| Author | Post |
|---|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 05:04 am |
|
| disagrees with who? how many americans who voted for obama really know the history of the crisis- or even half of the history? they simply see the present, what their current situation is, who's currently running the country, and which candidate (out of two) they like most- or unfortunately for our country- who they dislike the least. so you saying that america disagrees with "you" is a little bit off topic. more americans voted for obama plain and simple. and to try and bring it back ON topic, if this mortgage crisis wasn't fueled by the decisions of people like obama and clinton, then we wouldn't be in such a mess. home values wouldn't have skyrocketed to ridiculous levels- only to come crashing down, and all other factors aside, our economy might be in a more stable place. but since it did come crashing down, americans want "change", and to them that means a new president, a new party, and a new philosophy. now obama will be able to push his awesome mortgage crisis rescue plan through to fix things. i don't have a link to what he's proposed, can someone else post that please? Last edited on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 05:05 am by geaston
|
QC Boiler
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 04:16 am |
|
| America disagrees with you. The clear majority of us think this financial crisis rests at the feet of Conservatives.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Here is a page out of the http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/trade/glossac.htm#buyam
Go to the "Buy American Act."
one I would deem "credible, without first running it by the Great censor, CF.
Now here are some statements from Feingold in 2003 about this Buy American Act..... The same guy who worked with McCain on the McCain/Feingold act. for campaign reform.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Buy American Act as it relates to our Govt.
July 29, 2003
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the federal government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.
As we all know the United States manufacturing industry is hemorrhaging, as jobs and companies move overseas or are lost all together. According to the AFL-CIO, the United States has lost more than 2.4 million manufacturing jobs since April 1998. This disturbing trend is of particular concern in my home state of Wisconsin. A March 2003 report by the Wisconsin State Department of Workforce Development notes that ``a combination of weak domestic and global demand, mergers and consolidations, automation, globalization of operations, and uncertainty surrounding war have caused employment in Wisconsin's manufacturing sector to shrink in recent years.''
Much of this can be blamed on flawed trade agreements that the United States has entered into in recent years. The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem
This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and for our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions.
The bill also increases the minimum American-made content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American-made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 75 percent minimum.
Last edited on Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 06:53 pm by Bambi
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
geaston wrote: so are you saying that toyota is an american company? how about absolut vodka? after all, they are consumed here or packaged here, and there are employees of those companies who live here. that's your definition of an american company? so you still consider budweiser and american brand? when you go shopping and you see that one brand is "made in china" and the other is "made in USA" are you saying that makes no difference? after all, you're buying it at IKEA, which by your logic is an American company since it's got a location in Tempe. Does your purchase of foreign goods support our economy as much as one that is made in America by an American based company? how in the world did we get on this tangent? sorry B, but the logic on both the mortgage crisis and what an american company is, are perfect examples of complete insanity.
perhaps boeing has outsourced so much of its production, because it's cheaper to do it there than here. perhaps because they can then be more profitable by outsourcing. but then obama wants to tax that profitability even more, which will lead to even more outsourcing. get it?
I would only suggest that you check out an economics book from the Library and discover what a "Global Economy" means. I don't take well to people calling me insane because I post my research. Do your own research then and tell me what you think, as I cannot follow your logic or answer your questions that are based on your logic. Sorry. I won't call you any names. I have respect for your opinions, right or wrong.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
DavidB wrote: Bambi wrote: I'm not sure how it will be structured. I'm just speculating.
As is your chosen one, Obama.
hilarious David.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 04:48 am |
|
Bambi wrote: I'm not sure how it will be structured. I'm just speculating.
As is your chosen one, Obama.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 04:36 am |
|
so are you saying that toyota is an american company? how about absolut vodka? after all, they are consumed here or packaged here, and there are employees of those companies who live here. that's your definition of an american company? so you still consider budweiser and american brand? when you go shopping and you see that one brand is "made in china" and the other is "made in USA" are you saying that makes no difference? after all, you're buying it at IKEA, which by your logic is an American company since it's got a location in Tempe. Does your purchase of foreign goods support our economy as much as one that is made in America by an American based company? how in the world did we get on this tangent? sorry B, but the logic on both the mortgage crisis and what an american company is, are perfect examples of complete insanity.
perhaps boeing has outsourced so much of its production, because it's cheaper to do it there than here. perhaps because they can then be more profitable by outsourcing. but then obama wants to tax that profitability even more, which will lead to even more outsourcing. get it?
Last edited on Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 04:38 am by geaston
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
DavidB wrote: Bambi wrote: Take a look at this stock David. http://www.vestas.com may be a good investment for energy, although I would rather find some little guys that are just starting out and don't have a 23% share of the market.
You know, for someone who is telling me how I need to sacrifice for the 'greater good' of America, this seems like a bit of a hypocrisy. No thanks. I'll keep my investments domestic. ENER
Your ENER has a huge Japanese partner, but the plant is located in America, so that is good. Hope they don't open plants in foreign countries as that would make your investment no longer domestic. When I said I would rather find little guys, I was referring to here....not companies elsewhere. We spoke about that before and how Obama is going to invest billions into getting this Alternative Energy up and running. .It appears the criteria you are using to define domestic investment is that it's made in America.
Vestas is located in America too. They make those big wind machines here too. They employ many Americans. They don't outsource those jobs. They are in every country, as they are worldwide and a part of the global economy..... just like GE is and General Motors is and Ford is and the oil companies are, all providing good jobs both here and in other countries. Toyota employs many Americans in their American Plants; pays fair wages, excellent working conditions, but are not considered domestic, right?. What I'm referring to, as is McCain and Obama, is the following:
Is Boeing really an American company? Would you invest in them? It's located in the Chicago area and has big plants in a Seattle suburb. It would qualify under your definition of "keeping your investments domestic." For a long time it has supplied good jobs here. But these are dwindling because Boeing is now outsourcing more and more. As today's L.A. Times tells us:
The aerospace company over the last few years had turned commercial aircraft manufacturing on its head by farming out much of the super-efficient 787. The Dreamliner's wings are built by Mitsubishi Corp. in Japan, its doors by Latecoere in France. Fuselage sections are manufactured by a U.S.-Italian team. Little but the plane's final assembly takes place in Everett, a suburb of Seattle -- long known as Jet City. Now, Boeing wants to outsource some of the union jobs still left here, hiring contractors to handle more warehousing, forklift operations, materials processing and hazardous waste disposal
And please, don't call me a hypocrit. I said nothing to warrant that. Don't sacrifice....it was a suggestion to help your fellow man. Keep living the good life and enjoy your money.
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 10:30 pm by Bambi
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Take a look at this stock David. http://www.vestas.com may be a good investment for energy, although I would rather find some little guys that are just starting out and don't have a 23% share of the market.
You know, for someone who is telling me how I need to sacrifice for the 'greater good' of America, this seems like a bit of a hypocrisy. No thanks. I'll keep my investments domestic. ENER
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
geaston wrote: when did this thread turn into other reasons to dislike obama besides the mortgage crisis? are you saying that we should invest our money in foreign companies instead of ones right here in america? are there no wind companies or alternative energy companies based right here in america? or perhaps we should invest in american companies that will move out of the US once obama starts taxing the corporations more? haliburton moved out of america, transocean is moving to switzerland. have you ever called customer service for basically any company (perhaps a credit card company) and couldn't understand the rep because he lives in pakistan? are you saying that you want more of that? whenever i talk to an american with qwest customer service i actually commend them that they speak english but at the same time i fear the day that their call center moves to india
Sorry g. I should have sent this as a private message. It's in regards to another post where I/we (David) talked about alternative energy stock.
You can invest your monies wherever you like. This is a huge manufacturing company that manufacturs huge products and has headquarters in just about every Country. They pay their fair share in each country.
No matter which guy becomes President, there will be a surge of money (don't know where it will come from) invested in those Americans who want to compete in this global market of alternative energy....basing themselves in America, with tax benefits to them if they stay in America to manufacture their products and use Americans. IF they go public, yes I will invest in them. But to expect these types of manufacturers of huge products to Not locate in other countries to service and maintain those huge products would be crazy. "My wind turbine is not working. "How do I ship it back to you?"
Service Companies are not the same as these Big manufacturing companies, and those are your credit card companies, banks, Lenders etc., etc., who have no reason to use other countries other than low pay. That kind of work can be done in this Country....call centers, customer service and the like, with Americans.
I'm not sure how it will be structured. I'm just speculating.
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 04:23 pm by Bambi
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
| when did this thread turn into other reasons to dislike obama besides the mortgage crisis? are you saying that we should invest our money in foreign companies instead of ones right here in america? are there no wind companies or alternative energy companies based right here in america? or perhaps we should invest in american companies that will move out of the US once obama starts taxing the corporations more? haliburton moved out of america, transocean is moving to switzerland. have you ever called customer service for basically any company (perhaps a credit card company) and couldn't understand the rep because he lives in pakistan? are you saying that you want more of that? whenever i talk to an american with qwest customer service i actually commend them that they speak english but at the same time i fear the day that their call center moves to india
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
Take a look at this stock David. http://www.vestas.com may be a good investment for energy, although I would rather find some little guys that are just starting out and don't have a 23% share of the market.
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 02:46 pm by Bambi
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 07:37 am |
|
Bambi wrote: Let's see now....perhaps the reason McCain and other repubs were pushing for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie was because they wanted to eliminate Wall Street's competition?
Or, perhaps they foresaw this disaster coming and tried to preempt the collapse in the mortgage and housing markets that we are seeing now. Perhaps fiscal conservatism is what this country needs now. Perhaps. 
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 06:17 am |
|
2010? why does it take that long for licensing to be required? and then that just means that loan officers have to either be or become licensed. do you know how long it took for this to come to fruition? it takes 18 months to start enforcing this once it becomes law? how does this relate? and how many failed attempts at this have been in the works over the years? and who killed those bills?
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 06:21 am by geaston
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 12:18 am |
|
Let's see now....perhaps the reason McCain and other repubs were pushing for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie was because they wanted to eliminate Wall Street's competition? It all depends on how you look at things.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. I'm sorry, but it was the private sector that pushed those loans the greatest. Let's blame them.
More regulation for Fannie and Freddie would have meant greater market share for Wall Street banks that weren't subject to regulation. Could that be? Should we look at it that way? That would sure help demonize those democrats.
In that sense, the Repubs' push back against Fannie and Freddie is doubly brilliant. they were warning against them and wanted regulation perhaps because they thought they had an unfair competitive edge against the unregulated players on Wall Street. You know....those guys we just bailed out.
Enough of the blame game. It's happened and now we must figure how to get out of it. Dems and repubs will have to work together, no matter who holds the most power in Congress. So throw out some of those old guys that maintain blame, and replace them with "thinkers" and problem solvers who belong to the present generation regardless of what Party they belong to The sooner we get rid of this "Party system", the better off we will be.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 12:04 am |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaABV1CWXug&feature=related
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:55 pm |
|
| Arizona Law Will Require Loan Officers to be Licensed - In 2010
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2731 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:53 pm |
|
The real source of the mortgage crisis is the Fed, starting with GreenSpin and continuing with Wacky Bernacky. The Fed lowered interest rates and created a housing market that was totally out of control.
They fostered those insane Derivatives markets and suppressed the price of Gold and willfully created this financial mess in order to consolidate their power and their holdings of American's physical assets.
The Fed is NOT an American institution, it is a conglomerate of world banks that control Americas money. They don't care about America. The only thing that they want from America is it tax payer base and it physical holdings. Currently they are printing money out of nowhere and spreading it around to other banks, lending houses and money institutions that they used to consolidate their power. It's all very clear and out in the open for everyone to see.
The following is my opinion only!
The world will start to come out of this financial disaster and it will take some time to do it. But after some recovery, then the main banking cartels including the Fed.........Rothchilds, Rockerfellars, Bank for International Settlements, the IMF etc . will one more time consolidate their power over the world. They will manufacture a financial disaster of such magnitude that the world governments and world citizens will gladly accept their control over all of the worlds monetary systems. This will be The one world Government.
We are all at the mercy of the greed merchants!
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: What Bill did was to lower the capitalization limits required, and to lower the creditworthiness levels required for a mortgage to be considered "sub-prime". Right, loan affirmative action.
I will agree that it was three people who refused to regulate Freddy/Fannie, which was a huge contributor to the failures.....People without Party labels for this discussion...Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and John Kerry. How convenient to ignore the fact that they are all Democrats as we're about to vote one of these far left loons into the highest office in the land. The rest of Congress should have intervened, but they were too comfortable too. As I said before, it was the sum of the parts. We're all guilty of living the good life which caused many of us to just "turn our heads" the other way. The Democrats 'turned their heads'. The GOP fought repeatedly to put in oversight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: Bambi wrote:
The Government forced nobody, much less the banks, to take bad risks. Risk was assumed by the borrower via banks programs and ratios for those people that were deemed worthy.
Absolutely untrue. Clinton pressured Fannie and Freddie into relaxing the underwriting standards for these low income, largely minority borrowers. There are many more reasons than just this for the meltdown, but this was a major factor and let's not diminish it's importance. We can't learn from our mistakes if we pretend they didn't happen.
In this case, the question is "How do you define "forced"?" You state pressured I said forced. Bill was a President that pushed for fair treatment of all and did seek advantages for the disadvantaged, and pressure him he did.
What Bill did was to lower the capitalization limits required, and to lower the creditworthiness levels required for a mortgage to be considered "sub-prime". The only reason a lender can decline a loan is credit, debt / income ratio or collateral.
Anything else is a against the law.
We used to call it A paper/B paper and so on, depending on their creditworthiness. In the 80's, I took contracts to lenders that I thought would never fly. But, B paper allowed them to fly....we just didn't call it subprime back then. The effects of the loan were they had to come in with more down, and pay a higher interest rate. The higher the interest rate, the higher the risk. Also, no adjustment occured during the life of the loan. If they didn't like the loan, they either refinanced or sold the home. Adjustable loans are not for the risky, yet they are offered to them all the time because they can qualify them under a lower interest rate at the beginning to get the deal.....which was part of the cause of this meltdown. The adjustment of the interest rate.
While no bank was "forced" to adopt the new lower rules, any bank that did not would have been at a severe competitive disadvantage with regard to the others, so the reality is that they ALL adopted the new limits. No one "forced" them.
Remember, the banks that write mortgage loans only 'very' rarely keep them on their books. In general, the mortgages are bundled up and sold as investment vehicles through Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac. So if a bank is trying to offer mortgage loans, knowing that they are going to turn around and resell them right away, they have no reason to impose credit requirements any stricter than they have to to keep their mortgages compliant.
I will agree that it was three people who refused to regulate Freddy/Fannie, which was a huge contributor to the failures.....People without Party labels for this discussion...Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and John Kerry. They made a huge mistake, but attitudes at that time were relaxed. No one "pushed" them. The rest of Congress should have intervened, but they were too comfortable too. As I said before, it was the sum of the parts. We're all guilty of living the good life which caused many of us to just "turn our heads" the other way.
Interesting figure I heard on the news. 20% of homeowers owe more than the value of their home. Like it or not, we are always going to have to regulation in this free market to keep us all above board and sustainable.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
If the "responsible" realtor qualified the borrower, and the "responsible" loan officer qualified the borrower, and if the "responsible" appraiser stated the true value of the home and the "responsible" home inspector pointed out everything he was supposed to and the "responsible" mortgage company owner checked everything, then those "responsible" professionals would be out of business. if any real estate professional can say that in the last 10 years they have not been part of a transaction that they in their gut knew wasn't right for the borrower, then they are not in business anymore. Why? because then there was always another lender, another realtor, another appraiser, another home inspector who would green light the deal. You can NOT point the finger at any one of these individuals. It is those who created the loan programs that allowed these loans to be made. No interest? Option ARMs? Stated Income? Are you saying that these loan programs were created by the loan officers? These loan programs were created just for that purpose of allowing less than qualified people enter into these transactions, and if you refused to do these transactions as a professional, then you were left with less work.
I have personally filed complaints against several of my peers after I reviewed their work and found apparent fraud. And about a year later, they got a slap on the wrist and were told that they needed to take 50 additional hours of continuing education within the next 12 months to make up for their "mistake".
Appraisers worked as "trainees"- sometimes 10+ per true licensed appraiser, loan officers weren't required to be licensed (and still aren't in arizona), realtors came out of the woodworks from their used car sales jobs (sorry to all you used car salespeople- there's nothing wrong with what you do for a living). It became a wild west of transactions because everyone qualified for a loan, so everyone could buy a house- or two, or 10. How can you blame one person in this equation. It all comes down from the top.
So since Cuomo was HUD chairman 10 years ago under Clinton and under his supervision, decisions were made to help turbo-boost the current real estate problem, then that's one thing. But when today, the same Cuomo points his finger at one part of the real estate transaction equation and essentially says that this is the problem, THAT gets me upset.
Based on the subject at hand, I'm venting purely to express concern over Obama and his ties to all of this and how HE truly is a major contributor to the "mortgage meltdown" that we are experiencing. Never mind how this affects me personally, after all, we're not all in real estate...
Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:38 pm by geaston
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
Here's a detailed editorial on what happened:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20081029
Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:14 pm by CrimeFighter
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1204 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
The Government forced nobody, much less the banks, to take bad risks. Risk was assumed by the borrower via banks programs and ratios for those people that were deemed worthy.
Absolutely untrue. Clinton pressured Fannie and Freddie into relaxing the underwriting standards for these low income, largely minority borrowers. There are many more reasons than just this for the meltdown, but this was a major factor and let's not diminish it's importance. We can't learn from our mistakes if we pretend they didn't happen.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
DavidB wrote: Bambi wrote: The inclusion of minorities into homeownership was pushed by many. They were ignored because they were considered too high risk. So we developed high risk loans, called subprime.
So you're saying that credit scores factor in race in the algorithm? Come on. This was about giving loans to irresponsible borowers. If certain demographics have lower credit scores it is not because of the color of their skin, it's because they take out loans they can't affort then don't repay them. You know, just like what is happening right now. This isn't a race thing, its a case of the government forcing banks to take bad risks and the bill has come due.
David. I'm a realtor. I participated in those subprimes by bringing these people to the Lenders. I didn't know what they made. It was up to the lender to qualify them. It was the lender who gave the loan to what you say was an irresponsible borrower....if they were deemed irresponsible, then why was the loan given to them? Whose fault is that? And what has been eluded to with the research provided, was that they were minorities.
The Government forced nobody, much less the banks, to take bad risks. Risk was assumed by the borrower via banks programs and ratios for those people that were deemed worthy.
You can buy a home if you are not qualified, thru FHA, if your qualified parent comes on with you. After about 6 months of on time payments, the parent could be novated off the loan, leaving that unqualfied risky buyer. If he defaults, who's at fault? The parent for deserting his kid? The Lender for making the loan? The FHA program? Who?
In Conclusion: We could make a long list of those who were at fault. I believe it was the sum of the parts that led to our present condition, all the while unregulated and unsupervised. We became to comfortable in our wealth, ignoring the signs of deterioation or better yet, unaware of the signs of a crumbling society.
Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 08:33 pm by Bambi
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: The inclusion of minorities into homeownership was pushed by many. They were ignored because they were considered too high risk. So we developed high risk loans, called subprime.
So you're saying that credit scores factor in race in the algorithm? Come on. This was about giving loans to irresponsible borowers. If certain demographics have lower credit scores it is not because of the color of their skin, it's because they take out loans they can't affort then don't repay them. You know, just like what is happening right now. This isn't a race thing, its a case of the government forcing banks to take bad risks and the bill has come due.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3501 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
geaston wrote: thanks david. you've reinvigorated my displeasure with obama in this last few days. but we all know that he will get elected due to the ignorance of so many.
i was more angered at the cuomo part of this video as he has recently drafted potential legislation that would kill my industry. and that legislation goes exactly against what he was so proud to speak of in this video. basically, now blaming others for the mistakes that he initiated. don't get me going.
bambi, what are your thoughts on cuomo's stance back then compared to now?
Unfortunately, My computer has no sound, so I can't play youtubes. But I'm sure it's about him causing the housing crisis. Scapegoat. Always have to have one.
The inclusion of minorities into homeownership was pushed by many. They were ignored because they were considered too high risk. So we developed high risk loans, called subprime. Now the innocent borrower comes in to sign up. His credit isn't the best, but he is employed. Enter the Predators. They had to make it happen to make their efforts pay off, so they baited these borrowers into thinking they could afford it. These were you unqualified loan officers who worked the ratios, based on what their overseerers promoted. Those are your culprits. Putting these people in their American Dream, without using the right ratios. The loan officer got his commission via the points the lender charged. The lender got his money by selling the loan. Just make it happen and it will all turn out ok when the rates adjust....and if it doens't work out, oh well....we got paid. Ooops.
Mr. Cuomo, drove efforts by HUD to increase minority homeownership. The subprime lending eventually led to the subprime crisis several years after Cuomo left HUD
That's it. A guy who left office six years before the crisis started breaking is responsible because he wanted to increase minority homeownership? The rate-slashing Feds, predatory lenders, securities rating agencies, media cheerleaders, etc. they're off the hook because it all started with Mario Cuomo's boy and his good intentions?That's it, really?
I don't buy it. If anything, Mr. Cuomo's effects on what was to come were wholly unintentional. Your greedy predators (the ones we just loaned money to) I mentioned, aggravated this program of good intentions and that other guy...what's his name? Oh yeah....Green Span.
Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 07:40 pm by Bambi
|
Krash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 97 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 07:06 pm |
|
| Hmmmm... If this was about McCain it would be in the news.... I am really scared that Obama may become president...
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
thanks david. you've reinvigorated my displeasure with obama in this last few days. but we all know that he will get elected due to the ignorance of so many.
i was more angered at the cuomo part of this video as he has recently drafted potential legislation that would kill my industry. and that legislation goes exactly against what he was so proud to speak of in this video. basically, now blaming others for the mistakes that he enforced. don't get me going.
bambi, what are your thoughts on cuomo's stance back then compared to now?
(i changed the verb "intiated" to "enforced" as it is more accurate)
Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 11:29 pm by geaston
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 02:47 am |
|
Here's the dems at work. Now we are facing the possibility of them controlling all branches of government. God help us.
It looks like wealth is not the only thing he wants to redistrubute. He wants to do it with debt too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=related
|
Current time is 11:20 pm | |
|
|
|