McCain Promises To Ruin Economy

[sealybobo]

Not a conservative plan.

Conservatives have been saying the gov't has no place bailing out people who signed mortgages they new they couldn't afford or bailing out banks that made piss-poor business decisions to give loans to people they knew couldn't afford them.

Yet, I seem to remember some nitwit on TV recently claiming how anyone who didn't want the gov't to help the people who made bad borrowing decisions--and by silent extension: the banks that loaned them the money--were heartless bastards.

What was his name again?

Obama wants to help people who were sold predatory loans. Do you realize what is happening to the economy? People are foreclosing, the banks are going bankrupt and the Government just took over Freddy and Fanny. That means WE ARE BAILING OUT THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM!!!!

What don't you get about that? So if the government steps in and says, "hey home owner, your interest rate is now 2%. Enjoy".

EVEN IF THEY GIVE THEM A 2% MORTGAGE, YOU ARE BETTER OFF THAN HAVING THAT PERSON FORECLOSE, AND THEN THE BANK GOES BELLY UP WHILE THE CEO'S MAKE $20 MILLION A YEAR AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE FEDERAL RESERVE MAKES THE DECISION TO BAIL OUT THE BANKERS AND JUST THROW IT ON THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH YOU OWN.

Oh my god, you are drinking the GOP coolaid, huh? Free markets my ass. Stop being such a gullable evil bully selfish greedy conservative. Your party is tearing apart the god damn country and you are defending it with campaign slogans. Boy, you sure fooled the masses into voting for McCain, congrats, now the country is going to hell. And it might be your job in the next 4 years. Not everyone lost their jobs all at once. If that happened, we'd be a little bit more compassionate and understanding.

But no, you think your job is safe. Trust me, with the GOP in charge, it is not. We can find mexicans or chinese or indians that will do your job much cheeper. And since government is all about maximizing corporate profits, you understand, right? We can get someone to do your job for less too.

If your job is immune to outsourcing or illegal workers taking it, lucky you. Are you sure it's impossible? What do you do?

 

[sealybobo]

It was a budget projection. PRO--JECT-SHUN...a thing of the future...right up there with flying cars.

Ok, Bush, Bush and Reagan projected record budget deficits and Clinton projected budget surplus.

Same thing.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Obama wants to help people who were sold predatory loans. Do you realize what is happening to the economy? People are foreclosing, the banks are going bankrupt and the Government just took over Freddy and Fanny. That means WE ARE BAILING OUT THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM!!!!

What don't you get about that? So if the government steps in and says, "hey home owner, your interest rate is now 2%. Enjoy".

EVEN IF THEY GIVE THEM A 2% MORTGAGE, YOU ARE BETTER OFF THAN HAVING THAT PERSON FORECLOSE, AND THEN THE BANK GOES BELLY UP WHILE THE CEO'S MAKE $20 MILLION A YEAR AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE FEDERAL RESERVE MAKES THE DECISION TO BAIL OUT THE BANKERS AND JUST THROW IT ON THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH YOU OWN.

Oh my god, you are drinking the GOP coolaid, huh? Free markets my ass. Stop being such a gullable evil bully selfish greedy conservative. Your party is tearing apart the god damn country and you are defending it with campaign slogans. Boy, you sure fooled the masses into voting for McCain, congrats, now the country is going to hell. And it might be your job in the next 4 years. Not everyone lost their jobs all at once. If that happened, we'd be a little bit more compassionate and understanding.

But no, you think your job is safe. Trust me, with the GOP in charge, it is not. We can find mexicans or chinese or indians that will do your job much cheeper. And since government is all about maximizing corporate profits, you understand, right? We can get someone to do your job for less too.

If your job is immune to outsourcing or illegal workers taking it, lucky you. Are you sure it's impossible? What do you do?

First you complain about predatory loans.

Then you complain about how much better a business decision it would be to rewrite a mortgage at a 2% fixed APR then take a

1) why does the world need Little O for that? Businesses should be able to do that for themselves. After all, they have a vested interest--called, ironically--investors.

2) Why should someone who failed to read their mortgage agreement be rewarded with a 2% fixed APR when I, who played by the rules, have a 6.35%fixed APR. You're rewarding bad behavior. Other people might as well default on their mortgages so they can have it rewritten to save a load of money every year.

