Bush Burrows Political Appointees in Career Jobs

restrictions on homes built there in? Percentage wise it lies between 95 and 100%. The home I grew up in had 1000 square feet including it's one car garage. The mobile home I have now is bigger even without a garage and your average new home is twice that big if it isn't larger. We don't build homes for working people anymore we build damn yuppie mansions.

2nd the Lot my mom and dad's home sat on when I was in junior high and high school was an 1/8 of an acre 20 years ago it was 1/4 acre lots now 1/2 acre and acre lots are the most common. Combine that with minimum wage laws, a set of city regulations that takes two lawyers and four accountants to interpret it if the city has more than about 100k people in it, and housing prices are going to be 300 or 400k just to make it worth the developers trouble and aggravation to build.

3rd at the other end of the scale you begin with how the leftist retards began to enforce anti red lining laws in the 70's. Please note I have no problem at all with the anti red lining laws themselves. To the extent that some knuckleheads in the Real Estate industry were preventing people from moving into some neighborhoods that they could easily afford to live in based solely upon thier skin clolor they needed to be slapped down. However the method of enforcement was simply to assume out of hand that if you weren't selling x percent of homes in a given neighborhood to a given minority you were automatically assumed to be red lining. Never mind that you might be selling homes beyond the means of your average brick layer regardless of race creed or color to buy or that there simply weren't enough African-Americans in the area with six figure incomes to get to that percentage of those high dollar homes.

That's when mortgage companies first began to find themselves compelled to sell homes to people who couldn't, under the traditional rules governing mortgages, afford them. Being good business people they also did what they could to cut there losses when these mortgages more than occassionally went south. Now understand something any time you repossess a house you will lose money against it's original sale value and as much as 10 or 20% isn't uncommon and it can be a lot more depending on how long it's been since the original sale.

To make a bad situation worse by 1994 when Congress passed Ole Barn's anti predatory lending law that he cited during the O'Reilly interview virtually everything the mortgage companies had done to prevent or at least reduce their losses on these bad Mortgages had been made illegal at one level of the government or the other. This meant now that a lot of Mortgage companies were holding a lot mortgage notes that were for all practical purposes worthless, The Republicans tried to rescue them from this governemnt forced bankruptcy by transfering at least some of these loans to Fannie and Freddie and this Clinton agreed to and it might have worked had not the Two Clinton cronies running Fannie and Freddie at the time decided to redue their salary structure so that the were paid a bonus not for competently running these quasi government agencies but based on the total number of loans written givng them an even greater impetus to write more of these bad loans. And then the dominoes began to fall.
 
restrictions on homes built there in? Percentage wise it lies between 95 and 100%. The home I grew up in had 1000 square feet including it's one car garage. The mobile home I have now is bigger even without a garage and your average new home is twice that big if it isn't larger. We don't build homes for working people anymore we build damn yuppie mansions.

2nd the Lot my mom and dad's home sat on when I was in junior high and high school was an 1/8 of an acre 20 years ago it was 1/4 acre lots now 1/2 acre and acre lots are the most common. Combine that with minimum wage laws, a set of city regulations that takes two lawyers and four accountants to interpret it if the city has more than about 100k people in it, and housing prices are going to be 300 or 400k just to make it worth the developers trouble and aggravation to build.

3rd at the other end of the scale you begin with how the leftist retards began to enforce anti red lining laws in the 70's. Please note I have no problem at all with the anti red lining laws themselves. To the extent that some knuckleheads in the Real Estate industry were preventing people from moving into some neighborhoods that they could easily afford to live in based solely upon thier skin clolor they needed to be slapped down. However the method of enforcement was simply to assume out of hand that if you weren't selling x percent of homes in a given neighborhood to a given minority you were automatically assumed to be red lining. Never mind that you might be selling homes beyond the means of your average brick layer regardless of race creed or color to buy or that there simply weren't enough African-Americans in the area with six figure incomes to get to that percentage of those high dollar homes.

That's when mortgage companies first began to find themselves compelled to sell homes to people who couldn't, under the traditional rules governing mortgages, afford them. Being good business people they also did what they could to cut there losses when these mortgages more than occassionally went south. Now understand something any time you repossess a house you will lose money against it's original sale value and as much as 10 or 20% isn't uncommon and it can be a lot more depending on how long it's been since the original sale.

