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.
Ah, I love the smell of patronization in the morning. I "focus" quite well, thank you. I "focused" well enough that I am not in debt. I "focused" well enough to put my kids through college without them borrowing money. I "focused" well enough that I paid cash for my houses and cars. I "focused" well enough that I can work only 8 months a year if I choose and not feel a financial burden. And I don't make all that much money, yet I still "focused" well enough to do this.
Quote:
1. President Bush hires a prostitute and delays a summit meeting to enjoy himself with her.
2. President Bush jams a screw driver into his ear.
Some people may conclude that in case #1 the prostitute helped delay the meeting. Most people see clearly that Bush is at fault in scenario 2.
This is not a good analogy.
The consumer public was not a prostitute looking for work. It's more like this: Joe Schmo walked his happy butt into a bank. Joe Schmo had a FICO score of 540 and a yearly income of $40,000. Joe Schmo wanted to buy a $400,000 house. The loan officer says "Your income and FICO score are low enough that we can only offer you this interest-only ARM. We can give you a special deal where your rates won't go up for a couple years, but after that you either refinance or it's game on."
Joe Schmo is greedy, thinks he can refinance or sell for a huge profit in a couple years, throws caution to the wind and signs on the dotted line. Joe Schmo is an adult, capable of making his own decisions and capable of knowing that he can't possibly ever pay off this big house, yet knowing this he signs the contract anyway.
The banker should never have offered him any kind of loan, but Joe should never have signed the loan he was offered. Fifty-fifty culpability. He got into this kind of pickle, it's his own problem to get out. Go down in flames, Joe. Go down in flames, bankers. Those of us who were responsible and are now feeling your grubby paws in our pockets should NOT have to pay for it.
And for those of you who are twisting my words by bringing up people who truly had some sort of extenuating problems (like a death in the family or loss of a job), don't bother. I'm not talking about people with real issues, I'm talking about the millions of greedy people that got in their situation through carelessness.
Ah, I love the smell of patronization in the morning. I "focus" quite well, thank you. I "focused" well enough that I am not in debt. I "focused" well enough to put my kids through college without them borrowing money. I "focused" well enough that I paid cash for my houses and cars. I "focused" well enough that I can work only 8 months a year if I choose and not feel a financial burden. And I don't make all that much money, yet I still "focused" well enough to do this.
This is not a good analogy.
The consumer public was not a prostitute looking for work. It's more like this: Joe Schmo walked his happy butt into a bank. Joe Schmo had a FICO score of 540 and a yearly income of $40,000. Joe Schmo wanted to buy a $400,000 house. The loan officer says "Your income and FICO score are low enough that we can only offer you this interest-only ARM. We can give you a special deal where your rates won't go up for a couple years, but after that you either refinance or it's game on."
Joe Schmo is greedy, thinks he can refinance or sell for a huge profit in a couple years, throws caution to the wind and signs on the dotted line. Joe Schmo is an adult, capable of making his own decisions and capable of knowing that he can't possibly ever pay off this big house, yet knowing this he signs the contract anyway.
The banker should never have offered him any kind of loan, but Joe should never have signed the loan he was offered. Fifty-fifty culpability. He got into this kind of pickle, it's his own problem to get out. Go down in flames, Joe. Go down in flames, bankers. Those of us who were responsible and are now feeling your grubby paws in our pockets should NOT have to pay for it.
And for those of you who are twisting my words by bringing up people who truly had some sort of extenuating problems (like a death in the family or loss of a job), don't bother. I'm not talking about people with real issues, I'm talking about the millions of greedy people that got in their situation through carelessness.
i can't agree with you 100% on this. i also have paid for my house and car so i have no dog in this hunt, but i feel that the people who are responsible for arranging these loans and controlling the money have a greater fiduciary duty to not let people who are either stupid or stupid and greedy enter into contracts that the numbers will not support. there is no doubt that mortgage broker greed played into this as well. furthermore, neither side is as responsible for the cost of the bailout as much as the derivative players and they absolutely were simply greedy. those are the main group that this wall street bailout is intended to help, not the homeowner who is either already foreclosed upon or about to be foreclosed upon. now we have a very big mess with everybody but the taxpayers holding some degree of responsibility, yet the taxpayers are the ones who have to pay for all these other people's mistakes! (just wanted to try the new logo)
I believe that is the thig. There was cooruption fromm the congresss to do thiongs for their special interest groups to the lending company to include the basic writers who alng with the average joe allowed no documentation or fale that documentaion that was signed to got hru. It was massive greed. It is much like thinking that the police can stop people from driving in violation of the law. Go down any busy street and you will see that people i factare violating the laws right and left to the poinht that the ploice can only see a minority of it,. Egben then they often have to decide to either stop or gpo to the call their on many times. You can't have everybody willing to do these thoings to get what they think they deseve and there not be consequences. It was a massive brakdown thru out society and now we see the globe.That is why you often hear peopkle who owe money being advised on this board ;don't woory about it they can't really do anything to you.
