I don;t want any of them running the economy...they all either lack the understanding or have an opposite view of reality.
I really do think that being a governer of any state is better experience then a senator of any state...it's a whole different ballgame when the buck stops with you instead of you always just getting to push your 1 small agenda in a pile of important issues...but that's just me.
you avoided my question ... whom do you think has a better understanding of the US Economy ... Obama or Palin?
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I really do think that being a governer of any state is better experience then a senator of any state...it's a whole different ballgame when the buck stops with you instead of you always just getting to push your 1 small agenda in a pile of important issues...but that's just me.
You know, I've heard this many times; truth be told, I've always somewhat believed it myself, but to play devil's advocate, here's a ridiculous metaphor.
You have an opening for the Principal position of the largest school in the country, that also operates as a head of all the smaller schools. Now, you have a principal of the smallest school in the entire country, and you have a teacher who worked at one of the largest schools in the country, and then moved into a teacher at that largest school in the country that directs how everything works. At what point do you sacrifice the line that "a principal is always the best choice" and say that maybe the best choice might be the teacher who has worked in a large school and had to juggle many more concerns, and has worked in the largest school and has a knowledge about how it works? Is that principal of the smallest school really the best choice for the job? I used to think so, but now I'm not so sure.
That's not even a fair question...it is McCain versus Borat Obama...........McCain has a better understanding of the economy
Considering the poster that started this debate compared Obama to Palin unfavorably, why would we be discussing Obama when compared to McCain in this case?
Considering the poster that started this debate compared Obama to Palin unfavorably, why would we be discussing Obama when compared to McCain in this case?
exactly ... read where the thread was going ...
I even stated I hated the Palin discussion ...
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Sorry...should have read the other 5 pages of crap....why would that poster even bring it up...Palin is the VP canidate and Obama is the Pres canidate...now I understand the Gov and Community Organizer have similar experience but in the long run McCain is the better choice when it comes to the economy...
Even there, I think Obama does have a better handle on the economy than McCain ... McCain has even been quoted as stating he wasn't an expert on the economy ... that he doesn't get it.
And I seriously don't think McCain has the aptitude to understand it ... at least, not nearly as much as Obama does.
Then there's the philosophy issue ... where, I think McCain is comepletely wrong. Trickle down economics does not work.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Sorry...should have read the other 5 pages of crap....why would that poster even bring it up...Palin is the VP canidate and Obama is the Pres canidate...now I understand the Gov and Community Organizer have similar experience but in the long run McCain is the better choice when it comes to the economy...
Care to explain why? I seem to remember McSame saying he didn't know that much about the economy.
...now I understand the Gov and Community Organizer have similar experience ...
Speaking personally as a community organizer who was having a good conversation with everyone, conservative and liberal, in the thread, keep the talking points out, especially when they're demeaning to my profession. Thanks.
That's not even a fair question...it is McCain versus Borat Obama...........McCain has a better understanding of the economy
Well I disagree entirely...
It will be interesting to see how they do in the debates. But from hearing the 2 of them discuss the economy on their campaign stops and at press briefings, it is clear to me that Obama has a better understanding on the economy than McCain.
McCain's positions on the economy seem to change every hour.
Sorry...should have read the other 5 pages of crap....why would that poster even bring it up...Palin is the VP canidate and Obama is the Pres canidate...now I understand the Gov and Community Organizer have similar experience but in the long run McCain is the better choice when it comes to the economy...
McLame is a complete moron and you know it. Will it be a long walk to the voting booth for you?
Then there's the philosophy issue ... where, I think McCain is comepletely wrong. Trickle down economics does not work.
You're perfectly free to believe that, but that has little to do with the current financial "crisis."
The crux of the current situation is a result of the housing crunch and the mortgage industry, and, truth be told traces its roots back to the Clinton Administration ... It was decided that it was racist for poor people not to be able to own a home, whether or not they could afford to pay back the loan be damned.
That's an admirable goal, but it led to a disastrous policy.