To make a bad situation worse by 1994 when Congress passed Ole Barn's anti predatory lending law that he cited during the O'Reilly interview virtually everything the mortgage companies had done to prevent or at least reduce their losses on these bad Mortgages had been made illegal at one level of the government or the other. This meant now that a lot of Mortgage companies were holding a lot mortgage notes that were for all practical purposes worthless, The Republicans tried to rescue them from this governemnt forced bankruptcy by transfering at least some of these loans to Fannie and Freddie and this Clinton agreed to and it might have worked had not the Two Clinton cronies running Fannie and Freddie at the time decided to redue their salary structure so that the were paid a bonus not for competently running these quasi government agencies but based on the total number of loans written givng them an even greater impetus to write more of these bad loans. And then the dominoes began to fall.

I think all the people who bought homes in the 90's would have paid them off if the economy didn't tank.

Why did the economy tank?

Jobs going overseas for one. Why are jobs going overseas? Corporations don't want to pay American wages. Who gave those corporations tax breaks to encourage/help them move overseas? The GOP.

The Dems wouldn't have stopped them from going overseas, but they sure as hell wouldn't have given them tax breaks to leave. And then maybe an American competitor could have stepped in to compete. But you can't compete with no bid good old boy contracts who only hire slave labor in 3rd world countries, TAX FREE!

And how about the loopholes that the GOP wrote into the tax code giving off shore companies billions of dollars in tax breaks? No wonder the treasury is screwed.

Bottom line, it all ties in together. And your little story of how this all started on a local level is bullshit.

Here is all the proof you need. During the GOP's time in charge, the mortgage companies started bundling loans together and selling them off to bigger banks, who then bundled them even more and then sold them to the biggest banks.

If this wasn't done, then all these foreclosures wouldn't have that much impact. Instead, a bunch of mortgage companies would have gone bankrupt, no big deal. But because the rich bankers bundled them together (probably on purpose), then they became "too big to fail".

That's why what they did should not have been done. But no one was regulating them when the GOP was in charge, because the GOP are for DE regulations.
 
restrictions on homes built there in? Percentage wise it lies between 95 and 100%. The home I grew up in had 1000 square feet including it's one car garage. The mobile home I have now is bigger even without a garage and your average new home is twice that big if it isn't larger. We don't build homes for working people anymore we build damn yuppie mansions.

2nd the Lot my mom and dad's home sat on when I was in junior high and high school was an 1/8 of an acre 20 years ago it was 1/4 acre lots now 1/2 acre and acre lots are the most common. Combine that with minimum wage laws, a set of city regulations that takes two lawyers and four accountants to interpret it if the city has more than about 100k people in it, and housing prices are going to be 300 or 400k just to make it worth the developers trouble and aggravation to build.

3rd at the other end of the scale you begin with how the leftist retards began to enforce anti red lining laws in the 70's. Please note I have no problem at all with the anti red lining laws themselves. To the extent that some knuckleheads in the Real Estate industry were preventing people from moving into some neighborhoods that they could easily afford to live in based solely upon thier skin clolor they needed to be slapped down. However the method of enforcement was simply to assume out of hand that if you weren't selling x percent of homes in a given neighborhood to a given minority you were automatically assumed to be red lining. Never mind that you might be selling homes beyond the means of your average brick layer regardless of race creed or color to buy or that there simply weren't enough African-Americans in the area with six figure incomes to get to that percentage of those high dollar homes.

That's when mortgage companies first began to find themselves compelled to sell homes to people who couldn't, under the traditional rules governing mortgages, afford them. Being good business people they also did what they could to cut there losses when these mortgages more than occassionally went south. Now understand something any time you repossess a house you will lose money against it's original sale value and as much as 10 or 20% isn't uncommon and it can be a lot more depending on how long it's been since the original sale.

To make a bad situation worse by 1994 when Congress passed Ole Barn's anti predatory lending law that he cited during the O'Reilly interview virtually everything the mortgage companies had done to prevent or at least reduce their losses on these bad Mortgages had been made illegal at one level of the government or the other. This meant now that a lot of Mortgage companies were holding a lot mortgage notes that were for all practical purposes worthless, The Republicans tried to rescue them from this governemnt forced bankruptcy by transfering at least some of these loans to Fannie and Freddie and this Clinton agreed to and it might have worked had not the Two Clinton cronies running Fannie and Freddie at the time decided to redue their salary structure so that the were paid a bonus not for competently running these quasi government agencies but based on the total number of loans written givng them an even greater impetus to write more of these bad loans. And then the dominoes began to fall.

PS, under the GOP rule, lenders didn't just sign people up for 30 year loans. Instead, they pushed them towards adjustable loans.

We know this for a fact. This isn't speculation. Sales were encouraged to fool/trick people into bad loans.

And these lenders knew the bubble was bursting.

So why did they continue to approve loans for a home they knew would not be worth the $ in just a few months/years?

Because they wanted to make money. That's all companies care about.

And that is why we have government. They are supposed to regulate industry so they don't take advantage of the citizens.
 

Forum List

Back
Top