Barack's "Organizer" Buds Pushed for Bad Mortgages

[Navy1960]

Its actually nationwide Navy, the surge on new construction for apartment buildings is growing. Look, all those people who lost their homes need a place to stay. I guess its just smart business if you want houses to stay on the market, continue to drive values down, cost thousands of more jobs and sink our economy for the next 10 years. I know you were against the bill but I just dont see how we can drag ourselves out of this mess without helping out these depleted corporations and making sure the tax payers reap some benefits as well.

You know I said I could have bought this thing has it not been an attempt directed at buying bad debt with "we will take care of the oversight later" in the hopes that the credit market will clear up. I just thought that sent a terrible message that "irresponsiblity" was okay and here is your blank check. It's rather like making a 700 billion dollar bet. I felt like if you were going to spend money to address a problem the address the problem, don't do some half assed "bailout" that let companies off the hook. In this case you have to address the issues., home inventory, excessive credit, lending practices. and let the bad business fail. We would have been much better off taking that 700 Billion dollars and using it as a refinance tool and home inventory clearence tool at the same time addressing lending practices. The bad paper would eventually clear itself once the intenory was cleared and home stopped declining , and once that happened then the lending crunch would ease a bit. I just could not agree to an open ended "here you are Wall Street" type bailout.

 

[Larkinn]

Thats the point, home values are plummeting, you do know this right.

Which is why banks wouldn't give out subprime mortgages now. However when home values were skyrocketing, they made them by the bucketful.

 

[jschuck12001]

You know I said I could have bought this thing has it not been an attempt directed at buying bad debt with "we will take care of the oversight later" in the hopes that the credit market will clear up. I just thought that sent a terrible message that "irresponsiblity" was okay and here is your blank check. It's rather like making a 700 billion dollar bet. I felt like if you were going to spend money to address a problem the address the problem, don't do some half assed "bailout" that let companies off the hook. In this case you have to address the issues., home inventory, excessive credit, lending practices. and let the bad business fail. We would have been much better off taking that 700 Billion dollars and using it as a refinance tool and home inventory clearence tool at the same time addressing lending practices. The bad paper would eventually clear itself once the intenory was cleared and home stopped declining , and once that happened then the lending crunch would ease a bit. I just could not agree to an open ended "here you are Wall Street" type bailout.

Its a catch 22, You cant do one without the other. Its a tough choice no doubt.

 

[jschuck12001]

Which is why banks wouldn't give out subprime mortgages now. However when home values were skyrocketing, they made them by the bucketful.

They made all loans by the bucketfull, many more A paper loans were written than subprime. I will speak out of experience in saying that subprime loans were never the majority of the fundings at the larger banks on any given month.

 

[Navy1960]

Its a catch 22, You cant do one without the other. Its a tough choice no doubt.

Thats true it is, hopefully though this will give congress the kick in the backside they need to put together a real bill that will address the issue. I doubt it though, because as soon as it failed the finger pointing started up. I read the bill last night and the one thing I had to chuckle at was the insurance provision that was "optional" a company could opt to pay for insurance or or use taxpayer money. Then after 5 years the president would review the program and see if it was turning a profit. This simply amazes me, that the very body that is supposed to represent the American people would bet with their money in an attempt prop up the credit market in a haphazard manner.