And Mitt Picks...

[Bob Maxey]

You of course realize that many of these leeches were property owning folks who had their lives devastated by the banks that played with other people's money and assets. Many of the leeches where pawns in the banks games.

And . . . many were given home loans they should have never received. There was a time when these loans were made on a no proof of income basis. During the height of the lending, almost anyone could buy a home. No need to prove income; the records were not always checked.

A local (Utah) woman with something like 15 maxed credit cards, a terrible payment history and a below 400 or so credit score borrowed 145,000.00 from a local lender. She got her check in a few days. She defaulted and she tried to sue when they foreclosed more than a year later. She could remain in the home until a judge ruled.

Before she left, she trashed the house. For example, she broke the toilets, stole a nice front door and her boyfriend tore up the lawn.

Please explain to me why this is good for the country? Remember, there is no right to own a home if you cannot afford it. You should have a reasonable down payment, good credit, a stable life, and the ability to easily make the payments.

Now, if the interest was too much, the borrower could not make payments, so some lenders simply tacked the difference between the amount the borrower could pay and the amount they should be paying to the price of the house.

Borrowers were struggling to make payments on a home that did not build equity; the price of the house actually increased every month as the value dropped. Almost anyone could obtain home loan. These loans were guaranteed by virtue of how they were packaged and sold.

As values started to drop, many people simply walked away. Many borrowers did not build a single penny of equity. Now, hundreds of thousands of homes sit empty.

The Fed made it clear that if lenders did not make these bad loans to minorities and low income people, they would pay a steep price. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were also part of the entire mess. Trash loans were packaged and bundled and largely sold to the government, so there was no real down side as far as lenders were concerned.

Freddie and Fannie held the loans for awhile and then sold them to other groups who saw the potential for a windfall from rising interest rates and adjustable rate loans.

There was a terrible down side if these bad loans were not made by lenders and many lenders absolutely hated making these kinds of loans because they knew most were destined for disaster. They made bad loans because they largely had no choice.

Many lenders were told they face being treated as though they were redlining if they did not make these loans. Congress forced lenders into making bad loans. Lenders knew it, Congress knew it and Barny Frank knew it going in. I believe C-SPAN covered much of the proceedings, so what actually happened and why is public knowledge. Sadly, never reported by the liberal press.

Everyone involved knew the program was a disaster waiting to happen, but they did it anyway. We know who is to blame. We know exactly why it happened. We knew it was a terrible mistake to try, yet we did it anyway.

Because these borrowers could not pay, they were foreclosed and the debate now centers around the evil lenders who kicked these people out of their homes rather than the borrower that had absolutely no business walking into the bank in the first place.

Plenty of blame to go around, so lets not blame the banks and mortgage lenders exclusively.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Obama shut down two public beaches that are funded by tax dollars so he could hold a $40k a plate fundraiser. So in the middle of the summer, he denies taxpayers use of two public beaches so he can appear at a campaign fundraiser where a meal costs more than a lot of those taxpayers make in a year. No criticism for that though. Why is that?

The liberal press does not cover thiese kinds of stories for the most part. I find it interesting that Obama wants to punish the rich, yet he wants to charge a years income for a nice party. without the rich, there is no party. Is this a paradox I wonder?

To be fair, $40,000.00 to some people is like 35 cents to others. so I guess as far as the president is concerned, the dinner costs less than a cup of coffee at Dennys, so he can say he champions the poor.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Ah, the infamous NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). Used to have them all the time. Are the people who made those loans at fault? Absolutely. But the people who took them out aren't victims.

 

[saptech]

And . . . many were given home loans they should have never received. There was a time when these loans were made on a no proof of income basis. During the height of the lending, almost anyone could buy a home. No need to prove income; the records were not always checked.

Is this the home buyers fault or the mortgage lenders fault. So we can mark this up as bad companies! Sure we can also blame the buyers, but they probably could afford the home until they became unemployed, mostly due to layoffs.

