GMAC Resumes Sub-Prime Loans In Order To Sell Cars

So, let's see. I know that I have been known to lapse into a coma from time to time, but haven't we been here before - making subprime loans in order to stimulate sales and to hell with what happens next?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I'm having such a strange sense of deja vu here.

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

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.

crappy cars. I've had several GM vehicles that I've run the wheels off of. My whole family buys nothing but GM vehicles and we all prefer them over other vehicles. Secondly, the reason GM started to build bigger vehicles that used more gas was because gas wasn't so expensive then and that is what the consumers wanted was bigger SUVs, trucks, etc. People didn't start to complain until gas prices went through the roof.

GM was fine until the economy took a crap. When the economy was booming they could afford big salaries for CEOs and paying the union loads of money, etc. They could afford the legacy costs, health care, and pensions. Now since no dealer is having much luck selling vehicles, it is kind of hard to pay for all those expenses when people can't buy vehicles, are too afraid to buy vehicles, or are dumb enough to buy foreign pieces of crap instead.

If they are cheaper it is because they are literally that....cheaper cars. You pay for what you get. I've seen so many American made cars throughout my family where they have put 200,000+ miles on vehicles and they keep going. I've driven so many different types of vehicles since my husband runs a car dealership and I have to say that American trumps foreign any day in my opinion. I will NEVER own a foreign car. Ain't happenin. You will more than likely see my happy butt in a Chevy of some type. I'm currently driving a Chevy Uplander and I friggin LOVE it! I have no problem telling someone their vehicle is a foreign piece of crap. In fact, I recently told my best friend's sister that was what her Honda was. LOL!

Didn't you know that? They have been here for years. Do you hear them begging for a bailout? Nope. Because they build decent cars.

The 3 big ones didn't bother to take heed during the last gas crunch and didn't learn a dang thing. If they did, we would have good cars now. GM built a good motor; the V6 3 liter engine. Our Old's Delta 98 (big luxury car) V6 got 30 MPH. Our Buick LeSabre gets 28 MPH. Why didn't they put those engines in all their cars?

Because the AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted big, bad SUVs and V8 engines. So...if you want to sell cars, you build what people want.

Just like political arena, as soon as something goes wrong in America, they blame the president. As soon as high gas prices hit, they blamed the car companies and turn their backs on them and now they're in a mess. BUT, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been working on alternate energy cars. Prius, made by Toyota, has been out for a few years now; 48 MPH. Can't buy one now because that's what everybody wants. Yet when they first came out, hardly any takers.

People in this country want them because they get better gas mileage. Like I said before, Toyota has plants here in America and they are doing good.

The problem with the big 3 is they sat back and forgot about the past (1970s gas crunch), not into the future. They got a winner with those big SUVs and decided, "Hey, let's concentrate on all the big SUVs, big V8s, etc. That's what the American people want" and they did want them.

Car dealers are falling by the wayside in large numbers because of the problems, too. Lots of them are closing because they can't hang on any longer.

A Texas golf course, a Nevada tanning salon and an Illinois candy shop were among small businesses that may have improperly received U.S. subsidized loans intended for firms hurt by the September 11 attacks, an internal government watchdog has found.

The Small Business Administration's inspector general said in a report made public on Wednesday that in 85 percent of the sample of loans it reviewed, a company's eligibility to receive the money through the program could not be verified.

A leading Senate Republican called for further investigation, but the Small Business Administration said the program was properly implemented.

The one-year, $4.5 billion Supplemental Terrorist Activity Relief, or STAR, program offered loan guarantees to small businesses adversely affected by the September 11 attacks.

However, the Small Business Administration had failed to properly oversee lenders to make sure that only eligible borrowers obtained STAR loans, the watchdog's report found.

Money may have gone to businesses that were not adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11th or their aftermath, wrote Robert Seabrooks, assistant inspector general for auditing.

Congress authorized the program in January 2002, and set aside $75 million to cover potential defaults. The program was operated through the Small Business Administration's main loan-guarantee program and the loans were made by participating banks. In all, 8,201 loans were approved totaling $3.7 billion, but only 7,058 were actually paid out.

Of 42 STAR-loan recipients interviewed by the inspector general's office, just two said they were aware they had obtained a such a loan. In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed stated they were not adversely affected by the attacks, the report said.

The report's examples included the Texas golf course, whose owner was cited by a lender as saying people were more interested in staying home and watching the attack on television than playing golf. However, the course was owned by someone else when the attacks took place and the justification for the $480,000 in loan guarantees did not apply to the new owner, the report said.

The tanning salon's lender blamed the September 11 attacks for hurting the Las Vegas casino industry which employed many of the salon's customers.

However, the inspector general found the salon's business had grown by 52 percent in 2001 and 32 percent in 2002 and said there was no evidence the owner could not borrow outside of the program. The SBA guaranteed $437,000 in loans to the salon, which were used to expand.

