Where is all the outrage???

freindlyfiredfreindlyfired Posts: 297
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
Our government is bailing out Freddie and Fannie in a free market capitalistic economy.

Not newsworthy enough?

Where are the conservatives that call for limited govenmental involvement, and deregulation?

Where are the pro lifers that worry about how much money the government spends on helping teens get abortions?

Where are the people that cry about free lunches, handouts, government sponsored social programs like welfare etc...?

Where are the free market economists that place the responsibility on the the buyers and sellers and the choices they make?

Where are all the liberals that call for our government to help out the little guy during tough times?

I could go on and on...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Our government is bailing out Freddie and Fannie in a free market capitalistic economy.

    Not newsworthy enough?

    Where are the conservatives that call for limited govenmental involvement, and deregulation?

    Where are the pro lifers that worry about how much money the government spends on helping teens get abortions?

    Where are the people that cry about free lunches, handouts, government sponsored social programs like welfare etc...?

    Where are the free market economists that place the responsibility on the the buyers and sellers and the choices they make?

    Where are all the liberals that call for our government to help out the little guy during tough times?

    I could go on and on...

    I, for one, am totally against this takeover just like I was against the bill that provided "aid" to people who were behind on their house payments. This is not what our tax dollars should be doing.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487

    I could go on and on...


    Could you?

    Are you going to tell me again how cops were smashing out windows last week?


    In case you forgot.
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=301792&page=2

    Still waiting for an answer.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    know1 wrote:
    I, for one, am totally against this takeover just like I was against the bill that provided "aid" to people who were behind on their house payments. This is not what our tax dollars should be doing.


    I completely agree. My tax dollars should not be going to bail out an irresponsible company or individual. This whole mortgage situation is a product of gross irresponsibility. Mortgage lenders and the borrowers where completely irresponsible in their dealing, offering high mortgages to those they knew couldn't afford them and people borrowing more than what they could afford. Why should the public now have to pick up the tap and clean up the mess these entities created?
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    what do you mean where?

    I've been railing against this thing since the start? Drifting has posted something I think every single day for around a year.

    This is a perfect example of government fucking up the economy.

    you know what we need..... we need to give these banks insurance so they can extend loans to people with horrible credit so they can buy houses.... that will really turbo charge the economy and spur a building boom. Sure, but then those great rates and ARM's come due.

    Guess what, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can't handle it either. Really? Shocker

    Oh for a pragmatic approach in government. Oh for a practical country.

    We try to do everything at 1000 mph. When the AVERAGE country credit card debt is 8 grand... people have a little more than just a late payment or two here and there. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were a really fucking stupid idea to begin with.

    Americans collectively don't have any freaking sense anymore, they want everything right now and we have a system set up to allow these cash junkies to essentially get whatever they want provided they have "good" credit which essentially means they make at least some ridiculously small amount on a potentially huge extended loan meanwhile racking up serious debt in the form of interest that they seem to be oblivious of for some reason. Credit is not free money, but Americans treat it as if it were.

    what I make 40 grand a year but I can actually buy a $500,000 house on a 3 year ARM where my payments are only $1000 a month? Kick ass, I'll FLIP it and make a boatload in less than 3 years yeah I won the lottery.... oh oh shit, no ones buying it and I'm fucking screwed???? oh no... help me government... Save me from my problems... this is my homestead... I've got a family... they are PRAYING on the POOR CHILDREN..

    So what do we do now? We fuck the people who are actually intelligent enough not to fuck themselves or their credit bailing out the idiots. Now the rich banking assholes who you guys despise so much are getting bailed out scott free when they extended loans to starry eyed idiots who they knew full well would NEVER be able to pay for these houses they put them in. Oh it's so great to get familes in a first home...... not when they can't afford to live thier stupid.

    Guess what... the next step is to have another balloon where a whole other group of assholes gets rich on stupidity before the bottom drops out again.

    This is all spurned by the government in the first place "helping out the working man". This is the result of lashing out at banks for it being too hard to get a mortgage for people who "might have a few credit problems."
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • mammasan wrote:
    I completely agree. My tax dollars should not be going to bail out an irresponsible company or individual. This whole mortgage situation is a product of gross irresponsibility. Mortgage lenders and the borrowers where completely irresponsible in their dealing, offering high mortgages to those they knew couldn't afford them and people borrowing more than what they could afford. Why should the public now have to pick up the tap and clean up the mess these entities created?

    Totally agree... As someone going through the home-buying process myself for the first time, I just can't imagine what some of these people were thinking buying the houses they bought, or the banks giving the loans that they did.

    We were pre-approved for over twice the amount of the house that we have under contract. I don't know what formula that the banks are using, but there is no possible way that we could afford what we are pre-approved for.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Totally agree... As someone going through the home-buying process myself for the first time, I just can't imagine what some of these people were thinking buying the houses they bought, or the banks giving the loans that they did.

