Financial Meltdown due to Bush-McCain Economic Philosophy (multiculturalism, democrat, liberals)

[Sunshine Chick]

Originally Posted by luzianne

They got into mortgage lending TO BAD RISKS because they were greedy. That is not the government's fault. Lehman's Brother's had debt and NO CASH. That's why they went bankrupt. How is that the government's fault? Bush let them go bankrupt and did not bail them out. Which is exactly what he should have done.

I agree, losers who wont pay their loans have caused this and Clinton was the one who forced the sub prime market to give loans to these losers who didnt deserve them. Now we are all paying the price.

Bush did the right thing, no more bailouts for losers.

[Sunshine Chick]

Originally Posted by sanrene

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

Five years ago bush tried for more regulation, to no avail, thanks to the dems. The dems, including hill and obama are in the pockets of fanny/freddie, lehman and other financial entities. It was the democrats who pushed forward more home loans for poor and low income people.

Thank you Sanrene. How quickly they forget they are all for the robinhood effect to make all of us pay for their mistakes and bad decisions.
So now all these bad loans are Bush's fault. Give me a break, if anything you can look right down to Clinton to see how the dems pushed for losers to get home loans when they cannot even keep a damn job.

[tluv00]

Originally Posted by Sunshine Chick

The liberals must be feeling pretty bad right now. They have caused this meltdown.

First and foremost, Jimmy Carter did it in 1976 and Bill Clinton did it in 1993.

Both of these Presidents are very much the reason for the mortgage crisis we are seeing.

Carter put into place a new way of people buying homes, he wanted the mortgage industry to make sure they do not forget the poor and inner coty people and therefore created this mess called sub prime lending to those people.

Reagan made sure it did not get out of control, Bush I did it and then came Clinton, he not only did what Carter did but he is almost 100% to blame for this mortgage crisis by creating the low end no qualification loans that we see are failing right now. Clinton went out of his way to make sure that low income, inner city and poor credit folks were given the right to be able to own a home.

In the long run, it has came back to haunt us. If you detailed "most" of the bad loans that are causing this is from the Clinton era where the people should have never owned a home and have never been stable enough to pay their payments when they get either laid off or fired.

So, get your facts correct, Clinton is to blame for this meltdown because those same people who under Clinton were given loans should not have, and when they lose their jobs or get fired, instead of moving on to another job they just give up. The rest of us move on to other jobs and keep paying our payments.

Just for your info, Fannie and Freddie failed only after your dem congress allowed them to become unregulated and greedy. This dem controlled congress lifted requirements on the loans therefore allowing more losers to get loans they could not afford.

Funny how you tell people to get their facts straight yet you provide no proof of yours. Most of the loans going bad, from what I have read, are ARMs or interest only loans written in the past 3-8 years that are coming up bad after doubling and tripling in rate. Last time I checked Bush was President and Republican ran congress for 6 of those 8 years (not blaming them but I am blaming the mortgage industry, the people taking out the loans and the entire administration for allowing such unregulated growth to occur. No transparency is the problem).

This may be from last year, but it speaks to the areas where most of these foreclosures are happening.

California cities fill top 10 foreclosure list - Aug. 14, 2007

1 STOCKTON, CA 8,169 27 256
2 DETROIT/LIVONIA/DEARBORN, MI 28,705 29 99
3 LAS VEGAS/PARADISE, NV 22,928 31 142
4 RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO, CA 41,351 33 198
5 SACRAMENTO, CA 20,516 36 241
6 DENVER/AURORA, CO 23,842 42 11
7 MIAMI, FL 20,275 46 74
8 BAKERSFIELD, CA 5,365 47 222
9 MEMPHIS, TN 10,800 49 17
10 CLEVELAND/LORAIN/ELYRIA/MENTOR, OH 18,844 50

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by tluv00

Funny how you tell people to get their facts straight yet you provide no proof of yours. Most of the loans going bad, from what I have read, are ARMs or interest only loans written in the past 3-8 years that are coming up bad after doubling and tripling in rate. Last time I checked Bush was President and Republican ran congress for 6 of those 8 years (not blaming them but I am blaming the mortgage industry, the people taking out the loans and the entire administration for allowing such unregulated growth to occur. No transparency is the problem).