Ah, I love the smell of patronization in the morning. I "focus" quite well, thank you. I "focused" well enough that I am not in debt. I "focused" well enough to put my kids through college without them borrowing money. I "focused" well enough that I paid cash for my houses and cars. I "focused" well enough that I can work only 8 months a year if I choose and not feel a financial burden. And I don't make all that much money, yet I still "focused" well enough to do this.
This is not a good analogy.
The consumer public was not a prostitute looking for work. It's more like this: Joe Schmo walked his happy butt into a bank. Joe Schmo had a FICO score of 540 and a yearly income of $40,000. Joe Schmo wanted to buy a $400,000 house. The loan officer says "Your income and FICO score are low enough that we can only offer you this interest-only ARM. We can give you a special deal where your rates won't go up for a couple years, but after that you either refinance or it's game on."
Joe Schmo is greedy, thinks he can refinance or sell for a huge profit in a couple years, throws caution to the wind and signs on the dotted line. Joe Schmo is an adult, capable of making his own decisions and capable of knowing that he can't possibly ever pay off this big house, yet knowing this he signs the contract anyway.
The banker should never have offered him any kind of loan, but Joe should never have signed the loan he was offered. Fifty-fifty culpability. He got into this kind of pickle, it's his own problem to get out. Go down in flames, Joe. Go down in flames, bankers. Those of us who were responsible and are now feeling your grubby paws in our pockets should NOT have to pay for it.
And for those of you who are twisting my words by bringing up people who truly had some sort of extenuating problems (like a death in the family or loss of a job), don't bother. I'm not talking about people with real issues, I'm talking about the millions of greedy people that got in their situation through carelessness.
I don't think all people who signed the dotted line did it out of greed. Many just really wanted a home and when people are purchasing a home, it's very emotional. I feel like many were played on their emotions. The powerful people at Wall Street and Congress created and started this and they WANTED this to happen. Why are you not upset with them? You may want to read about credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities. These people created a downward pressure to sucker the joe schmoes into purchasing a home just so their pockets can be lined. They placed bets that people will default on the homes. So they WANTED people to go into foreclosure. I mean, who does that to a society? To WANT people out on the streets homeless and crying? I saw one video on tv where someone was cleaning out a foreclosed home and the family left everything in the house which included family pictures and an URN! Why would they leave an urn, what happened to them?
I wonder what the demographics are for people who went into foreclosure. What were their situations? Many of them put their life savings into these homes as a downpayment. It's not like all of them put zero down.
I'd also like to add that Congress repealed the Glass Steagall Act (which was created to prevent a mess like this from occurring bc it happened during the Great Depression). Around this time CONGRESS ALLOWED AND PUSHED to loosen lending to minorities bc they thought that minorities were facing racism in borrowing money. Which I thought was a completely absurd. To me it's a numbers game. You either can afford something or you cannot. You either have a stable job with X amount of income, a downpayment AND reserves or you don't. Has nothing to do with race.
Why would Congress push a stupid policy like this? And even if someone agrees w/ this policy then why not help teach a person how to get a grip on their finances rather than loosening lending standards and then lending money to a person who is in debt and can't pay their bills??? AND on top of that give them the promise that it's so easy to own your own home and have the american dream.
The underlying theme in all three articles. "Congress was demanding that Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers." "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people." A couple of the articles date back to 1999. Why the pressure from Congress, why did they care?
