Disagree. Mortgage lenders FM/FM

• HOORAY! It's official! I feel like the US just - took a step out of the Dark Ages.
  • Part of the solution would be to put someone else - in as President.. not Obama.nm
    • Obama is going to save us.. .it will take time... NO MORE PALIN hahahahaha no more RABIDS nm - Mrs. M
      • You think so? How? He even said - Backwards typist
        • You know what backwards? sm - Mrs. M
          • I am not being sarcastic. I want to know - Backwards typist
    • Yeah, do you have ANY idea how much money of - OURS he is about to spend? Good Lord.nm
      • Do you know how many young people BUSH KILLED FOR OIL? sm - Mrs. M
      • Stock Market diving since Obama spoke today. - Down 300 points... great..nm
        • I hate Wall Street. Hope that whole fake-money - "cup game" totally tanks. I'm so over it
        • Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm - nm
        • Obama has nothing to do with market... BUSH TANKED OUR COUNTRY nm - Mrs. M
          • Disagree. Mortgage lenders FM/FM - Backwards typist
            • backwards as usual, it's because BUSH DVETOED REGULATION sm - Mrs. M
              • And I'm done with you. You spew your hate - Backwards typist
                • You are supposed to be an MT - Marie
                  • This board is never peaceful,,, she's confused and rude nm - Mrs. M
      • Gee, maybe we can recoup it from Halliburton and the irresponsible money sm - CDW
        • Greed and corruptionhas been going on longer than - Backwards typist
          • Uh Barney Fife was on Mayberry RFD - MQQA
            • Know that. That's my name for Barney Frank. - Backwards typist
          • Whattabuncha nay-sayers. Sheesh. - No More Dark Ages
            • Yes We Can! Welcome all to - SOCIALISM.. can hardly wait to get started.nm
              • So I guess your motto is, "No, I can't". - Try Prozac. Works great on poor attitudes.
              • A note about your socialism comment sm - Mrs. M

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

These con artists from mortgage companies were actually going into churches and "finding" people homes. They LIED to them. Got them loans they could afford and told them to refinance in 5 years before the BALLOON payments came due to keep their mortgage payments low. Then Alan Greenspan dropped the bar a little further and then dropped it a little further - these buyers did not even have to PROVE their income. YES, blame the lenders! They were making money of off recycling houses........it was wrong, wrong, wrong what they did to these people and to our economy!!!! Peoples wages were not keeping up with the rising house values, so they kept dropping the bar to get people into these homes to keep that house of cards moving..........it was a big pyramid scheme!!!!!

Initially, when McCain announced his "new" mortgage buyout plan, it was simply a restatement of the existing provisions already authorizing the Treasury Department and Federal Housing Administration to purchase, restructure and guarantee mortgages.  In fact, these provisions had been promoted and supported by Obama during the legislative process when they were included in the original legislation.   

At first, the buyout would have purchased mortgages at their current devalued amount, meaning that the lenders would have to "recognize the loss" they had already suffered.  Lenders were required to back only 90% of the original value and homeowners would have been required to share any increase in value with the government, reflecting shared responsibility. 

Under McCain's "revised" plan, the treasury would pay FULL face value of mortgages, even though they are no longer worth that amount.  He deleted the shared responsibility phrase, thus creating what amounts to a windfall for the banking industry, rewarding the most irresponsible lenders.  Under this revision, banks receive full payment, even on artificially inflated values for the homes and assume no loss while tax payers take all the loss of the mortgage value and perhaps even end up losing more in the event that the housing values do not recover.  Taxpayers would also not get any benefit should the houses increase in value. 

Some lenders, voluntarily or as part of settlements, are working on solutions to the mortgage meltdown that modifying mortgages to help homeowners stay in their homes –WITHOUT costing taxpayers a dime. But if the McCain plan were in place, this process would stop because lenders would know they could always sell their mortgages at full face value to taxpayers.  

So, contrary to sam's claims, O is simply promoting protection for the homeowners AND the taxpayer.  This is not "punishment" of the lenders.  This is an effort to hold the guilty parties responsible for their longstanding shady lending practices and ensure that THEY too shoulder the burden of the costs.  

I am left wondering what the bum's rush is on this McCain plan.  A mortgage bail-out should not be conceived, defined, proposed, debated or passed as part of another halting, frenetic political stunt designed to make McCain look like he knows what he is doing when it comes to addressing the economic woes of the nation.  It requires careful, thourhgtful, informed consideration...the kind that can only take place AFTER the election and in the absence of underlying agendas aimed at rescuing a failing presidential campaign.    

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

Colter is a hatemonger, thats all.  I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it.  Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere.  He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....

No surprise there right?

I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement.  From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s.  Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once.  Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.

As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement.  A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we. 

We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism. 

Realistically, your views/postings justify the label.  You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it.  The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling.  If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.

As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not.

I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.

Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us?  Clueless.

I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.

maybe we both will be kicked off too for disagreeing.

Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same.  It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.

The liberal media would be analyzing his choice till the cows came home. 

Did you miss the part where he said, "I'm the decider."?  His old buddy Richard (message says *ick is a bad word.........well, on that we can agree) is guilty right along with him. I do  not think history will be kind to him.  But then it WAS kind to FDR until the republicans came out with their "study" to excuse the fact that Hoover was, before Bush, acknowledged to be the worst president in history.

I say while you're putting Palin on her dogsled back to Alaska, hitch up a couple of longhorns and point Bush and Cheney back to Texas.  Trouble is I don't think Texas wants them.

McCain is not throwing people off his bus because they don't report him in a good light.

McCain is not banning newspaper interviews because they ask him serious questions.

McCain is not banning networks because they ask him serious questions.

The O is doing all of this.

with one another.  That is human nature.  I can respect someone that can give point and counter point without getting nasty.  There is no need for name calling or veiled side of the mouth comments.  I would love a decent conversation with others whose opinions are or are not always the same as mine. 

I have owned Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, American Motors, Rambler, etc. I have been a fan of Oldsmobilie and Buicks since We bought our first one back in the 80s.

GM's problem is they stopped producting the good cars. I was on their website today. No Olds, only 2 Buicks left. They only produce expensive gas guzzlers like  Cadillacs, Saab, and Hummers.

Our LeSabre got 30 mpg and still running strong at 175,000. Shame the rest of the car is not good enought to pass inspection. Same with our Olds.  Are they producing them? Nope. Why? They were mid-priced cars with great reliability, great gas mileage, and I like to say popular with middle class people. They now only product the LaCrosse and Lucerne in the Buick line. They don't even produce the Park Avenue which was a luxurious car and one I always wanted (champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL).

I won't be buying a new car from GM. There's nothing there I like. They should have thought about phasing out more of the expensive lines than the middle class lines. That's where they went wrong. They probably thought if they stuck to the expensive models, they'd make more money. WRONG!!! They didn't take into consideration the ratio between middle class buyers and upper class buyers.

As for Chrysler, I owned 2. They were lemons from the get-go. Hubby owned a couple Fords and they were not very reliable either.