The Illinois candy shop received $21,250 in guarantees but could not back up its claim that the attacks had delayed the shop's opening, the report said.

Senate Small Business Committee Chairwoman Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, said her panel would look into the program.

If abuses are discovered, many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with how and why was this allowed to happen, she said in a statement.

SBA said it has told lenders it will not honor guarantees on defaulted loans that fail to document the September 11 link.

SBA implemented the STAR program as Congress intended, Administrator Hector Barreto said in a statement.

The inspector general said it appeared qualified borrowers were not shut out of STAR loans.

http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2008/11/05/auto-makers-look-good-for-bigger-govt-bailout/

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid
Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit

Washington -- House Republicans, after weeks of negotiations, narrowly passed a budget bill early Friday to cut $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and other programs over the complaints of Democrats that Congress is squeezing students, the elderly and the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

The House approved the bill 217-215, after GOP leaders agreed to demands from moderate Republicans to jettison a measure to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and to slightly reduce proposed cuts to food stamps.

Still, the vote was so politically sensitive that House leaders didn't begin debate until 10 p.m. Thursday and didn't pass the measure until nearly 2 a.m. -- when most news reporters gone and only a few C-SPAN junkies could witness the fiery floor action. No Democrats voted for the bill, and 14 Republicans opposed it.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said in a floor speech that cutting money for Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care as the House prepares to vote on $70 billion in tax cuts was a sin.

Republicans are launching an attack on America's children, on America's families, Pelosi said. They are also launching an attack on America's middle class, all of this to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country.

But House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded that the proposed cuts were needed to rein in the growth of federal spending on health care and other programs.

Medicaid is growing at a 7.3 percent growth rate per year, Hastert said. It has been growing for years. Is there a better way to do it? Is there a more efficient way to do it? Should we find some reforms to make it better? Yes, we should.

The House bill also would split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, a goal of conservatives who have long complained the court is too liberal. But the breakup of the appellate court, which covers the country's Western region including federal cases that arise in California, is not part of the Senate budget bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are seeking to strip it from the final package.

The battle over the budget reconciliation bill now moves to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where lawmakers will have to make several critical decisions, including:

-- Will the final budget bill allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

The Senate version would allow drilling, but a group of House Republican moderates has pledged to oppose any final bill that would open the Alaskan wildlife refuge for development.

-- How deeply will lawmakers cut student loans?

The House bill would cut student loan programs by $14.3 billion, while the Senate version cuts them by $8.8 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the House bill would cause a typical college student with the average of $17,000 in student loans to pay an additional $5,800 in interest and fees over the length of the loans.

-- Will some legal immigrants lose their food stamps?

The House bill would cut off 220,000 people from food stamps by allowing legal immigrants to qualify for the food aid after seven years, instead of the current five years. The Senate bill does not cut food stamps, and moderate lawmakers are urging that it be dropped from the final budget package.

-- How will the cuts affect Medicaid recipients?

The House bill calls for $11.4 billion in cuts to Medicaid, while the Senate bill trims spending by only $4.3 billion. The House bill also would allow co-payments to rise over time with inflation and would deny Medicaid nursing home benefits to people with $750,000 in home equity.

-- Will child support enforcement be cut?

The House bill would slash funding for child support enforcement by $4.9 billion. The Senate did not include any cuts to child support enforcement.

-- Will Medicare be cut?

The Senate voted to eliminate $5.4 billion in subsidies for some regional insurance companies that agreed to participate in President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. The House bill does not cut the subsidies.

Congress watchers expect that lawmakers are likely to split the difference between the House's $50 billion in cuts over five years and the Senate's $35 billion in trims. But the negotiations will be difficult for GOP leaders. Conservatives, especially in the House, have been pushing for deeper cuts. Republican moderates plan to lobby to restore funding for some programs.

House Republicans argue the heated rhetoric over the budget bill's effects is overblown because many cuts are simply limiting the growth rate of certain federal programs. For example, the proposed cuts to Medicaid would lower the annual growth rate in spending on the program from 7.3 percent to 7 percent.

But Democrats complained the cuts hit the wrong targets, including students struggling to pay for college. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase costs to students and families by $8 billion, including nearly $5.5 billion in costs when students consolidate loans.

You're hurting the students of this nation, Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, told Republicans in an angry floor speech. You're putting their families in debt. You're piling on the interest rates. You ought to be ashamed of it.

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

those nineteen 9/11 guys drinking in strip bars to 'blend in' while taking flight training and planning the attacks. I realize it is only heresy to actually defect from Islam, not just to appear to convert for strategic purposes. Still it would have to be a very big conspiracy, wouldn't it? And you would think some Imam or other would be issuing a show fatwa or two just to keep up appearances?

GMAC Resumes Sub-Prime Loans In Order To Sell Cars

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid
Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit