, most of them lost their homes. Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned. Jeannie People who loan money to people who can't pay it back are irresponsible. No, that's shortsighted. People who loan *other people's* money to people who can't pay it back...now, they're irresponsible. Or maybe criminal! But I'm still not letting the buyers off the hook. "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" seems never to have occurred to some of these people. Jeannie |
#34
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 25, 11:54*pm, Jeannie wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:05*am, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 3:10*pm, Jeannie wrote: On Sep 23, 2:55*pm, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment.. I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment, people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages. Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so they be irresponsible again, and again, and again. I didn't see the irresponsible being let off the hook...after all, most of them lost their homes. Hopefully that will be a lesson well learned. Jeannie People who loan money to people who can't pay it back are irresponsible. No, that's shortsighted. *People who loan *other people's* money to people who can't pay it back...now, they're irresponsible. *Or maybe criminal! But I'm still not letting the buyers off the hook. *"If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" seems never to have occurred to some of these people. Jeannie- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - One obvious thing that makes no sense to me is the following. Any of us who have gotten a normal mortgage know what the process is like. The lender needs proof of everything from employment, to all assets, where the down payment is coming from, to even proof of what your rent has been for the last year. It's like being interrogated. On the other hand, they make ARM loans based on the borrowers ability to pay the artificially low introductory teaser rate? And to people with poor credit scores? Many of these problem mortgages were just that, set at low intro rates, that were bound to move up several points the first time they adjusted. |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
|
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On 09/23/08 04:20 pm HeyBub wrote:
It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. The government will eventually get its money back - just like it did with the S&L fiasco. You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. They got them because various agencies and lending institutions were required to "service the underserved." Failure to do so was evidence sufficient of incipient racism, greed, elitism, or doing the hokey-pokey. The problem is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to enable people to support a family, including purchasing a home -- and often not even sufficient to pay rent for an apartment in any neighborhood where anybody would want to live, or anywhere close to their place of employment. And guess which ethnic groups get most of those insufficient-pay-to-live-on jobs. I read in the paper a few days ago a complaint by a realtor that people now need to put down 10%, and that is too much. For a long time Australian banks were prohibited from lending more than 80% of the value of a home, and loans were not permitted where payments would exceed 25% of the husband's salary (on the assumption that the wife would become pregnant and have to drop out of the work force). Yet home ownership was high. How? Because the minimum wage for a 40-hour week was based on the cost of housing and feeding a family of four. There were skill bonuses, paid sick leave, 10 paid public holidays a year in addition to paid leave of at least two weeks per year (and over the years it increased to four weeks per year), and affordable health care. Part-time workers were paid a higher rate per hour to compensate for the absence of paid sick leave and holidays. These wages were set by an Arbitration Commission to which employers' representatives, employees' representatives, and the Commonwealth Government made submissions. The Commission's decisions were legally binding. Perce |
#37
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 26, 7:17�am, wrote:
On Sep 25, 11:54�pm, Jeannie wrote: On Sep 25, 9:05�am, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 3:10�pm, Jeannie wrote: On Sep 23, 2:55�pm, mike wrote: On Sep 23, 1:20�pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 09/23/08 04:20 pm HeyBub wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. The government will eventually get its money back - just like it did with the S&L fiasco. You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. They got them because various agencies and lending institutions were required to "service the underserved." Failure to do so was evidence sufficient of incipient racism, greed, elitism, or doing the hokey-pokey. The problem is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to enable people to support a family, including purchasing a home -- and often not even sufficient to pay rent for an apartment in any neighborhood where anybody would want to live, or anywhere close to their place of employment. And guess which ethnic groups get most of those insufficient-pay-to-live-on jobs. Oh that's baloney. Even a minimum-wage job is sufficient to afford a cardboard box! I read in the paper a few days ago a complaint by a realtor that people now need to put down 10%, and that is too much. The realtor was wrong. For a long time Australian banks were prohibited from lending more than 80% of the value of a home, and loans were not permitted where payments would exceed 25% of the husband's salary (on the assumption that the wife would become pregnant and have to drop out of the work force). Yet home ownership was high. How? Because the minimum wage for a 40-hour week was based on the cost of housing and feeding a family of four. Less than 20% of people in America in minimum-wage jobs are the primary income source for the family. The VAST majority are teens, retirees, and part-time workers. In Australia, the minimum wage is based on OCCUPATION not family size. It currently is about $13USD/hour. Bottom line: If you can't afford a family of four, don't HAVE a family of four. Here's a recent video on the cause of the sub-prime meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On 09/26/08 05:15 pm HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote: On 09/23/08 04:20 pm HeyBub wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. The government will eventually get its money back - just like it did with the S&L fiasco. You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. They got them because various agencies and lending institutions were required to "service the underserved." Failure to do so was evidence sufficient of incipient racism, greed, elitism, or doing the hokey-pokey. The problem is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to enable people to support a family, including purchasing a home -- and often not even sufficient to pay