This may be from last year, but it speaks to the areas where most of these foreclosures are happening.

California cities fill top 10 foreclosure list - Aug. 14, 2007

1 STOCKTON, CA 8,169 27 256
2 DETROIT/LIVONIA/DEARBORN, MI 28,705 29 99
3 LAS VEGAS/PARADISE, NV 22,928 31 142
4 RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO, CA 41,351 33 198
5 SACRAMENTO, CA 20,516 36 241
6 DENVER/AURORA, CO 23,842 42 11
7 MIAMI, FL 20,275 46 74
8 BAKERSFIELD, CA 5,365 47 222
9 MEMPHIS, TN 10,800 49 17
10 CLEVELAND/LORAIN/ELYRIA/MENTOR, OH 18,844 50

Last time I checked people apply for those loans. Shouldn't they have some clue what the hell they are getting into?

[tluv00]

Originally Posted by Sunshine Chick

I agree, losers who wont pay their loans have caused this and Clinton was the one who forced the sub prime market to give loans to these losers who didnt deserve them. Now we are all paying the price.

Bush did the right thing, no more bailouts for losers.

The government cannot force a mortgage lender to provide a loan to someone who cannot afford it. Can they make that an option? Yes, but it's up to the lender to do the due diligence. Stop making things up. It's ridiculous.

[tluv00]

Originally Posted by Sunshine Chick

Thank you Sanrene. How quickly they forget they are all for the robinhood effect to make all of us pay for their mistakes and bad decisions.
So now all these bad loans are Bush's fault. Give me a break, if anything you can look right down to Clinton to see how the dems pushed for losers to get home loans when they cannot even keep a damn job.

The Dems can push for Sub-Prime options all they want but they cannot force a company to offer or supply people who cannot afford it a loan. It's called Capitalism remember. You Conservatives seem to screaming about daily.

The mortgage companies that are eating right now are the ones who took advantage of the sub-prime market. I say let them die out. That is true capitalism.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

No luzianne banks are safe. To the extent they stayed out of mortage lending.

You see back in the 1990's the GOP failed to deregulate banks. Banks are still required to have a certain amount of deposits on hand in relation to their loans.

The GOP did manage to lift this requirement for mortage lenders and now we're on the hook for Hundreds of Billions.

As businesses, wouldn't it make sense, without the government having to tell you, to keep some deposits on hand?

I know mortgage lenders that are fine. The government didn't give them any special regulation, they simply made better choices.

[tluv00]

Originally Posted by paullySC

Last time I checked people apply for those loans. Shouldn't they have some clue what the hell they are getting into?

They should....and the borrowers are just as much to blame but the difference is that they are not the professionally educated people in this situation NOR are they being bailed out by the government. It's either bail out both or none at all IMO.

[tluv00]

Originally Posted by Rggr

As businesses, wouldn't it make sense, without the government having to tell you, to keep some deposits on hand?

I know mortgage lenders that are fine. The government didn't give them any special regulation, they simply made better choices.

Thank you. And the government is going against de-regulating them by bailing them out. It was pretty much "we are going to leave you on your own" but now its" well we left you on your own, you got greedy and f****d up but we are going to bail you out". It's crap....plain and simple. Let them all go out of business.

[teatime]

It isn't just mortgage loans. There's always some risk involved in granting one. But people didn't want just "home loans." They wanted all sorts of new products that would turn houses into ATMs for cash and delay repayment. THAT is the problem.

When I was growing up, folks wanted home to LIVE in, not to use to finance a high lifestyle.