 

[saptech]

Problems began long before property owners lost their jobs. Problems began when those property owners over reached, didn't save, bought more than they could afford and failed to live within their means or plan for the future. You can do that as long as everything is great, but sooner or later, there's going to be a bump in the road. It's inevitable. Then the chickens come home to roost.

I wouldn't say majority over reached. Majority probably didn't make enough to save. Losing your job plays a big part in how things turns out.

Alot of companies saw a chance to layoff during the housing bust, lay off long term, loyal employess and then hire in new younger workers for less money. Now you have alot of workers laid off over 40 years of age and finding it harder and harder to find decent paying jobs.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Is this the home buyers fault or the mortgage lenders fault. So we can mark this up as bad companies! Sure we can also blame the buyers, but they probably could afford the home until they became unemployed, mostly due to layoffs.

It is the fault of the government demanding that lenders make loans or be sorry they didn't.

It the fault of SOME lenders who saw gold. They could write bad loans and the government will cover them.

It is the buyer's fault for wanting something he or she cannot afford.

It is the fault of the liberal press for not telling us what actually happened.

It was greed, stupidity and avarice on the part of many people and it was not just the fault of the lenders who had no choice.

It is our fault for not seeing the problem early on and demanding certain heads be lopped off and tossed into the big bucket.

And it will be our fault, his fault, your fault, my fault, some bank's fault and the government's fault the NEXT time something like this happens. And it will happen again.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I wouldn't say majority over reached. Majority probably didn't make enough to save. Losing your job plays a big part in how things turns out.

I disagree and agree at the same time. If you don't make enough to save, you don't make enough to buy a house. Simple as that. It's like asking your mom for more desert. If your mom knows you've already had 15 helpings and keeps serving you and you get sick who's fault is it? Your mom's for serving you when you've already had enough? Or you for not knowing your limits? Both? Which one is more at fault? You or your mom?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Here's my main source. The cost is apparently $35,800 a plate and not the $40k I previously thought according to Fox News. It's still more than a lot of people make in a year. City loses revenues from the beaches and has to spend extra money on providing security no doubt. They may be up a creek since apparently the Obama campaign doesn't pay it's bills. Can you imagine the outcry if this was the Romney campaign? Romney robs taxpayers of their tax funded beaches so he can hobnob with the elite. Romney is filthy rich, but can't pay his bills. Do you really want him as President? But Obama gets a free pass on both. Nice.

Your source is Republican biased, also post is off topic.

Have you heard of an agency called the Secret Service ?

This is the agency that imposed these security measures, not President Obama.

Happens all the time. Here's a Romney example. It's just the times we live in.

Small airports brace for restrictions because of Republican National Convention - Tampa Bay Times

 

[A.Nonymous]

Oh, so your Democratic biased source is fine, but my Republican biased source isn't? Hypocrisy much? Nevertheless the facts are true. The Obama campaign shut down two publicly funded funded beaches in the middle of tourist season so the President could raise money for his own campaign. How is that not using your office for public gain? He could've held the fundraiser anywhere else. There's a big difference. And at least the Romney campaign pays it's bills. Just saying.

Both parties do do the exact same thing. Yet you seem to give Obama a free pass and rake Romney over the coals. Why is that?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Your source is Republican biased, also post is off topic.

Have you heard of an agency called the Secret Service ?

This is the agency that imposed these security measures, not President Obama.

Happens all the time. Here's a Romney example. It's just the times we live in.

Small airports brace for restrictions because of Republican National Convention - Tampa Bay Times

to be fair, have you looked to see how many other presidents have done the same thing? If a president visits your house, I can expect security will tick me off. I'll be investigated if I live next door and you might have problems with other issues like traffic jams in your hood.

Not sure which presidents have closed public places because of fund raisers or other events. Obama is likely not the first.

 

[saptech]

It is the fault of the government demanding that lenders make loans or be sorry they didn't.

It the fault of SOME lenders who saw gold. They could write bad loans and the government will cover them.

It is the buyer's fault for wanting something he or she cannot afford.