    We were pre-approved for over twice the amount of the house that we have under contract. I don't know what formula that the banks are using, but there is no possible way that we could afford what we are pre-approved for.

    It was a giant domino effect. After the whole dot com bubble burst the Fed lowered rates to prevent the economy and the markets from being effected. This caused the economy to artificially grow and lending instituted where awash with money. Couple that with some bad management, predatory lending habits and an uneducated public, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and you have a recipe for disaster. Home pricing was grossly inflated because of this and the bubble was bound to burst sooner than later. Had the FED not lowered rates after the dot com burst this may have possibly been avoided.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Yea for socialism!
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Yea for socialism!

    I wonder what Obama and McCain's view is on this?
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan wrote:
    I completely agree. My tax dollars should not be going to bail out an irresponsible company or individual. This whole mortgage situation is a product of gross irresponsibility. Mortgage lenders and the borrowers where completely irresponsible in their dealing, offering high mortgages to those they knew couldn't afford them and people borrowing more than what they could afford. Why should the public now have to pick up the tap and clean up the mess these entities created?


    I agree too and I work as a real estate secretary in a law office.
    It was unbelievable to me how much banks were loaning people and I knew they could never afford it.

    What pisses me off the most is that they showed homeowners on TV saying they were victims because now they can't afford their house. I'm sorry but they should have known what they could and couldn't afford regardless of what the bank was willing to loan them.
  • Another reason why Less Government is strictly for the rich and corporate.
    the Minions
  • peacegirl wrote:
    What pisses me off the most is that they showed homeowners on TV saying they were victims because now they can't afford their house. I'm sorry but they should have known what they could and couldn't afford regardless of what the bank was willing to loan them.

    I'm sure that there are some people who got taken by some mortgage brokers with terms changing at the last minute or whatever, and there should be an avenue to appeal things like that (if there isn't already), but I would bet that the vast majority of these people bought houses they can't afford, or had some sort of other financial hardship happen (job loss, health care expense, etc.) that hurt them.

    I just think that there needs to be more regulation on the the whole mortgage industry. So many of these mortgage brokers have popped up in recent years, and the guy working on the loan doesn't care if you can't afford it in a couple of years, he is just looking for his commission.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    peacegirl wrote:
    I agree too and I work as a real estate secretary in a law office.
    It was unbelievable to me how much banks were loaning people and I knew they could never afford it.

    What pisses me off the most is that they showed homeowners on TV saying they were victims because now they can't afford their house. I'm sorry but they should have known what they could and couldn't afford regardless of what the bank was willing to loan them.

    My girlfriend works for a bank, a pretty big national bank who shall remain nameless Woo Hoo. She said that back in 2002 77% of this banks mortgages where A-paper mortgages. For those that don't have a lot of understanding of mortgages A-paper loans are usually reserved for people with good credit. Only 23% of their mortgages where B paper or sub-prime. By 2007 on the percentages had flipped. The executive management figured that they can make more money off of the B-paper mortgages because the interest rate was adjustable. So their greed led them to approve mortgages for individuals who had no business being approved in the first place.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • this is why i only live in cardboard boxes.
  • yokeyoke Posts: 1,440
    Our government is bailing out Freddie and Fannie in a free market capitalistic economy.

    Not newsworthy enough?

    Where are the conservatives that call for limited govenmental involvement, and deregulation?

    Where are the pro lifers that worry about how much money the government spends on helping teens get abortions?

    Where are the people that cry about free lunches, handouts, government sponsored social programs like welfare etc...?

    Where are the free market economists that place the responsibility on the the buyers and sellers and the choices they make?

    Where are all the liberals that call for our government to help out the little guy during tough times?

    I could go on and on...


    I am outraged.. this should never happen but we are turning into a nanny nation so it doesn't suprise me in the least. Next thing you know we will have kids compete in sports and not keep score.
    Thats a lovely accent you have. New Jersey?

    www.seanbrady.net
  • the problem isn't the people...
    It shouldn't ever be more affordable to build a new home than refurbish an older home.

    Contractors should never be allowed tax breaks for building new as opposed torestoring old.
    the Minions
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Another reason why Less Government is strictly for the rich and corporate.


    how do you figure? This is the largest federal government we've ever had and at this point the people doing the best are the people at the very top and the people at the very bottom.

    Wouldn't you rather have more control at the local level where you have more control over how you are governed? People are whining about which rich pompous asshole they are going to elect federally when they don't know the first thing about their local government. Doesn't it make FAR more sense for the majority of powers to be in the hands of the local and state governments with a protectorate federal government that insures interstate commerce and the protection of said states? There is far less opportunity for corruption in that system and a lot more turnover if it's done right anyway. A lot more actual "public service" too. The more federal money there is, the more "earmarks" there are.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    the problem isn't the people...
    It shouldn't ever be more affordable to build a new home than refurbish an older home.