rent for an apartment in any neighborhood where anybody would want to live, or anywhere close to their place of employment. And guess which ethnic groups get most of those insufficient-pay-to-live-on jobs. Oh that's baloney. Even a minimum-wage job is sufficient to afford a cardboard box! You're not serious, are you? Do you think that anybody in "the richest/greatest country in the world" (according to our own propaganda) should have to live in a cardboard box? And in how many places will "the authorities" allow people to live in a cardboard box? I read in the paper a few days ago a complaint by a realtor that people now need to put down 10%, and that is too much. The realtor was wrong. Wrong about having to put down 10%, or wrong about 10% being too high? For a long time Australian banks were prohibited from lending more than 80% of the value of a home, and loans were not permitted where payments would exceed 25% of the husband's salary (on the assumption that the wife would become pregnant and have to drop out of the work force). Yet home ownership was high. How? Because the minimum wage for a 40-hour week was based on the cost of housing and feeding a family of four. Less than 20% of people in America in minimum-wage jobs are the primary income source for the family. The VAST majority are teens, retirees, and part-time workers. In Australia, the minimum wage is based on OCCUPATION not family size. It currently is about $13USD/hour. How many of the part-time workers on minimum wage would like to be fully employed? -- especially those that are working two or three part-time jobs, none of which provides any benefits? Of course the wage paid to a specific individual in Australia does not depend on the size of that employee's family. But the minimum wage that anyone could be paid for 40 hours work in a week was such that he would be able to support a family of four -- not four children, but himself, a wife, and two children. Bottom line: If you can't afford a family of four, don't HAVE a family of four. See the preceding paragraph. It takes somewhere around two children per family to maintain the population. Here's a recent video on the cause of the sub-prime meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o Perce |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
|
|||
|
|||
Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street
On Sep 26, 10:34*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote: On 09/26/08 05:15 pm HeyBub wrote: Percival P. Cassidy wrote: On 09/23/08 04:20 pm HeyBub wrote: It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment. The government will eventually get its money back - just like it did with the S&L fiasco. You're right the problem was caused by the federal government, specifically the mandate to make PC morgtages. That is, people got morgtages who would never, in an honest world, have qualified for them. They got them because various agencies and lending institutions were required to "service the underserved." Failure to do so was evidence sufficient of incipient racism, greed, elitism, or doing the hokey-pokey. The problem is that the minimum wage is not sufficient to enable people to support a family, including purchasing a home -- and often not even sufficient to pay rent for an apartment in any neighborhood where anybody would want to live, or anywhere close to their place of employment. And guess which ethnic groups get most of those insufficient-pay-to-live-on jobs. Oh that's baloney. Even a minimum-wage job is sufficient to afford a cardboard box! You're not serious, are you? Do you think that anybody in "the richest/greatest country in the world" (according to our own propaganda) should have to live in a cardboard box? No one should have to. However last time I checked, we still have welfare programs here to assist the needy. Those living in cardboard boxes are there for reasons other than the minimum wage. Funny how Mexicans can come here and figure out how to live in shared homes, etc, make a living, and send money back home. And in how many places will "the authorities" allow people to live in a cardboard box? Actually, plenty of places. In fact, when cities like NY try to get bums off the street and into shelters, the civil liberties folks come running around filing lawsuits, defending their right to lay in the street. I read in the paper a few days ago a complaint by a realtor that people now need to put down 10%, and that is too much. The realtor was wrong. Wrong about having to put down 10%, or wrong about 10% being too high? For a long time Australian banks were prohibited from lending more than 80% of the value of a home, and loans were not permitted where payments would exceed 25% of the husband's salary (on the assumption that the wife would become pregnant and have to drop out of the work force). Yet home ownership was high. How? Because the minimum wage for a 40-hour week was based on the cost of housing and feeding a family of four. Less than 20% of people in America in minimum-wage jobs are the primary income source for the family. The VAST majority are teens, retirees, and part-time workers. In Australia, the minimum wage is based on OCCUPATION not family size. It currently is about $13USD/hour. How many of the part-time workers on minimum wage would like to be fully employed? -- especially those that are working two or three part-time jobs, none of which provides any benefits? As Bud said, most of the minimum wage workers are teens, retirees who want to be part time, etc. The other big fallacy is that liberals like to take a number like this and treat it as if it were static and a big problem. "There are XX millions of Americans only earning minimum wage." As if those same people were minimum wage 10 years ago and will be 10 years from now. The reality is that people move from minimum wage jobs to better jobs. At least those with any initiative do. Of course the wage paid to a specific individual in Australia does not depend on the size of that employee's family. But the minimum wage that anyone could be paid for 40 hours work in a week was such that he would be able to support a family of four -- not four children, but himself, a wife, and two children. Bottom line: If you can't afford a family of four, don't HAVE a family of four. See the preceding paragraph. It takes somewhere around two children per family to maintain the population. Well then why did they have 4 children, instead of 2? And why is it the automatic right of couples to have children if they can't afford them? And since everyone around the world has their shorts up in a knot about environmental issues, eg global warming, why have policies that encourage MORE children, instead of less? Here's a recent video on the cause of the sub-prime meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o Perce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wrapping Window Trim | Home Ownership | |||
Ink Jet Printed Wrapping Paper (from sed) - Design Jet 450C.jpeg | Electronic Schematics | |||
1.5" PVC Street Wye or 1.5" Street Union | Home Repair | |||
XM Begins 5.1 Surround Broadcasts | Electronics Repair | |||
gutter guy wrapping fascia | Home Repair |