It is the fault of the liberal press for not telling us what actually happened.

It was greed, stupidity and avarice on the part of many people and it was not just the fault of the lenders who had no choice.

It is our fault for not seeing the problem early on and demanding certain heads be lopped off and tossed into the big bucket.

And it will be our fault, his fault, your fault, my fault, some bank's fault and the government's fault the NEXT time something like this happens. And it will happen again.

Meanwhile, who profited from this mess? Not those who lost their homes and were forced into bankruptcy. Maybe the Wall Street wizards who gamed the system and won? I haven't heard that any of them declared bankruptcy, or had to sell their houses.

It is/was our fault, our=we the people, for not standing up as a whole to the complete sham.

People wanted houses, even though they had no idea how to do it and not enough money.
Then enter the shills, who started qualifying people for home loans even when they had virtually no credit at all and in fact encouraging them to lie about their income and credit in order to qualify.
Then comes the home appraiser, who appraises homes for what the shills were selling it for.
Now comes the home inspector, who says the home is fine and worth the money.
Next enter the bank, who fronts the money.
And then we have the creative derivative swap scheme from Wallstreet.
This entire fiasco was planned like a war and carried out with shock and awe.

 

[saptech]

I disagree and agree at the same time. If you don't make enough to save, you don't make enough to buy a house. Simple as that.

Who said I don't make enough to save? What if I didn't want to save my money, but spend it willy nilly.

Do tell how that should stop me from buying a modest house that I can afford as long as I have a job? I am speaking in general.

 

[OutofDate1980]

It is the fault of the government demanding that lenders make loans or be sorry they didn't.

It the fault of SOME lenders who saw gold. They could write bad loans and the government will cover them.

It is the buyer's fault for wanting something he or she cannot afford.

It is the fault of the liberal press for not telling us what actually happened.

It was greed, stupidity and avarice on the part of many people and it was not just the fault of the lenders who had no choice.

It is our fault for not seeing the problem early on and demanding certain heads be lopped off and tossed into the big bucket.

And it will be our fault, his fault, your fault, my fault, some bank's fault and the government's fault the NEXT time something like this happens. And it will happen again.

It's a bit more complex as discussed. http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/145843-u-s-falling-apart.html#post3187105

 

[ElasticNinja]

I disagree and agree at the same time. If you don't make enough to save, you don't make enough to buy a house. Simple as that. It's like asking your mom for more desert. If your mom knows you've already had 15 helpings and keeps serving you and you get sick who's fault is it? Your mom's for serving you when you've already had enough? Or you for not knowing your limits? Both? Which one is more at fault? You or your mom?

The lack of social safety net or job security, combined with the ideal of owning your own home is what led to so many losing their homes. There is also no obligation by the banks to try and be fair or negotiate. In fact with the market as it is I'm sure they could squeeze more money out by working with homeowners.
Its all a bit vicious and heartless really.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Who said I don't make enough to save? What if I didn't want to save my money, but spend it willy nilly.

Do tell how that should stop me from buying a modest house that I can afford as long as I have a job? I am speaking in general.

You said it. You said these people couldn't afford to save money and thus weren't prepared for losing their job. However, they were fine buying a house until they lost their job due to the greedy bankers. I contend it's ultimately the home buyers fault for overextending themselves the same way it's my fault if I overeat. Yeah, mom should've never given me that last piece of pie, but I'm the one who ate it.

If people fail to save for a rainy day, get greedy and buy stuff they can't afford, borrow money they can't pay back and then the whole stack of cards falls on them, who's fault is that? I went broke myself 7-8 years ago. You know who's fault that was? Mine. I went broke because I was a greedy SOB. That's what it boiled down to.

 

[jefboyardee]

Interesting, you believe Romney-Ryan is your best choice to rectify "nearly broke, disabled and fighting for benefits" ?

