Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes, but if we end up with a Republican President and Republican Congress we might indeed see lots of cuts including social security. Kasich as told the voters those social security cuts are coming and they should "get over it." With an attitude like that anything can happen.
Sometimes, but if we end up with a Republican President and Republican Congress we might indeed see lots of cuts including social security. Kasich as told the voters those social security cuts are coming and they should "get over it." With an attitude like that anything can happen.
For now though the boomers are still a major voting bloc and they are the ones closest to retirement.
We probably have a few more Presidential elections before the millennials become the focus bloc.
For now though the boomers are still a major voting bloc and they are the ones closest to retirement.
We probably have a few more Presidential elections before the millennials become the focus bloc.
And when did politicians begin to pay attention to the voters? Campaign promises seem to fall by the wayside after an election.
Well, I wouldn't call it irresponsible lending. Risky, maybe, but it did give some people the ability to actually own a home instead of renting.
When I bought my house 19 years ago, I would have been considered a high risk. I didn't even have a credit card! With a 30-year mortgage (at a relatively high interest rate; I re-mortgaged years later for a better one) I managed to pay off my house in 15 years. I'm grateful that a bank took a chance on me! (that was before any 'mandate')
I think the problem came when all of these sub-prime mortgages were bought up and packaged together and sold to one or two investment houses. IIRC, some people actually lied about the veracity of many of the loans. If ten banks each have three bad loans, well, they can probably handle that financially. If one bank is stuck with a million bad loans, that's another story altogether.
Disclaimer: I don't really follow the financial news, so I could be off about my statements above. They are just the 'sense' I have about the bail-outs.
There is more than ample blame to go around, but people like to always pin blame on the banks alone. Even if the bank would give you the mortgage, the borrower needs to be responsible enough and have enough basic sense to gauge what they can and can't afford. If you're making $40,000 a year, you should have enough sense to know you can't afford a $500k jumbo mortgage. If someone gets in over their head via job loss, illness, or other stuff, that's one thing - it's entirely different to go way over the edge by overextending your financial capacity.
I am also an advocate for low down payment loans, provided both the borrower and the lending institution do their due diligence into what the borrower can reasonably afford. The rent trap is a big factor in keeping poor people poor, as well as limiting freedom. Even with a low downpayment loan with PMI, one can often buy a modest home for cheaper than renting even an apartment.
It's not the President that matters it's Congress.
Almost all of the promises made by candidates require an Act of Congress. No POTUS keeps all of his promises. Sometimes Congress won't play ball even when the majority and POTUS are aligned by party. And sometimes they don't even try.
Yet, every 4-8 years the masses seem to believe this time will be different.
Nearly every bill signed by POTUS contains measures unrelated to the bill. POTUS does not have veto power.
the cdo's were not garbage starting out . the problem is the way the cdo's were brought to market .
with interest rates falling the public and institutions wanted more yield . grandma and grandpa were just as guilty as the pension funds on putting pressure on wall street to find them yield that was safe .
so they took the same mortgage bundles that were always sold and added a new twist to them .
they sold them to conservative group A just the same as they always did , but group B who wanted higher yield got offered the same bundle as group A but with a twist . they couldn't get paid off until group A was paid . group C got even a higher rate but they couldn't get paid until A AND B got paid .
well when news started breaking about the fact that loans were made that shouldn't have and home prices started to stall out group B AND C wanted out . but no one wanted to buy them .
eventually investor groups stopped buying mortgages and loan bundles because they couldn't sell what the had and the credit markets froze . they couldn't even value these bundles since no one wanted them with those terms .
throw in the fact in the credit default swap market bets were made against these loans being paid off while at the same time trying to sell these packaged loans to investors . the bets on the payoffs became bigger then the loans . the major players got crushed when their default swap bets went bad .
there really was no crime on these cdo's it was only how they were marketed as well as bet against .
Nothing wrong with private label CDOs so long as the independent credit rating agencies assign a rating appropriate to the risk of the contents of the offering.
The AAA rating opened these investments to conservative big money investors, like public and private pension plans, retirement funds, insurance/ reinsurance companies and foreign investors.
When all was said and done the independent credit rating agencies claimed flawed models.
Had the private label CDOs been rated appropriately, the big money would not have gorged on them. Without their investment, there would have been no pipeline to fund the worst of sub prime mortgages.
Having said this, way too many institutional investors relied on credit ratings instead of their own due diligence. Some, like risk adverse NY Life, did however, execute their own due diligence and took a pass.
the problem was credit wise they were fine . they were no different then any other mortgage bundle sold prior . the difference was in the creation of the way it went to market and that was not a credit issue . the credit worthiness never changed .. DEMAND for the tiered product is what changed .
in fact the big issue was no one , not even the credit agency's could value this stuff . it was the same old mix of good and bad mortgages same as always .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