I don't think all people who signed the dotted line did it out of greed. Many just really wanted a home and when people are purchasing a home, it's very emotional. I feel like many were played on their emotions. The powerful people at Wall Street and Congress created and started this and they WANTED this to happen. Why are you not upset with them? You may want to read about credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities. These people created a downward pressure to sucker the joe schmoes into purchasing a home just so their pockets can be lined. They placed bets that people will default on the homes. So they WANTED people to go into foreclosure. I mean, who does that to a society? To WANT people out on the streets homeless and crying? I saw one video on tv where someone was cleaning out a foreclosed home and the family left everything in the house which included family pictures and an URN! Why would they leave an urn, what happened to them?
I wonder what the demographics are for people who went into foreclosure. What were their situations? Many of them put their life savings into these homes as a downpayment. It's not like all of them put zero down.
I'd also like to add that Congress repealed the Glass Steagall Act (which was created to prevent a mess like this from occurring bc it happened during the Great Depression). Around this time CONGRESS ALLOWED AND PUSHED to loosen lending to minorities bc they thought that minorities were facing racism in borrowing money. Which I thought was a completely absurd. To me it's a numbers game. You either can afford something or you cannot. You either have a stable job with X amount of income, a downpayment AND reserves or you don't. Has nothing to do with race.
Why would Congress push a stupid policy like this? And even if someone agrees w/ this policy then why not help teach a person how to get a grip on their finances rather than loosening lending standards and then lending money to a person who is in debt and can't pay their bills??? AND on top of that give them the promise that it's so easy to own your own home and have the american dream.
The underlying theme in all three articles. "Congress was demanding that Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers." "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people." A couple of the articles date back to 1999. Why the pressure from Congress, why did they care?
you know whats worse? being a male forced to pay child support and having gov automaticall withdraw payment from your paycheck, try that...
I don't think all people who signed the dotted line did it out of greed. Many just really wanted a home and when people are purchasing a home, it's very emotional. I feel like many were played on their emotions. The powerful people at Wall Street and Congress created and started this and they WANTED this to happen. Why are you not upset with them? You may want to read about credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities. These people created a downward pressure to sucker the joe schmoes into purchasing a home just so their pockets can be lined. They placed bets that people will default on the homes. So they WANTED people to go into foreclosure. I mean, who does that to a society? To WANT people out on the streets homeless and crying? I saw one video on tv where someone was cleaning out a foreclosed home and the family left everything in the house which included family pictures and an URN! Why would they leave an urn, what happened to them?
I wonder what the demographics are for people who went into foreclosure. What were their situations? Many of them put their life savings into these homes as a downpayment. It's not like all of them put zero down.
I'd also like to add that Congress repealed the Glass Steagall Act (which was created to prevent a mess like this from occurring bc it happened during the Great Depression). Around this time CONGRESS ALLOWED AND PUSHED to loosen lending to minorities bc they thought that minorities were facing racism in borrowing money. Which I thought was a completely absurd. To me it's a numbers game. You either can afford something or you cannot. You either have a stable job with X amount of income, a downpayment AND reserves or you don't. Has nothing to do with race.
Why would Congress push a stupid policy like this? And even if someone agrees w/ this policy then why not help teach a person how to get a grip on their finances rather than loosening lending standards and then lending money to a person who is in debt and can't pay their bills??? AND on top of that give them the promise that it's so easy to own your own home and have the american dream.
The underlying theme in all three articles. "Congress was demanding that Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers." "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people." A couple of the articles date back to 1999. Why the pressure from Congress, why did they care?
congress is controlled by wall street. here is part of an article:
‘Obama still can’t venture any farther left than his corporate leash allows.’
Earlier this year, Obama rejected moratoriums on foreclosures and a freeze on rates, measures supported by his primary opponents John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (Obama called Clinton’s rate freeze ‘disastrous’). Nearly two million foreclosures and evictions later, after facilitating a trillion-dollar corporate raid on the public treasury, and caught in a bidding war with McCain on spending what remains, Obama still can’t venture any farther left than his corporate leash allows. Obama derides McCain’s proposal to spend up to $300 billion buying up homeowners’ mortgages at face value and repackaging them at terms consistent with current home values, calling it too expensive and a boon to lenders but he championed the original $700 billion ‘cash for trash’ scheme that was designed as a pure bailout for speculators - his investment banker friends - and would save not a single family from losing its home.
the entire article is available here:
http://www.creative-i.info/?p=1471 (broken link)
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.
(just wanted to try the new logo)