BTW - I'm not worried about my job. My income went-up, my taxes went down and I bought my first home--and bassett hound--under the evil Bush regime. Not that I needed Bush, I just need Little O to stay out of my way.

 

[jillian]

Why should someone who failed to read their mortgage agreement be rewarded with a 2% fixed APR when I, who played by the rules, have a 6.35%fixed APR. You're rewarding bad behavior. Other people might as well default on their mortgages so they can have it rewritten to save a load of money every year.

You read every page of your mortgage loan? That's really funny... because I can promise you didn't. Your lawyer said "sign here"; "sign here" and "sign here" and you did. Then they handed you a HUD 1 and maybe explained your charges. And that's a maybe IF you had a good attorney.

*Edit* And why do I believe that? Because a) you can't negotiate your mortgage loan, so if you want the money, there's pretty much no point to do anything but "sign here"; and b) things go pretty quickly at a closing and no one's waiting around while you read 50 pages of mortgage docs.

And, in case its escaped your attention, the free market doesn't correct for predatory lending... until things go BOOM... like they are.

 

[sealybobo]

First you complain about predatory loans.

Then you complain about how much better a business decision it would be to rewrite a mortgage at a 2% fixed APR then take a

1) why does the world need Little O for that? Businesses should be able to do that for themselves. After all, they have a vested interest--called, ironically--investors.

2) Why should someone who failed to read their mortgage agreement be rewarded with a 2% fixed APR when I, who played by the rules, have a 6.35%fixed APR. You're rewarding bad behavior. Other people might as well default on their mortgages so they can have it rewritten to save a load of money every year.

BTW - I'm not worried about my job. My income went-up, my taxes went down and I bought my first home--and bassett hound--under the evil Bush regime. Not that I needed Bush, I just need Little O to stay out of my way.

Why should we bail Fanny or Freddy our Bear Stearns out?

Ok, you aren't worried about your job. What about the millions of Americans who do have to worry? Who are angry because Bush/GOP got in the way of their success stories? Sent jobs overseas. Started a war for profit, which led to inflation and the value of the dollar going so low.

What job do you have that you made more money than you were making in the 90's? Did you even work in the 90's? I bet you just got out of college. And you sound like a first time home buyer, because if you had a home more than a few years, you took a loss.

Did your 401K do better too?

See, if you had anything, you would know that the tax breaks weren't worth the 401K taking a dump, the home value going down $30k, the dollar is worth 70 cents.

I'm willing to bet you haven't factored all that in, so you are just another dumb voter.

How come all the other young kids seem to get it but you?

I can't wait to learn more about you to expose you for either being rich, a liar, wrong or racist. All of you fall into one of those categories. I'll figure you out. LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

You read every page of your mortgage loan? That's really funny... because I can promise you didn't. Your lawyer said "sign here"; "sign here" and "sign here" and you did. Then they handed you a HUD 1 and maybe explained your charges. And that's a maybe IF you had a good attorney.

And, in case its escaped your attention, the free market doesn't correct for predatory lending... until things go BOOM... like they are.

And free markets aren't fixing it. The Federal Reserve/US Taxpayers are coming to the rescue.

That's why I say, privatize profits and socialize the losses. No such thing as free markets. That's right wing spin.

 

[jillian]

And free markets aren't fixing it. The Federal Reserve/US Taxpayers are coming to the rescue.

That's why I say, privatize profits and socialize the losses. No such thing as free markets. That's right wing spin.

I can't argue with that. And there really isn't any incentive for lenders to actually BE responsible if they're going to be protected from the brunt of what they did wrong by government bail out.

So yeah, I'm not quite sure how that's free market at all.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

You read every page of your mortgage loan? That's really funny... because I can promise you didn't. Your lawyer said "sign here"; "sign here" and "sign here" and you did. Then they handed you a HUD 1 and maybe explained your charges. And that's a maybe IF you had a good attorney.

And, in case its escaped your attention, the free market doesn't correct for predatory lending... until things go BOOM... like they are.

Define predatory.

Truth-In-Lending law requires the borrower to sign a statement acknowledging they are aware of the fluctuations of variable APR's.

