Democrats adding "bail out" irresponsible homeowners to financial bill.

[editec]

The problem we seem to keep having in Washington is the majority doesn't care what happens to the economy or to our national security as long as they keep their special interests happy. You would think that in an emergency the Dems would try to work with the Administration. Fat chance.

I would think that millions of homeowners losing their homes is ALSO an emergency.

The "special" interest of the Democratic people are the PEOPLE of the United States.

That doesn't occur to you, as well, Oreo?

After all, we've already put trillions into saving banks and financial insititutions and Insrance companies...why NOT help some actual PEOPLE, for a change?

See?

That's what being a liberal means.

It means that you believe the point of this whole civilization exercise is to assist PEOPLE.

 

[editec]

What a crock of shit.

The Republicans created the crisis, and they walked away with the money.

Not JUST Republicans.

This is a bipartisan disaster, after all.

 

[oreo]

Enron was Bush's top campaign contributor....

The Enron scandal was a financial scandal involving Enron Corporation (NYSE ticker symbol: ENE) and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen, that was revealed in late 2001. After a series of revelations involving irregular accounting procedures conducted throughout the 1990s, Enron was on the verge of bankruptcy by November of 2001. A white knight rescue attempt by a similar, smaller energy company, Dynegy, was not viable. Enron filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001.

As the scandal was revealed, Enron shares dropped from over US$90.00 to less than 50¢. As Enron had been considered a blue chip stock, this was an unprecedented and disastrous event in the financial world. Enron's plunge occurred after it was revealed that much of its profits and revenue were the result of deals with special purpose entities (limited partnerships which it controlled). The result was that many of Enron's debts and the losses that it suffered were not reported in its financial statements.

In addition, the scandal caused the dissolution of Arthur Andersen, which at the time was one of the world's top five accounting firms.

Enron scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ever hear of Worldcom & several others that had nothing to do with oil? They too ripped off employees & investors for hundreds of millions of dollars? This was not just Enron--or oil-. Corruption within the financial markets was running rampant. This started in the 90's during the Clinton administration. Nor did Enron happen overnight in the period that Bush was elected. They had been doing it for several years--& while Bill Clinton was in office. The accountants were paid off--& CEO'S & CFO's were walking away with billions of dollars. They were arrested & prosecuted. Ken Lay died of a heart attack & the others are in prison today.

Well what about the CFO's & CEO's that ran Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac into the ground. I don't see any hancuffs coming out? They too walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars. The reason the democrats are not calling for a complete investigation is because they used these agencies for their own personal piggy banks. An investigation would expose them & their dealings with these two agencies.

 

[oreo]

I would think that millions of homeowners losing their homes is ALSO an emergency.

The "special" interest of the Democratic people are the PEOPLE of the United States.

That doesn't occur to you, as well, Oreo?

After all, we've already put trillions into saving banks and financial insititutions and Insrance companies...why NOT help some actual PEOPLE, for a change?

See?

That's what being a liberal means.

It means that you believe the point of this whole civilization exercise is to assist PEOPLE.

EXACTLY--What investment capital did these homeowners actually lose? They didn't have to come up with any kind of down payment, so no money lost there. They avoided closing costs in most cases, so no money lost there.

Yet, you want to pay their bills for them--THEY DID NOT LOSE ANYTHING!

That's what made it so EASY for them to walk out of these properties.

 

[metaverse]

Yep, according to Paulsen and McCain the little people should be held responsible for their mistakes but the rich wall street scions shouldn't be held responsible for their mistakes.

is the US government going to go bankrupt in ten years and recall my mortgage before it's paid off? banks have been recalling mortgages that have never been paid late because home values have sometimes dropped below what was owed on the mortgage. how do i know whether or not the government owes my mortgage?

 

[oreo]

Not JUST Republicans.

This is a bipartisan disaster, after all.

Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae were started years ago by the democrat party who insisted on making loans available to minorites & lower income people--PERIOD. It was democrats who ran these agencies--two of them are on Obama's campaign committee. One was charged with fraud (Reines) & had to pay back 25 million. However, it is noted that he received hundreds of millions--they only got him for 25 million.

While they were running them into the ground, these democrat appointees were paying themselves huge multi-million dollar bonuses's while making certain their buddies in congress coffer's were filled. One of those is none other than --Barack Obama. So much for fighting lobbyists, RIGHT?

 

[oreo]

when my husband and I took out our first mortgage together we had to supply PROOF of our income, PROOF of all debt, PROOF of all assets, and a number of other things in order to qualify for a mortgage...whatever stopped the banks from continuing such sound business practice is BEYOND ME other than what you;ve been saying, the selling off of debt or these mortgages the minute they suckered the homeowner in to the subprime mortgage was what helped keep the whole ruse going....

I hear ya! I have never been able to get a loan without a minimum of 2 years income tax returns, excellent credit & using my 1st born for collateral.

Yet somehow, someone who makes minimum wage was able to purchase a 400,000 to 500,000 home--with no down payment?

 

[editec]

Yet, you want to pay their bills for them--THEY DID NOT LOSE ANYTHING!

You assume that you understand what I expect my government to do, and your assumptions are entirely incorrect.

I'll merely ask you this...what is the point of government?

Is it to assist the people of that nation to do well?

If not then why have it at all?

Now, we know that our government has come to the aid to the tune of trillions of dollars to save many wealthy people's butts.

I ask you why you object when that same government does that for the people?

Because they don't deserve it?

Who does, if not the people of the nation?


Now if you believe that the government should not have done anything for antone, you are consistent, but I think you are wrong.

Having done nothing would have melted down our economy THIS MORNING.

Like you (I guess) I am frankly dubious that what we have done is going to solve the problem for very long, though.

Please do me the favor of NOT telling me what I believe , okay?

I am quite capable of describing my beliefs without your aid.

And since you get it wrong when you try (as above) , I wish you'd stop chiding me for what I do not believe.

Thanks.

 

[WillowTree]

Foreclosed family's last goodbye to home

Foreclosed family's last goodbye to home







Sounds so pitiful dosen't it?? but these people walked away with $454,000 dollars and lived 2 years rent free. Should we help them more? Or doya think that is enough.. How much is enough? How many times did this crap happen?
And, she drinks Hennesey's. We are just big fat suckers who have been suckered.


The final refinance at the end of 2006 left the family owing $454,000. The monthly payments of $3,362 exceeded the household income of $3,144.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

You assume that you understand what I expect my government to do, and your assumptions are entirely incorrect.

I'll merely ask you this...what is the point of government?

Is it to assist the people of that nation to do well?

If not then why have it at all?

It quite specifically NOT intended to be a nanny.

It is designed to defend us from force and fraud.

Now, we know that our government has come to the aid to the tune of trillions of dollars to save many wealthy people's butts.

Horsecrap.

The money the so-called uber rich personally hold is not enough to destabilize markets. It's because the amount of damage threatens the middle class that the gov't feels the need to act. Remember the Chrysler bailout wasn't about the stockholders it was obstensibly about American jobs.

I ask you why you object when that same government does that for the people?

Because they don't deserve it?

Who does, if not the people of the nation?

This mess isn't about "the people" it's about people who can't get financed conventionally and the politicians catering to them for votes and their Fannie/Freddie execs that shelled out the $$$.

Now if you believe that the government should not have done anything for antone, you are consistent, but I think you are wrong.

90% of restaurants fail within their first 3 years and yest we have no shortage of restaurants.

The gov't should not give money for failure.

Having done nothing would have melted down our economy THIS MORNING.

If we weren't trying to play Dudley Doo-Right we wouldn't have had Fannie and Freddie in the first place.

Just a moment ago you were saying you thought the gov't should help people be better off. Well, the reason these mortgages were written is because the people they were given to either do not have the money to afford what they buy or they have so abused their credit rating they no responsible, conventionally run bank would touch, hence the gov't backed underwriting.

Now which is it: do you wish to prop-up people who cannot stand on their own mostly through personal irresponsibility? If so welcome to the trillion dollar jungle. Welcome to a world where you advertise the fact that even if you ruin your credit rating buying stuff you never paid for or work less (if at all) the gov't will still hook you up with a home.

And no, this won't teach CEO's lessons either because they learn that it is the gov't's job to rescue them from throwing investors' money away. In a proper world execs would not give money to these people because they know it would never come back to the company.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive/irresponsible REGARDLESS OF THEIR TAX BRACKET. All that does is undermines the value of the money you seek to redistribute (money is a medium of economic activity, it loses value when given in exchange for non-activity) and it encourages the very behaviors that it seeks to cover as the productive figure they might as wel get theirs too.

 

[Care4all]

Foreclosed family's last goodbye to home

Foreclosed family's last goodbye to home


Sounds so pitiful dosen't it?? but these people walked away with $454,000 dollars and lived 2 years rent free. Should we help them more? Or doya think that is enough.. How much is enough? How many times did this crap happen?
And, she drinks Hennesey's. We are just big fat suckers who have been suckered.


The final refinance at the end of 2006 left the family owing $454,000. The monthly payments of $3,362 exceeded the household income of $3,144.

Why did the banks loan them the money when the banks KNEW she and her family could not afford the amounts of money they loaned them?

Why would the banks MAKE such an UNSOUND BUSINESS DECISION? What did the banks get out of doing this, over and over and over and over and over again...so much so that now us taxpayers have to bail these banks out for a TRILLION plus dollars?

Care

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Why did the banks loan them the money when the banks KNEW she and her family could not afford the amounts of money they loaned them?

Why would the banks MAKE such an UNSOUND BUSINESS DECISION? What did the banks get out of doing this, over and over and over and over and over again...so much so that now us taxpayers have to bail these banks out for a TRILLION plus dollars?

Care

Because they were either pressured under equal housing law or the law made it the PURPOSE of the loan to "reach out to the disadvantaged"?

perhaps

 

[Ravi]

Because they were either pressured under equal housing law or the law made it the PURPOSE of the loan to "reach out to the disadvantaged"?

perhaps

Wrong. But keep pretending.

 

[WillowTree]

Why did the banks loan them the money when the banks KNEW she and her family could not afford the amounts of money they loaned them?

Why would the banks MAKE such an UNSOUND BUSINESS DECISION? What did the banks get out of doing this, over and over and over and over and over again...so much so that now us taxpayers have to bail these banks out for a TRILLION plus dollars?

Care

because the Democrats insisted that money be lent to minorities, that's why the gave NO JOB NO INCOME NO ASSET LOANS


say thanks to Barney Frank, Obamalama, John Effen Kerry, and Chris DODD

 

[editec]

The money the so-called uber rich personally hold is not enough to destabilize markets.

The uberich (top 1/10th of 1%) own 40% of the nations wealth. Bet your ass that's more than enough to destabilize any market.

It's because the amount of damage threatens the middle class that the gov't feels the need to act. Remember the Chrysler bailout wasn't about the stockholders it was obstensibly about American jobs.

the USA was repaid with interest, Sounds like a good policy to me.

This mess isn't about "the people" it's about people who can't get financed conventionally and the politicians catering to them for votes and their Fannie/Freddie execs that shelled out the $$$.

No, this mess is about ALL of us, now. If we could let those financial institutions go down, and all the people who lose their houses go down without BREAKING THE ECONOMY, I'd be right there with you on this point.

I ALSO am sitting on a property with a fixed rate mortgage owning more principle that debts on it.

STILL, if we allow this system to find its own way, that will change dramatically overnight.

My house, you house, everyone's house will instantly become unsellable.

Want to know why?

Because NOBODY will be credit worthy enough to get a loan.

90% of restaurants fail within their first 3 years and yest we have no shortage of restaurants.

Yeah, we're not talking restaurants here, are we?

The gov't should not give money for failure.

Understood in principle...now apply this principle to the situtation we're facing.

If we weren't trying to play Dudley Doo-Right we wouldn't have had Fannie and Freddie in the first place.

It was a stellar idea that worked beautifully for decades before we screwed it up...stating in 1968 with LBJ we started screwing it up.

See? Republicans AND democraps screwed it up.

Just a moment ago you were saying you thought the gov't should help people be better off. Well, the reason these mortgages were written is because the people they were given to either do not have the money to afford what they buy or they have so abused their credit rating they no responsible, conventionally run bank would touch, hence the gov't backed underwriting.

True...Bad policies, I quite agree.

Now which is it: do you wish to prop-up people who cannot stand on their own mostly through personal irresponsibility? If so welcome to the trillion dollar jungle. Welcome to a world where you advertise the fact that even if you ruin your credit rating buying stuff you never paid for or work less (if at all) the gov't will still hook you up with a home.

I asked you the quetion once, you didn't answer.

Let me try again...

We;'ve just given PRIVATE BANKS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS over a trillion dollars.

If we can do that to help them, why not help out the people who are in trouble?

Now if you tell me that we should NOT have save the banking industry, if you tell me that we should have let the depression start TODAY (which it would have) then I understand why you object to helping any of those people.

I'm not really sure you understand the magnitude of the problem.

You ire directed at people who bought homes that they find they cannot afford isn't entirely misdirected, of course.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to think those people were the sole cause of this problem and therefore must be punished.

They saw an opportunity to grab that brass ring and they took it.

And that brass ring was held out to them by the very people we are now bailing out.

Why blame one class entirely when they were the people LEAST responsible for this mess?

 

[Ravi]

because the Democrats insisted that money be lent to minorities, that's why the gave NO JOB NO INCOME NO ASSET LOANS


say thanks to Barney Frank, Obamalama, John Effen Kerry, and Chris DODD

Amazing. Are you stupid or just a liar?

I honestly can't tell anymore.

 

[Silence]

Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae were started years ago by the democrat party who insisted on making loans available to minorites & lower income people--PERIOD. It was democrats who ran these agencies--two of them are on Obama's campaign committee. One was charged with fraud (Reines) & had to pay back 25 million. However, it is noted that he received hundreds of millions--they only got him for 25 million.

Raines never worked on Obama's campaign and repeating that lie only makes you look stupid oreo....

Jim Johnson no longer works on Obama's campaign and all he was working as was a vetter for VP nominee...


But let's look at who McCain has on his campaign for shits and giggles:

Rick Davis - Campaign manager... served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation.


Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign former director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae.

Wayne Bermanlobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations

Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.




Fannie, Freddie spent $200M to buy influence - Lisa Lerer - Politico.com

 

[Care4all]

Because they were either pressured under equal housing law or the law made it the PURPOSE of the loan to "reach out to the disadvantaged"?

perhaps

i say thats HOGWASH holeinthevoid....the banks/financial institutions had fidutiary responsibility to the stockholders who owned them....

the bill that encouraged home ownership was 31 years old, WHAT CHANGED to make the banks so IRRESPONSIBLE all of a sudden....within the last 8 years?

regulations in 2000 changed, deregulating took place that allowed this, and money was cheap....the fed rate was artificially low and corporate greed took over....the immediate dollar in hand, haphazardly gotten, replaced sound business practice....imo.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

We;'ve just given PRIVATE BANKS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS over a trillion dollars.

If we can do that to help them, why not help out the people who are in trouble?

I did answer this originally.

But more directly: The money being lost is not money from the mortgages but money taken from other people--investors who worked to earn it--used to write those mortgages. It is the ivestor's money that is in jeopardy and obstensibly that is the money the fed is seeking to recoup.

Whether its some family's 401k or a Wall Street powerbroker the vast majority of money at stake was fairly earned but unfairly used to prop-up a group of people who did not earn the homes they bought.

 

[Care4all]

I did answer this originally.

But more directly: The money being lost is not money from the mortgages but money taken from other people--investors who worked to earn it--used to write those mortgages. It is the ivestor's money that is in jeopardy and obstensibly that is the money the fed is seeking to recoup.

Whether its some family's 401k or a Wall Street powerbroker the vast majority of money at stake was fairly earned but unfairly used to prop-up a group of people who did not earn the homes they bought.

sooooo, no hit on the people that made these WRONG AND CARELESS BUSINESS DECISIONS in the first place?

socialism for the wealthiest with our tax dollars instead of letting the chips fall, but capitalism for rest?

do you really believe in this type of practice?