Yes, I do. My disability is trivial compared to the problems of the country right now. And if I ultimately win my battle for benefits, I will then be a freeloader, just like the other eight million that have fourteen children for the sole purpose of sucking the government

 

[ylexot]

You said it. You said these people couldn't afford to save money and thus weren't prepared for losing their job. However, they were fine buying a house until they lost their job due to the greedy bankers. I contend it's ultimately the home buyers fault for overextending themselves the same way it's my fault if I overeat. Yeah, mom should've never given me that last piece of pie, but I'm the one who ate it.

If people fail to save for a rainy day, get greedy and buy stuff they can't afford, borrow money they can't pay back and then the whole stack of cards falls on them, who's fault is that? I went broke myself 7-8 years ago. You know who's fault that was? Mine. I went broke because I was a greedy SOB. That's what it boiled down to.

I agree and foresaw it comping back during the housing boom. I saw many people getting interest-only ARM loans that they could barely make the payments on. All they saw was others making money in real estate and they wanted a piece of it. Many people got in trouble because the ARM (predictably) adjusted up.

Tip for the kids out there...if the interest rates are at a historic low, DO NOT get an ARM loan. The monthly payment is certain to go up.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The lack of social safety net or job security, combined with the ideal of owning your own home is what led to so many losing their homes.

Interesting thing about job security.

Let me ask you this: if you applied to work for my company and you were required to sign a ten year iron-clad contract that stipulated that you would work for me for 10 years, would you sign?

No way to get out of the contract, and should a better job come your way--more money and better benefits for example--you cannot take the job because you are obligated to work for me for at least 10 years.

Most people would never sign the contract, most likely. But they want a "10 year guarantee" that they will have a job. Sorry, but those deals went away a long time ago.

We trained people to do particular job and either they are fired or they decide to take a better paying job elsewhere. Employers want a little security, too.

Ain't a gonna happen.

Sure, it is difficult to plan for the future these days, I get that. I am not sure what to say. Perhaps if we manufactured products in this country, things would improve and there would be more job security.

Perhaps when thousands of manufacturers start turning out widgets, the best and brightest will have the upper hand; they will leave my company and go to yours, if you offer better pay. I would try to keep you with us, rather than have you go to the company across the street.

This is a very hard problem to solve.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I agree and foresaw it comping back during the housing boom. I saw many people getting interest-only ARM loans that they could barely make the payments on. All they saw was others making money in real estate and they wanted a piece of it. Many people got in trouble because the ARM (predictably) adjusted up.

Tip for the kids out there...if the interest rates are at a historic low, DO NOT get an ARM loan. The monthly payment is certain to go up.

Many saw it coming; including some of those that made the loans. Greed on both sides certainly contributed.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Voodoo economics redux.

Paul Ryan, Capitol Hill's Most 'Serious' Man

"And if nothing else, people know precisely where Ryan stands. He's engineered the GOP's long-term fiscal gameplan and has positioned himself as its exclusive representative -- from a marketing standpoint, he's the creator, steward and face of the brand. And he's earned important buy-in: Let's recall that Grover Norquist sees the 2012 presidential contest as a battle to install Romney as Ryan's amanuensis: "We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget ... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States." This is the strength Ryan brings to the Romney ticket -- he dispels the fear that Romney, left to his own devices, might lapse back into his moderate tendencies. Ryan is as planted as Romney is malleable. When you distance yourself from Ryan -- or run from him, as more than a few downticket GOP strivers are already doing -- there's no threat that he's going to pop up in the bushes behind you."

 

[cjr72]

Voodoo economics redux.

Paul Ryan, Capitol Hill's Most 'Serious' Man

"And if nothing else, people know precisely where Ryan stands. He's engineered the GOP's long-term fiscal gameplan and has positioned himself as its exclusive representative -- from a marketing standpoint, he's the creator, steward and face of the brand. And he's earned important buy-in: Let's recall that Grover Norquist sees the 2012 presidential contest as a battle to install Romney as Ryan's amanuensis: "We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget ... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States." This is the strength Ryan brings to the Romney ticket -- he dispels the fear that Romney, left to his own devices, might lapse back into his moderate tendencies. Ryan is as planted as Romney is malleable. When you distance yourself from Ryan -- or run from him, as more than a few downticket GOP strivers are already doing -- there's no threat that he's going to pop up in the bushes behind you."