Now if a given borrower can demonstrate that they were never presented a TIL or that the TIL misrepresented the facts I would sign-on to pursuing the lender with the full weight of the law. A free and stable economy has no place for fraud. But we already have laws against fraud.

Your argument is more an diatribe for the abolition of mortgages in toto but the fact remains lenders and borrowers both took advantage of interest rates they knew were strictly temporary. You might as well petition for a government bailout of the Dutch tulip craze.

BTW - do you people even know what it is your spittle-flecked reactions are for. As I pointed out the contradiction between lamenting bailing out bankers but wanting to prop-up failed mortgages. Who do you think the propping-up money is going to go towards--the homeowner? Your proposed bailout is for BANKERS...and I'm opposed to rewarding THEIR bad behavior.

 

[sealybobo]

Define predatory.

Truth-In-Lending law requires the borrower to sign a statement acknowledging they are aware of the fluctuations of variable APR's.

Now if a given borrower can demonstrate that they were never presented a TIL or that the TIL misrepresented the facts I would sign-on to pursuing the lender with the full weight of the law. A free and stable economy has no place for fraud. But we already have laws against fraud.

Your argument is more an diatribe for the abolition of mortgages in toto but the fact remains lenders and borrowers both took advantage of interest rates they knew were strictly temporary. You might as well petition for a government bailout of the Dutch tulip craze.

BTW - do you people even know what it is your spittle-flecked reactions are for. As I pointed out the contradiction between lamenting bailing out bankers but wanting to prop-up failed mortgages. Who do you think the propping-up money is going to go towards--the homeowner? Your proposed bailout is for BANKERS...and I'm opposed to rewarding THEIR bad behavior.

Symantics. Forget the borrower. Screw them. The predatory lenders sold mortgages to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay once the interest went up, and so they sold off those loans to bigger banks, and people invested, and they lost, and when the big banks finally collapsed, YOU bailed them out.

They didn't fuck the borrowers, they fucked YOU!!!

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Why should we bail Fanny or Freddy our Bear Stearns out?

Ok, you aren't worried about your job. What about the millions of Americans who do have to worry? Who are angry because Bush/GOP got in the way of their success stories? Sent jobs overseas. Started a war for profit, which led to inflation and the value of the dollar going so low.

Jobs are sent overseas because GOVERNMENT makes it too difficult and expensive to do business in the US.

If the war were for profit people would be employed. Profitable busnesses need employees.

What job do you have that you made more money than you were making in the 90's? Did you even work in the 90's? I bet you just got out of college. And you sound like a first time home buyer, because if you had a home more than a few years, you took a loss.

Did your 401K do better too?

Another liberal losing bet.

I'm 40.

You people live on distorted stereotypes.

See, if you had anything, you would know that the tax breaks weren't worth the 401K taking a dump, the home value going down $30k, the dollar is worth 70 cents.

Strange, I thought my 401k was dependent upon successful businesses making *gasp* profits!

I'm willing to bet you haven't factored all that in, so you are just another dumb voter.

How come all the other young kids seem to get it but you?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

And true enlightenment comes from embracing...THE ONE.

I can't wait to learn more about you to expose you for either being rich, a liar, wrong or racist. All of you fall into one of those categories. I'll figure you out. LOL.

Well, I'm not as rich as the Kerrys, Kennedys, Rockafellers and Soros of the world.

And I'm not a racist like Robert Byrd or Jeremiah Wright and I don't support Algore like Fred Phelps.

And I don't lie because I'm not wrong.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Symantics. Forget the borrower. Screw them. The predatory lenders sold mortgages to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay once the interest went up, and so they sold off those loans to bigger banks, and people invested, and they lost, and when the big banks finally collapsed, YOU bailed them out.

They didn't fuck the borrowers, they fucked YOU!!!

Nobody forced the secondary lenders to buy the paper.

I'm opposed to the bailout because government should not intervene in poor/outdated business decisions.

If the nanny-staters had their way we'd still be propping-up the blacksmiths of the world.

 

[jillian]

Define predatory.

Truth-In-Lending law requires the borrower to sign a statement acknowledging they are aware of the fluctuations of variable APR's.

Now if a given borrower can demonstrate that they were never presented a TIL or that the TIL misrepresented the facts I would sign-on to pursuing the lender with the full weight of the law. A free and stable economy has no place for fraud. But we already have laws against fraud.

Your argument is more an diatribe for the abolition of mortgages in toto but the fact remains lenders and borrowers both took advantage of interest rates they knew were strictly temporary. You might as well petition for a government bailout of the Dutch tulip craze.

BTW - do you people even know what it is your spittle-flecked reactions are for. As I pointed out the contradiction between lamenting bailing out bankers but wanting to prop-up failed mortgages. Who do you think the propping-up money is going to go towards--the homeowner? Your proposed bailout is for BANKERS...and I'm opposed to rewarding THEIR bad behavior.

Thanks for the heads up on the Truth in Lending Laws. Having done more than my fair share of transactional real estate, I can say with full assurance that your reliance on it is misplaced.

Not every lender is sophisticated. And not all lenders are predatory. But I think we all know what we mean when we say predatory lender.

As for "spittle flaked"... I'd suggest you're projecting. I'd also suggest that if people have no risk of loss, they make stupid decisions... LIKE LENDING MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE BAD CREDIT RISKS.

Me? I'm tired of my tax money being used to bail out corporations whose executives make all of the profits when times are good but take none of the risks when times are bad and when their bad decision-making mucks up the works.

Again, I look forward to hearing about your 6 hour closing where the bank gave you time to read and negotiate all of your mortgage docs.

 

[sealybobo]

Jobs are sent overseas because GOVERNMENT makes it too difficult and expensive to do business in the US.

If the war were for profit people would be employed. Profitable busnesses need employees.


Another liberal losing bet.

I'm 40.

You people live on distorted stereotypes.



Strange, I thought my 401k was dependent upon successful businesses making *gasp* profits!



Yes. Yes. Yes.

And true enlightenment comes from embracing...THE ONE.



Well, I'm not as rich as the Kerrys, Kennedys, Rockafellers and Soros of the world.

And I'm not a racist like Robert Byrd or Jeremiah Wright and I don't support Algore like Fred Phelps.

And I don't lie because I'm not wrong.

1. Companies were profitable in the 90's? No matter how cheap the government makes it to do business in America, companies are going to try to avoid paying American worker wages if they can get it cheaper in other countries, so don't hand me that crap about government makes things too hard, blabal. The GOP controlled government from 2000-2006, made things very easy for business and they still left overseas.

2. There are just as many Blackwater/Haloburton/KBR employees in Iraq/Afganistan as there are soldiers dummy. They all make $150K to $350K a year and you are paying the wages. US Tax dollars. That's what I mean when i say the GOP wants to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Man are you brainwashed.

You are 40 and bought your first home? It took the economy to crash before you could buy a home? So you didn't have a home to sell when you bought your first home? Please explain your situation. I have a feeling it is pathetic.

How much do you make? What do you do? Come on, let me prove you are full of shit. If you make $250k then you should be voting GOP. I told you, rich is one of the things you might be. If not, then you are stupid, racist, too religion....

Your job can't be outsourced? What do you do?

You don't lie? Maybe you just don't tell the whole story?

 

[ignatov]

No such thing as free markets. That's right wing spin.

True. Markets are a government creation and government is free to set market rules. But Republicans want the rules to be "no rules at all," at least for corporations. For the citizenry the rules are "bail out misbehaving corporations."

Democrats want common sense regulations of the sort that would prevent thing like the sub-prime debacle. Yes even if those regulations would reduce those profits that Void seems to hold sacred.

 

[sealybobo]

True. Markets are a government creation and government is free to set market rules. But Republicans want the rules to be "no rules at all," at least for corporations. For the citizenry the rules are "bail out misbehaving corporations."

Democrats want common sense regulations of the sort that would prevent thing like the sub-prime debacle. Yes even if those regulations would reduce those profits that Void seems to hold sacred.

God bless you! I let right wing idiots suck me into blathering. You are spot on.

The conversation is not NO regulations vs. TOO MANY Regulations. That's what the politicians want us arguing about. We all know not all regulations are bad and sometimes there are too many regulations.

But if we discuss the mortgage crisis, it is clear that there weren't enough regulations. Were there TOO many regulations under Clinton? Clearly not because as one of the neo nuts said yesterday, the housing bubble started under Clinton.