    Contractors should never be allowed tax breaks for building new as opposed torestoring old.

    Yes home prices where ridiculous but how can you say that the problem wasn't the people. No one forced these people into taking out mortgages that they where not going to afford once the introductory rate went up. No one forced the lender to approve a $600,000 mortgage to someone who makes $45,000 a year and has a credit score of 560. I give you these figures because this is what happened to my friend's brother. Now he is scrambling to pay his mortgage because he can't afford it anymore.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    I wonder what Obama and McCain's view is on this?


    Good question. I hope they both answer.

    If I had to bet,...

    They'll most likely say they are both for it, but with a few caveats. They will try dodging the question and saying that if they were President this would have never happened.... which is complete BS.
  • I just think that there needs to be more regulation on the the whole mortgage industry. So many of these mortgage brokers have popped up in recent years, and the guy working on the loan doesn't care if you can't afford it in a couple of years, he is just looking for his commission.

    Yes, there does need to be more regulation and especially on the mortgage brokers. The outrageous loans were usually the ones that involved a broker who were usually (not always) getting paid ridiculous amounts in fees on top of what the person was paying the actual lender in fees.
  • mammasan wrote:
    My girlfriend works for a bank, a pretty big national bank who shall remain nameless Woo Hoo. She said that back in 2002 77% of this banks mortgages where A-paper mortgages. For those that don't have a lot of understanding of mortgages A-paper loans are usually reserved for people with good credit. Only 23% of their mortgages where B paper or sub-prime. By 2007 on the percentages had flipped. The executive management figured that they can make more money off of the B-paper mortgages because the interest rate was adjustable. So their greed led them to approve mortgages for individuals who had no business being approved in the first place.

    That's very interesting
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    peacegirl wrote:
    Yes, there does need to be more regulation and especially on the mortgage brokers. The outrageous loans were usually the ones that involved a broker who were usually (not always) getting paid ridiculous amounts in fees on top of what the person was paying the actual lender in fees.

    No the answer is not more regulation. The answer is more education. People need to educate themselves on how to be fiscally responsible. Not everyone can afford a 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath, two car garage home with cathedral ceilings and an in ground pool in the backyard. If all you can afford is a small starter home that that is what you should get. The problem is that we have become so materialistic. People are not satisfied with a smaller home or an economy car. They need the big homes and the BMWs or Mercedes-Benz in the drive way. Not everyone can afford that shit but people will dig themselves into massive debt just to keep up with the Jones'. I read somewhere that if every American stopped using their credit cards and simply bought what they could afford with cash our economy would collapse. So regulation is not going to change that.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan wrote:
    Yes home prices where ridiculous but how can you say that the problem wasn't the people. No one forced these people into taking out mortgages that they where not going to afford once the introductory rate went up. No one forced the lender to approve a $600,000 mortgage to someone who makes $45,000 a year and has a credit score of 560. I give you these figures because this is what happened to my friend's brother. Now he is scrambling to pay his mortgage because he can't afford it anymore.

    Where I live the new neighborhoods are outgrowing the population. People that want to sell older homes are selling well below appraisal value if they sell at all. Contractors would rather build new homes because that's where everyone is moving and the bank won't give out loans to remodel when the old home's value continues to plummet. These older homes aren't in bad neighborhoods either it's just become easier to buy a new home.

    True, someone that only makes 45,000 should never be allowed a 500,000 home, but there are other factors as well.
    the Minions
  • mammasan wrote:
    No the answer is not more regulation. The answer is more education. People need to educate themselves on how to be fiscally responsible.


    I don't think there is just one answer but I do think regulation is part of the answer and as you pointed out, so is education.

    But people have to use that education. I have seen loans where the borrower was required to attend a seminar or class for first time homebuyers and in fact it was a requirement of my loan and my sister's loan when we bought our houses and using a budget and fiscal responsibility was addressed.
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Where I live the new neighborhoods are outgrowing the population. People that want to sell older homes are selling well below appraisal value if they sell at all. Contractors would rather build new homes because that's where everyone is moving and the bank won't give out loans to remodel when the old home's value continues to plummet. These older homes aren't in bad neighborhoods either it's just become easier to buy a new home.

    True, someone that only makes 45,000 should never be allowed a 500,000 home, but there are other factors as well.