Mortgage rules were loosened, and people who had no business qualifying for loans, suddenly were being approved left and right. Now they can't pay them back. When the housing bubble burst a couple of years ago, sending values of those homes plummeting, they didn't even have the equity to get out of them.
None of the above, I don't think, has much to do with "trickle-down economics." It has to do with stupid -- or at least, uniformed, -- people, a predatory lending industry, and a government that enabled it all.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
You're perfectly free to believe that, but that has little to do with the current financial "crisis."
The crux of the current situation is a result of the housing crunch and the mortgage industry, and, truth be told traces its roots back to the Clinton Administration ... It was decided that it was racist for poor people not to be able to own a home, whether or not they could afford to pay back the loan be damned.
That's an admirable goal, but it led to a disastrous policy.
Mortgage rules were loosened, and people who had no business qualifying for loans, suddenly were being approved left and right. Now they can't pay them back. When the housing bubble burst a couple of years ago, sending values of those homes plummeting, they didn't even have the equity to get out of them.
None of the above, I don't think, has much to do with "trickle-down economics." It has to do with stupid -- or at least, uniformed, -- people, a predatory lending industry, and a government that enabled it all.
ok, if you can find where I said the current crisis had anything to do with trickle down economics ... I'll like to see it. But I don't think I did.
My views on trickle down economics have more to do with this republican philosophy which has done nothing but increase our national debt ...
(funny, it was a Democrat that had us paying off our debt, then the republicans fucked us right back into it.)
... and screw over the poor as, it does not trickle down. The folks that get those tax breaks do not reinvest a significant portion of it into their company and create jobs, they pocket it in the form of bonuses ... increase margins by shiping jobs overseas ... merge and synergize ... please ... the only ting that trickels down to the other 90% is shit ....
as for the current crisis ... I stated this in another thread in respose to an IBD editorial .....
while I agree there is more to this than "Bush did it" ... or "Fire Chainman Cox" ... quoting and believing a editorial, or opinion piece, probably isn't the right answer either. I mean, the piece generally blames congress (democrats) for wanting to help underpriviledged people ... but, c'mon ... banks weren't crying at all when they were making all these loans and raking in the money. And I'll guess it was *far more* than the loans of underprivlidged minorities that were defaulted. With no stats to back this up, it's a reach to say this WAS the issue.
Many people were complicitous in this crisis for many reasons ... Deregulation, Vote-chasing, greed ... but, there's this need by most to blame one person, one reason, to make it easy to pin point where blame must lie (According to McCain, it's Obama's fault ... :rolleyes: ) ... but, it's a slew of people, and many reasons.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
You're perfectly free to believe that, but that has little to do with the current financial "crisis."
The crux of the current situation is a result of the housing crunch and the mortgage industry, and, truth be told traces its roots back to the Clinton Administration ... It was decided that it was racist for poor people not to be able to own a home, whether or not they could afford to pay back the loan be damned.
That's an admirable goal, but it led to a disastrous policy.
Mortgage rules were loosened, and people who had no business qualifying for loans, suddenly were being approved left and right. Now they can't pay them back. When the housing bubble burst a couple of years ago, sending values of those homes plummeting, they didn't even have the equity to get out of them.
None of the above, I don't think, has much to do with "trickle-down economics." It has to do with stupid -- or at least, uniformed, -- people, a predatory lending industry, and a government that enabled it all.
Most of the problems with the mortgages in this country is not that they gave mortgages to all who wanted it, but more that they kept "adjusting" the rate to such a degree that people who could afford it 2 years ago, can not now. If banks just left the rate alone for a few years, then people could pay their mortgage. Instead the banks keep increasing the rate- knowing that people will have a hard time paying.
What's better: leaving the rate to where it was when you bought the house- and you were paying for it
or
pushing it up to where you default?
A few hundred dollars a month does make a difference
You're perfectly free to believe that, but that has little to do with the current financial "crisis."
The crux of the current situation is a result of the housing crunch and the mortgage industry, and, truth be told traces its roots back to the Clinton Administration ... It was decided that it was racist for poor people not to be able to own a home, whether or not they could afford to pay back the loan be damned.
That's an admirable goal, but it led to a disastrous policy.
Mortgage rules were loosened, and people who had no business qualifying for loans, suddenly were being approved left and right. Now they can't pay them back. When the housing bubble burst a couple of years ago, sending values of those homes plummeting, they didn't even have the equity to get out of them.
None of the above, I don't think, has much to do with "trickle-down economics." It has to do with stupid -- or at least, uniformed, -- people, a predatory lending industry, and a government that enabled it all.
Clinton? Hrmmm I seem to remember a certain former Texas governor's administration introducing a zero-down mortgage initiative.
Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults
By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004
President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.
If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.
And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
"If you're really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house," said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.
Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill's passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.
Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.
"To build an ownership society, we'll help even more Americans to buy homes," Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. "Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don't have the savings to put money down."
A spokesman for the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry said the plan will help "relatively few families." Kerry's emphasis is on preserving affordable-housing programs that he says Bush has slashed.
Meanwhile, low- and no-down-payment mortgages are available to more people than in the past. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20 percent down payment is one of many options available today. Home buyers are making smaller down payments on a percentage basis, and sometimes choosing adjustable-rate mortgages or obtaining two mortgages on a purchase.
According to a 2003 survey by the National Association of Realtors, the median down payment for a first-time home buyer equaled 6 percent of the purchase price.
Several factors account for the reduced popularity of the traditional 20 percent down payment. In recent years, homes have been appreciating in value by about 10 percent annually, said Denise Leonard, incoming president of the Massachusetts Mortgage Association and a senior vice president at Constitution Financial Group, a mortgage lender in Wakefield. Such rapid appreciation helps to protect lenders in the event of delinquencies, she said.
Meanwhile, rising home prices, and rising rents, make it harder for first-time buyers to scrape together a down payment. The mortgage industry has responded by offering more flexible products, Leonard said. The industry takes steps to ensure that these products go only to consumers who can show they have a good history of managing credit.
"You can't get these products if you're not creditworthy," she said.
But in Boston and Providence, said URI's Anderson, even with no-down-payment mortgages, high prices can keep homes out of reach.
"There are not a lot of entry-level homes in these markets," she said.
The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a Boston-based nonprofit advocacy group that provides housing services, has been a pioneer in no-down-payment mortgages, offering them for a decade to working-class consumers, said chief executive Bruce Marks. The group came in for early criticism, he said, because of a belief that consumers needed to have a financial stake in a new home.
The group's no-down-payment mortgages are similar to those the federal government offered to veterans after World War II, Marks said, and its track record shows that such loans are unlikely to be defaulted on.
MassHousing, the state's affordable-housing bank, has had a similar experience in the two years it has been offering loans with no down payment, said executive director Tom Gleason. They've performed well in a strong housing market and are likely to be "common in the future," he said.
An unanswered question remains, he acknowledged: "We have no experience of how these loans will perform when the market is weak."
Does anyone really understand the economy since most things that are done don’t work….and if I think McCain has told us what he is going to do…Obama has not said anything sice the stock market crash..I think he said he is still working on it......
McCain came out like a scared, running for office bitch and proposed 2 - 3 different things in 2 - 3 days ... including stating if he were president, he'd fire the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox ... only problem, the Prsident does NOT have the authority to do that ... 2 days later, McCain's story changed to "I'd call for his resignation" .... ridiculous.
Obama stated he sided with the quick remedies of Paulsen and that he'd meet with his advisdors this weekend and come out with a long term plan ... does Obama understand the entire economy, how any decision would fully effect it? No. Thus, why you put forth the quick attack to ensure the preservation of trust, then come forth with a long term plan after thinking about things .... not run around firing people.
Again, I'll take being calm and coming out with a sound plan over racting like a scared old man seeking votes any time.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
McCain came out like a scared, running for office bitch and proposed 2 - 3 different things in 2 - 3 days ... including stating if he were president, he'd fire the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox ... only problem, the Prsident does NOT have the authority to do that ... 2 days later, McCain's story changed to "I'd call for his resignation" .... ridiculous.
Obama stated he sided with the quick remedies of Paulsen and that he'd meet with his advisdors this weekend and come out with a long term plan ... does Obama understand the entire economy, how any decision would fully effect it? No. Thus, why you put forth the quick attack to ensure the preservation of trust, then come forth with a long term plan after thinking about things .... not run around firing people.
Again, I'll take being calm and coming out with a sound plan over racting like a scared old man seeking votes any time.
Seems to me the *Maverick* has a happy trigger. It appears he might have the same reaction to military in foreign countries not well thought out decision making.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
no shock there.
people were energized by a pretty female face with good tallking points, telling them things many wanted to hear and believe. then, some research was done and the truth came out.
personally, beyong the nutters....i don't know how anyone could truly believe/support her ideas. mccain was completely unappealling on his own for me, but add her in the mix and it went from bad to worse imho. if her addition hinders the ticket, all the better.
Most of the problems with the mortgages in this country is not that they gave mortgages to all who wanted it, but more that they kept "adjusting" the rate to such a degree that people who could afford it 2 years ago, can not now. If banks just left the rate alone for a few years, then people could pay their mortgage. Instead the banks keep increasing the rate- knowing that people will have a hard time paying.
The problem is, that people who took these adjustable rates got the benefit of a lower rate at the time then they would have gotten with a fixed rate. They either did this so they could afford a more expensive house, or that they thought the rate would somehow get better.
Granted, some borrowers were taken advantage of, or screwed by dishonest mortgage brokers, but if you knowingly got into an adjustable rate, or interest only mortgage and are crying foul now, then you are on their own in my opinion.
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
McCain came out like a scared, running for office bitch and proposed 2 - 3 different things in 2 - 3 days ... including stating if he were president, he'd fire the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox ... only problem, the Prsident does NOT have the authority to do that ... 2 days later, McCain's story changed to "I'd call for his resignation" .... ridiculous.
One more note on this ... saw McCain on 60 minutes last night ... the interviewer asked about him calling for the Firing of Chairman Cox ... McCain's reponse ...
he stated he (now) knows the president cannot fire the SEC chairman ... but then went on to say, "But when I'm president, if I want someone to resign, he resigns." ...
whaaaaaaa? The whole point about not giving the president the authority to fire certain positions is to keep them independent and not under the influence of the president ... sounds far too Bush/Chainey-esque to me. Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
One more note on this ... saw McCain on 60 minutes last night ... the interviewer asked about him calling for the Firing of Chairman Cox ... McCain's reponse ...
he stated he (now) knows the president cannot fire the SEC chairman ... but then went on to say, "But when I'm president, if I want someone to resign, he resigns." ...
hmmm. i guess we have another "decider" on our hands. :rolleyes:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
... but if you knowingly got into an adjustable rate, or interest only mortgage and are crying foul now, then you are on their own in my opinion.
fine, but then so are the scumbags in these investment forms who made a shitload of money off of the whole thing. they should land on their asses, too, but they won't. because we're all for a "free market" when the rich are getting richer, but the minute they get too greedy and fuck things up, we're suddenly in the corporate welfare business.
i'd rather help the homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream than the asshole with the multimillion dollar paycheck who earned it off of the sweat of the lower classes.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
fine, but then so are the scumbags in these investment forms who made a shitload of money off of the whole thing. they should land on their asses, too, but they won't. because we're all for a "free market" when the rich are getting richer, but the minute they get too greedy and fuck things up, we're suddenly in the corporate welfare business.
i'd rather help the homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream than the asshole with the multimillion dollar paycheck who earned it off of the sweat of the lower classes.
"homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream"
Wow, that a kind way to put "Irresponsible individual who wants other people to pay for their mistakes".
"homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream"
Wow, that a kind way to put "Irresponsible individual who wants other people to pay for their mistakes".
and you could use that very same description for the wall street motherfuckers who created this problem with their limitless greed. except they have lots of resources to fall back on, and the family only has/had the house.
and let's keep in mind, mr. free market, that it benefits the whole of society if more people own their homes. whereas, what is the actual benefit of these greedy execs who have no limits on their personal income? they only benefit themselves and their heirs. and don;t give me that old bullshit line about the wealth trickling down, yada yada. tell that to the family of four with no healthcare who are expected to live on $20k a year.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
and i notice that you failed to address the first part of my post. why are we bailing these assholes out? let them hang, and we'll take our chances. fuck them.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
and i notice that you failed to address the first part of my post. why are we bailing these assholes out? let them hang, and we'll take our chances. fuck them.
Why so hostile?
I agree, we shouldn't be bailing ANYONE out of this situation...lender, homeowner, etc...well, I'd have to look more closely into it to see how it effects th eoveral economy etc, but I'd start out at, bail out no one.
I still think that ultimately the blame for the mortgage crisis are the idiots that bit off more than they could chew.
Comments
you avoided my question ... whom do you think has a better understanding of the US Economy ... Obama or Palin?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
You know, I've heard this many times; truth be told, I've always somewhat believed it myself, but to play devil's advocate, here's a ridiculous metaphor.
You have an opening for the Principal position of the largest school in the country, that also operates as a head of all the smaller schools. Now, you have a principal of the smallest school in the entire country, and you have a teacher who worked at one of the largest schools in the country, and then moved into a teacher at that largest school in the country that directs how everything works. At what point do you sacrifice the line that "a principal is always the best choice" and say that maybe the best choice might be the teacher who has worked in a large school and had to juggle many more concerns, and has worked in the largest school and has a knowledge about how it works? Is that principal of the smallest school really the best choice for the job? I used to think so, but now I'm not so sure.
Considering the poster that started this debate compared Obama to Palin unfavorably, why would we be discussing Obama when compared to McCain in this case?
exactly ... read where the thread was going ...
I even stated I hated the Palin discussion ...
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Even there, I think Obama does have a better handle on the economy than McCain ... McCain has even been quoted as stating he wasn't an expert on the economy ... that he doesn't get it.
And I seriously don't think McCain has the aptitude to understand it ... at least, not nearly as much as Obama does.
Then there's the philosophy issue ... where, I think McCain is comepletely wrong. Trickle down economics does not work.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Care to explain why? I seem to remember McSame saying he didn't know that much about the economy.
Speaking personally as a community organizer who was having a good conversation with everyone, conservative and liberal, in the thread, keep the talking points out, especially when they're demeaning to my profession. Thanks.
We miss you Tim Russert ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_APdK9fgDM&feature=related
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Well I disagree entirely...
It will be interesting to see how they do in the debates. But from hearing the 2 of them discuss the economy on their campaign stops and at press briefings, it is clear to me that Obama has a better understanding on the economy than McCain.
McCain's positions on the economy seem to change every hour.
McLame is a complete moron and you know it. Will it be a long walk to the voting booth for you?
Ah, intelligent debate at its finest.
I'm sold! McLame is a moron! Because YOU said so! You master debater, you.
for the least they could possibly do
You're perfectly free to believe that, but that has little to do with the current financial "crisis."
The crux of the current situation is a result of the housing crunch and the mortgage industry, and, truth be told traces its roots back to the Clinton Administration ... It was decided that it was racist for poor people not to be able to own a home, whether or not they could afford to pay back the loan be damned.
That's an admirable goal, but it led to a disastrous policy.
Mortgage rules were loosened, and people who had no business qualifying for loans, suddenly were being approved left and right. Now they can't pay them back. When the housing bubble burst a couple of years ago, sending values of those homes plummeting, they didn't even have the equity to get out of them.
None of the above, I don't think, has much to do with "trickle-down economics." It has to do with stupid -- or at least, uniformed, -- people, a predatory lending industry, and a government that enabled it all.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm not debating with you. I'm telling you how it is and how it will be.
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
ok, if you can find where I said the current crisis had anything to do with trickle down economics ... I'll like to see it. But I don't think I did.
My views on trickle down economics have more to do with this republican philosophy which has done nothing but increase our national debt ...
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif
http://thinkorthwim.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/debt.jpg
(funny, it was a Democrat that had us paying off our debt, then the republicans fucked us right back into it.)
... and screw over the poor as, it does not trickle down. The folks that get those tax breaks do not reinvest a significant portion of it into their company and create jobs, they pocket it in the form of bonuses ... increase margins by shiping jobs overseas ... merge and synergize ... please ... the only ting that trickels down to the other 90% is shit ....
as for the current crisis ... I stated this in another thread in respose to an IBD editorial .....
while I agree there is more to this than "Bush did it" ... or "Fire Chainman Cox" ... quoting and believing a editorial, or opinion piece, probably isn't the right answer either. I mean, the piece generally blames congress (democrats) for wanting to help underpriviledged people ... but, c'mon ... banks weren't crying at all when they were making all these loans and raking in the money. And I'll guess it was *far more* than the loans of underprivlidged minorities that were defaulted. With no stats to back this up, it's a reach to say this WAS the issue.
Many people were complicitous in this crisis for many reasons ... Deregulation, Vote-chasing, greed ... but, there's this need by most to blame one person, one reason, to make it easy to pin point where blame must lie (According to McCain, it's Obama's fault ... :rolleyes: ) ... but, it's a slew of people, and many reasons.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
What's better: leaving the rate to where it was when you bought the house- and you were paying for it
or
pushing it up to where you default?
A few hundred dollars a month does make a difference
Clinton? Hrmmm I seem to remember a certain former Texas governor's administration introducing a zero-down mortgage initiative.
Oh yes, here it is:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/
Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults
By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004
President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.
If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.
And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.
"If you're really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house," said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.
Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill's passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.
Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.
"To build an ownership society, we'll help even more Americans to buy homes," Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. "Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don't have the savings to put money down."
A spokesman for the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry said the plan will help "relatively few families." Kerry's emphasis is on preserving affordable-housing programs that he says Bush has slashed.
Meanwhile, low- and no-down-payment mortgages are available to more people than in the past. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20 percent down payment is one of many options available today. Home buyers are making smaller down payments on a percentage basis, and sometimes choosing adjustable-rate mortgages or obtaining two mortgages on a purchase.
According to a 2003 survey by the National Association of Realtors, the median down payment for a first-time home buyer equaled 6 percent of the purchase price.
Several factors account for the reduced popularity of the traditional 20 percent down payment. In recent years, homes have been appreciating in value by about 10 percent annually, said Denise Leonard, incoming president of the Massachusetts Mortgage Association and a senior vice president at Constitution Financial Group, a mortgage lender in Wakefield. Such rapid appreciation helps to protect lenders in the event of delinquencies, she said.
Meanwhile, rising home prices, and rising rents, make it harder for first-time buyers to scrape together a down payment. The mortgage industry has responded by offering more flexible products, Leonard said. The industry takes steps to ensure that these products go only to consumers who can show they have a good history of managing credit.
"You can't get these products if you're not creditworthy," she said.
But in Boston and Providence, said URI's Anderson, even with no-down-payment mortgages, high prices can keep homes out of reach.
"There are not a lot of entry-level homes in these markets," she said.
The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a Boston-based nonprofit advocacy group that provides housing services, has been a pioneer in no-down-payment mortgages, offering them for a decade to working-class consumers, said chief executive Bruce Marks. The group came in for early criticism, he said, because of a belief that consumers needed to have a financial stake in a new home.
The group's no-down-payment mortgages are similar to those the federal government offered to veterans after World War II, Marks said, and its track record shows that such loans are unlikely to be defaulted on.
MassHousing, the state's affordable-housing bank, has had a similar experience in the two years it has been offering loans with no down payment, said executive director Tom Gleason. They've performed well in a strong housing market and are likely to be "common in the future," he said.
An unanswered question remains, he acknowledged: "We have no experience of how these loans will perform when the market is weak."
Chris Reidy can be reached at reidy@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
McCain came out like a scared, running for office bitch and proposed 2 - 3 different things in 2 - 3 days ... including stating if he were president, he'd fire the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox ... only problem, the Prsident does NOT have the authority to do that ... 2 days later, McCain's story changed to "I'd call for his resignation" .... ridiculous.
Obama stated he sided with the quick remedies of Paulsen and that he'd meet with his advisdors this weekend and come out with a long term plan ... does Obama understand the entire economy, how any decision would fully effect it? No. Thus, why you put forth the quick attack to ensure the preservation of trust, then come forth with a long term plan after thinking about things .... not run around firing people.
Again, I'll take being calm and coming out with a sound plan over racting like a scared old man seeking votes any time.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Seems to me the *Maverick* has a happy trigger. It appears he might have the same reaction to military in foreign countries not well thought out decision making.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
people were energized by a pretty female face with good tallking points, telling them things many wanted to hear and believe. then, some research was done and the truth came out.
personally, beyong the nutters....i don't know how anyone could truly believe/support her ideas. mccain was completely unappealling on his own for me, but add her in the mix and it went from bad to worse imho. if her addition hinders the ticket, all the better.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The problem is, that people who took these adjustable rates got the benefit of a lower rate at the time then they would have gotten with a fixed rate. They either did this so they could afford a more expensive house, or that they thought the rate would somehow get better.
Granted, some borrowers were taken advantage of, or screwed by dishonest mortgage brokers, but if you knowingly got into an adjustable rate, or interest only mortgage and are crying foul now, then you are on their own in my opinion.
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
One more note on this ... saw McCain on 60 minutes last night ... the interviewer asked about him calling for the Firing of Chairman Cox ... McCain's reponse ...
he stated he (now) knows the president cannot fire the SEC chairman ... but then went on to say, "But when I'm president, if I want someone to resign, he resigns." ...
whaaaaaaa? The whole point about not giving the president the authority to fire certain positions is to keep them independent and not under the influence of the president ... sounds far too Bush/Chainey-esque to me. Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
hmmm. i guess we have another "decider" on our hands. :rolleyes:
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
i am sick and tired of these Christian Fundamentalists with there insane ideas and beliefs and their hatred of science...
FUCKING SICK OF IT
fine, but then so are the scumbags in these investment forms who made a shitload of money off of the whole thing. they should land on their asses, too, but they won't. because we're all for a "free market" when the rich are getting richer, but the minute they get too greedy and fuck things up, we're suddenly in the corporate welfare business.
i'd rather help the homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream than the asshole with the multimillion dollar paycheck who earned it off of the sweat of the lower classes.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"homeowner who may have gotten in over their heads trying to have the american dream"
Wow, that a kind way to put "Irresponsible individual who wants other people to pay for their mistakes".
and you could use that very same description for the wall street motherfuckers who created this problem with their limitless greed. except they have lots of resources to fall back on, and the family only has/had the house.
and let's keep in mind, mr. free market, that it benefits the whole of society if more people own their homes. whereas, what is the actual benefit of these greedy execs who have no limits on their personal income? they only benefit themselves and their heirs. and don;t give me that old bullshit line about the wealth trickling down, yada yada. tell that to the family of four with no healthcare who are expected to live on $20k a year.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Why so hostile?
I agree, we shouldn't be bailing ANYONE out of this situation...lender, homeowner, etc...well, I'd have to look more closely into it to see how it effects th eoveral economy etc, but I'd start out at, bail out no one.
I still think that ultimately the blame for the mortgage crisis are the idiots that bit off more than they could chew.