So why on earth did the GOP de-regulate the industry as soon as they got into power?

Why did the GOP back in 2001-2003 (can't remember the exact year) override every State Attorney General when they all warned the GOP government that this housing crash was going to occur if they allowed all these bad loans?

Yes, the GOP was warned. The only question is, did they do it on purpose or did they not believe the crash would happen?

 

[sealybobo]

Thanks for the heads up on the Truth in Lending Laws. Having done more than my fair share of transactional real estate, I can say with full assurance that your reliance on it is misplaced.

Not every lender is sophisticated. And not all lenders are predatory. But I think we all know what we mean when we say predatory lender.

As for "spittle flaked"... I'd suggest you're projecting. I'd also suggest that if people have no risk of loss, they make stupid decisions... LIKE LENDING MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE BAD CREDIT RISKS.

Me? I'm tired of my tax money being used to bail out corporations whose executives make all of the profits when times are good but take none of the risks when times are bad and when their bad decision-making mucks up the works.

Again, I look forward to hearing about your 6 hour closing where the bank gave you time to read and negotiate all of your mortgage docs.

I know we have disagreed in the past but that's only because I'm a conspiracy theorist. Put aside all the conspiracy theories I believe and only go off things that can be proven, and I agree with you almost all the time.

Ok, so I think the Federal Reserve and IRS were a coup and took over our country in 1913. Big deal. So does Ron Paul. LOL.

 

[wayne]

The military needs to be in Iraq to feel good about itself?

They need to be winners, not losers as the left will see them.

 

[ignatov]

The military needs to be in Iraq to feel good about itself?

They need to be winners, not losers as the left will see them.

Are you suggesting that the soldiers need to be left in a war zone in order to protect their self-esteem?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

When is it the job of gov't to set salary caps? AND if you reduced the CEOs to subsistence livind spread it among the loans they oversaw the savings wouldn't equal one month's mortgage payment to the average borrower.

Either you make a blanket salary cap--punishing the innocent with the guilty--or you can pursue these so-called predators within the confines of the law. You people remember the law don't you? It's how we govern our society and keep tyrants from dictating by their privates whims, i.e. the economic outrage du jour.

1) Not every company flees overseas. Some things just can't be shipped, i.e. sales, service, design, etc. This is a baseless talking point. Even if companies shipped 100% of the jobs overseas it would do them no good because then nobody would be sufficiently employed to purchase their products and services.

2) A) Halliburton no longer owns KBR and KBR was getting plenty of government business during Clinton's wars.

B) Claiming their are 130,000 Blackwater and KBR employees is a bit of a stretch...but assuming the point: do you know why people take overseas Halliburton jobs?

Their income is tax-free and that equals lots of money.

You are 40 and bought your first home? It took the economy to crash before you could buy a home? So you didn't have a home to sell when you bought your first home? Please explain your situation. I have a feeling it is pathetic.

How much do you make? What do you do? Come on, let me prove you are full of shit. If you make $250k then you should be voting GOP. I told you, rich is one of the things you might be. If not, then you are stupid, racist, too religion....

Your job can't be outsourced? What do you do?

You don't lie? Maybe you just don't tell the whole story?

Oh goody.

My first internet stalker.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

True. Markets are a government creation and government is free to set market rules. But Republicans want the rules to be "no rules at all," at least for corporations. For the citizenry the rules are "bail out misbehaving corporations."

Democrats want common sense regulations of the sort that would prevent thing like the sub-prime debacle. Yes even if those regulations would reduce those profits that Void seems to hold sacred.

Try starting a business with no regard for making profits.

Go on.

Oh, wait, that's right; you think the gov't is going to create a business for you and provide your customers for you.

And no, conservatives do NOT believe in laisse faire. It creates an environment for fraud and waste. For markets to be truly free and fair the terms of the transaction have to be defined.

For example, if 2 men agree to the sale of 10 pounds of flour for a dollar the government is within its proper role of defining what constitutes the terms "pound" and "flour" and "dollar". In practical terms that means the weight has a set example (the US government actually retains such things) and flour can be defined by its ingredients and grind (thus, say, cutting it with chalk dust would constitute fraud) and the dollar is the medium of economic activity.

Not only do conservatives agree with such things these things are enumerated in the Constitution. Did you know that?