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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street

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/


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.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 487
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
KC KC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 212
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 787
Default 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?

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.
  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 787
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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?
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 787
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 787
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 487
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 487
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics,alt.politics.economics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 487
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default Paulson begins wrapping his gift to FRAUD Street

In article
,
wrote:

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.


I think a contributing factor was the creation of a new sub-species of
humanoids called "mortgage brokers." I got my first home loan through
one of these sheisters. I provided an endless string of documentation,
but when I went in to sign the papers I found that my finances had been
greatly fictionalized:

I was already a homeowner, had already been a landlord for several years
(this was an investment house) and the 50k I put down, which was more or
less every penny I had at the time, was somehow still in my bank account
as reserve capital.

When I attempted to gently point out that there might be a few
inaccuracies, my mortgage broker said "your loan has been approved, all
you have to do is sign." I signed. So even though this was a traditional
30 yr. fixed rate, fully amortized loan, and one which I could afford, I
shouldn't have qualified for it.

It used to be that you borrowed money directly from a lender. The middle
men are the real criminals in all this, because many of them pretty much
lied to everyone involved on both sides of the transaction, in the name
of the Holy Commission.

(crossposting outside of a.h.r. deleted.)


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,143
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.equestrian,rec.gambling.poker,alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,143
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,soc.retirement,fl.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wrapping Window Trim dosferatu Home Ownership 6 May 7th 08 07:57 PM
Ink Jet Printed Wrapping Paper (from sed) - Design Jet 450C.jpeg John Fields Electronic Schematics 2 December 26th 07 07:22 AM
1.5" PVC Street Wye or 1.5" Street Union [email protected] Home Repair 2 April 14th 07 04:59 AM
XM Begins 5.1 Surround Broadcasts Asimov Electronics Repair 0 December 29th 05 04:11 PM
gutter guy wrapping fascia jibberjabber Home Repair 4 August 4th 05 01:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"