So Grover Norquist runs the Republican party? Does he report to Karl Rove or vice versa? And where do the Koch brothers fit into this?

 

[OutofDate1980]

So Grover Norquist runs the Republican party? Does he report to Karl Rove or vice versa? And where do the Koch brothers fit into this?

As you are a self proclaimed genius, http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-22.html#post4790148

It is not beyond your ability to be specific as to which aspects of the article you refute.

 

[cjr72]

As you are a self proclaimed genius, http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-22.html#post4790148

I've never made any claims as to my 'genius' and unlike you I've never questioned anybody else's intelligence on this forum either.

Edit: I am wrong about that. For that I do apologize.

It is not beyond your ability to be specific as to which aspects of the article you refute.

I wasn't setting out to refute anything. I was asking if you think Grover Norquist runs the Republican party. Not an unfair question IMO considering the part of the article you chose to quote.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Interesting thing about job security.

Let me ask you this: if you applied to work for my company and you were required to sign a ten year iron-clad contract that stipulated that you would work for me for 10 years, would you sign?

No way to get out of the contract, and should a better job come your way--more money and better benefits for example--you cannot take the job because you are obligated to work for me for at least 10 years.

Most people would never sign the contract, most likely. But they want a "10 year guarantee" that they will have a job. Sorry, but those deals went away a long time ago.

We trained people to do particular job and either they are fired or they decide to take a better paying job elsewhere. Employers want a little security, too.

Ain't a gonna happen.

Sure, it is difficult to plan for the future these days, I get that. I am not sure what to say. Perhaps if we manufactured products in this country, things would improve and there would be more job security.

Perhaps when thousands of manufacturers start turning out widgets, the best and brightest will have the upper hand; they will leave my company and go to yours, if you offer better pay. I would try to keep you with us, rather than have you go to the company across the street.

This is a very hard problem to solve.

There is a responsibility on both the employer and employee of course. While in the the US employees are very much at the will of their employer and can be done with as their paymaster wishes, in other parts of the world it is almost the other way around, unfortunately.
There needs to be a culture of employee/employee responsibility, backed up by legislation. It should not be impossible to fire someone. Likewise it should not be possible to lay someone off without adequate compensation. And if possible, if the employees are needed and the economy is in trouble, it should be possible to have the workers put on less hours and still have an adequate income.

Furthermore, with low wages in the US it can be quite difficult to purchase homes in the first place. People still want to own property and may end up with very little financial leeway. If wages are not going to rise, renting needs to be made more attractive, and borrowing safer. I find the culture of simply "posting back the keys" very odd and unfortunate, and also the ruthlessness of debt collectors and lenders.

 

[Jordan]

There is a responsibility on both the employer and employee of course. While in the the US employees are very much at the will of their employer and can be done with as their paymaster wishes, in other parts of the world it is almost the other way around, unfortunately.
There needs to be a culture of employee/employee responsibility, backed up by legislation. It should not be impossible to fire someone. Likewise it should not be possible to lay someone off without adequate compensation. And if possible, if the employees are needed and the economy is in trouble, it should be possible to have the workers put on less hours and still have an adequate income.

Furthermore, with low wages in the US it can be quite difficult to purchase homes in the first place. People still want to own property and may end up with very little financial leeway. If wages are not going to rise, renting needs to be made more attractive, and borrowing safer. I find the culture of simply "posting back the keys" very odd and unfortunate, and also the ruthlessness of debt collectors and lenders.

How do you want the rent to be made that way? I am a landlord and I have to avoid running at a loss, so I raise the rent to keep in line with property payments, taxes and maintenance etcetera. Do you want somebody to restrict me from doing that? If so I think there will be a lot of blighted areas coming along even worse than now because owners will just not come along to invest in properties.