    That happens quite a bit where developers are well entrenched in the local government. They are after all offering more tax money and employing people building those new homes (this is how walmart among others abuse eminent domain)... but.... what about the infrastructure is that sound? Is it safe to build under powerlines... Is there enough water for all these homes? Those are questions that have not been asked these last bunch of years.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Where I live the new neighborhoods are outgrowing the population. People that want to sell older homes are selling well below appraisal value if they sell at all. Contractors would rather build new homes because that's where everyone is moving and the bank won't give out loans to remodel when the old home's value continues to plummet. These older homes aren't in bad neighborhoods either it's just become easier to buy a new home.

    True, someone that only makes 45,000 should never be allowed a 500,000 home, but there are other factors as well.

    Contractors are building new homes because that is what people want. As I stated in my previous post about the materialistic nature of this country. People don't want to move into the 30-40 year old home they want the new McMansions.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    mammasan wrote:
    I completely agree. My tax dollars should not be going to bail out an irresponsible company or individual. This whole mortgage situation is a product of gross irresponsibility. Mortgage lenders and the borrowers where completely irresponsible in their dealing, offering high mortgages to those they knew couldn't afford them and people borrowing more than what they could afford. Why should the public now have to pick up the tap and clean up the mess these entities created?


    i'm with you. let fannie and freddie fail. what bothers me is the citizens who could lose their homes on this. fuck fannie and freddie, don't give them a cent and let them shut down. i'm not certain how the industry works, but i feel like if we're going to be handing out billions, let's just accept that we fucked up, use it to help out the people with the actual mortgages, and put this all behind us. i have no sympathy for wall street... it brought this on itself.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    It is either the bailout or watch the banks start collapsing in a cascade effect. Then YOU could have sat back and watch as the FDIC announces that it can not insure YOUR deposits, while the stock market simultaneously began a panic. By time the government had to step in, YOU would have lost most, if not all of your life savings and the national economy would be in full blown recession.

    I wish there could have been another way or that Bush had given the economy more time to adjust. This bailout gives the government too much control over the entire private sector and industry as a whole. The government now controls the banking system, it basically has operational and internal oversight over banking management, whereas before the government limited itself to regulatory policies. Add the banking system to the telecommunication system and a disturbing picture begins to emerge.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    mammasan wrote:
    My girlfriend works for a bank, a pretty big national bank who shall remain nameless Woo Hoo. She said that back in 2002 77% of this banks mortgages where A-paper mortgages. For those that don't have a lot of understanding of mortgages A-paper loans are usually reserved for people with good credit. Only 23% of their mortgages where B paper or sub-prime. By 2007 on the percentages had flipped. The executive management figured that they can make more money off of the B-paper mortgages because the interest rate was adjustable. So their greed led them to approve mortgages for individuals who had no business being approved in the first place.

    bingo. this is a result of greed and get rich quick schemes. while i agree that some blame should be apportioned to those who took on mortgages they could never pay, they don't take the whole blame in my eye. these are unsophisticated buyers and many of themw ere duped by banks looking for a big score. it backfired on them big-time. what bothers me is the shady sons of bitches behind this will walk away having made their fortune with no consequences. the people they duped will have their lives and finances destroyed. sure, they made dumb decisions. but people were up in arms about kiddie porn the other day in another thread and i view this as part of the same problem... sick people in a position of power taking advantage of those who don't know better. i don't blame those without the resources or means or intelligence or options to know they were being had. i'm in law school and this shit is complex enough as it is. they were defrauded, plain and simple.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    catch22 wrote:
    bingo. this is a result of greed and get rich quick schemes. while i agree that some blame should be apportioned to those who took on mortgages they could never pay, they don't take the whole blame in my eye. these are unsophisticated buyers and many of themw ere duped by banks looking for a big score. it backfired on them big-time. what bothers me is the shady sons of bitches behind this will walk away having made their fortune with no consequences. the people they duped will have their lives and finances destroyed. sure, they made dumb decisions. but people were up in arms about kiddie porn the other day in another thread and i view this as part of the same problem... sick people in a position of power taking advantage of those who don't know better. i don't blame those without the resources or means or intelligence or options to know they were being had. i'm in law school and this shit is complex enough as it is. they were defrauded, plain and simple.

    Well to reinforce you post Kerry Killinger was just fired at WaMu's CEO. From some sources that I have he walked away with a nice package. Yet the thousands of people who had their lives turned up side down because of foreclosures don't get to go home to their multi-million dollar home with their multi-million dollar severance package.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • yokeyoke Posts: 1,440
    mammasan wrote:
    Contractors are building new homes because that is what people want. As I stated in my previous post about the materialistic nature of this country. People don't want to move into the 30-40 year old home they want the new McMansions.



    I will take a 30/40 year old home over a McMansion any day... they are built better(at least where I live). Sure my house is smaller but it was cheaper and I have more money to play with. I also don't mind sweat equity, I enjoy working on my house and fixing it up room by room.
    Thats a lovely accent you have. New Jersey?

    www.seanbrady.net
Sign In or Register to comment.