It's those darn poor people again....CRA

[midcan5]

Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating By Tim Wise

"The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise09292008.html

".... for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble."

[stephanie]

well, of course you all wouldn't put the blame where the blame should be..

if you did you wouldn't be able to use if for your political agenda..

thank goodness the American people aren't as stupid as you and the author of this article think they are...they know who's the blame..

[red states rule]

Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating By Tim Wise

"The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise09292008.html

".... for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble."


Dems caused the problem by demanding banks and lending institutions give loans to poor people who could not pay the money back. Then act shocked when they default on the loans

Libs like you think more government and more spending will solve the problem - but in reality will make the problem worse

[actsnoblemartin]

folks of color :coffee:, can we be any politically correct/ ass-kissing

im offended, address neil as a person of no color author dude :P


Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating By Tim Wise

"The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise09292008.html

".... for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble."

[Psychoblues]

Excellent article, mc5. But, obviously your admonition that it is for "those who still put a premium on truth" will be ignored by most as it already has been by at least one other poster in this thread.

Tim Wise is indeed a wise man!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Immanuel]

That is funny. I have not seen anyone blaming the poor or people of color. The blame goes to those who lowered the credit standards in order to make it possible for people who are not financially capable of supporting a mortgage getting one.

The desire to help those who want homes to get them is commendable, but lending them more than they can afford is downright foolish. That is why we are in this crunch today.

You cannot blame the people who are not "credit worthy". In fact, most are still paying their mortgages even today.

The blame goes to those in the industry who were not fiscally responsible. The funny thing about that is that the banks gave credit to people who they knew could not afford the mortgage, then they sold those mortgages to Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae (our government) and now that the market has dried up, they are asking our government to bail them out. Isn't that something like Double Taxation? :D

Something stinks!

[red states rule]

Excellent article, mc5. But, obviously your admonition that it is for "those who still put a premium on truth" will be ignored by most as it already has been by at least one other poster in this thread.

Tim Wise is indeed a wise man!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Yea, the nerve of some of us pointing out thiose pesky facts how Dems laid the foundation to this problem, then acted insulted when Republicans wanted to reform Freddie and Fannie

[red states rule]

That is funny. I have not seen anyone blaming the poor or people of color. The blame goes to those who lowered the credit standards in order to make it possible for people who are not financially capable of supporting a mortgage getting one.

The desire to help those who want homes to get them is commendable, but lending them more than they can afford is downright foolish. That is why we are in this crunch today.

You cannot blame the people who are not "credit worthy". In fact, most are still paying their mortgages even today.

The blame goes to those in the industry who were not fiscally responsible. The funny thing about that is that the banks gave credit to people who they knew could not afford the mortgage, then they sold those mortgages to Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae (our government) and now that the market has dried up, they are asking our government to bail them out. Isn't that something like Double Taxation? :D

Something stinks!

On the video showing Dems denying their was a problem, there are several black lib playing the race card. They call Republicans who wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie racists

[Immanuel]

On the video showing Dems denying their was a problem, there are several black lib playing the race card. They call Republicans who wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie racists

Of course, any attempt to improve a failing social program is seen as racist, sexist, anti-senior citizen etc. etc. etc.

God forbid someone would try to improve the government.

Immie

[stang56k]

Dems caused the problem by demanding banks and lending institutions give loans to poor people who could not pay the money back. Then act shocked when they default on the loans

Libs like you think more government and more spending will solve the problem - but in reality will make the problem worse

So its not the greedy banks fault for making the risky loans, and the stupid people taking the loans, or the bigger institutions buying up the bad loans in packages? Its all the dems fault, seriously?

Your blind to see its not one groups fault, but everyone's and they should have to pay the repercussions, not get bailed out...

[red states rule]

So its not the greedy banks fault for making the risky loans, and the stupid people taking the loans, or the bigger institutions buying up the bad loans in packages? Its all the dems fault, seriously?

Your blind to see its not one groups fault, but everyone's and they should have to pay the repercussions, not get bailed out...

Dems passed laws where banks did not give an equal number of loans to poor folks, they would be taken to court

Libs screamed for years how the the rules for getting a home loan were to strict

Now we see the results of libs saying home ownership was a right,and not something you have to work for

[Psychoblues]

You don't get around much, do you immie?



That is funny. I have not seen anyone blaming the poor or people of color. The blame goes to those who lowered the credit standards in order to make it possible for people who are not financially capable of supporting a mortgage getting one.

The desire to help those who want homes to get them is commendable, but lending them more than they can afford is downright foolish. That is why we are in this crunch today.

You cannot blame the people who are not "credit worthy". In fact, most are still paying their mortgages even today.

The blame goes to those in the industry who were not fiscally responsible. The funny thing about that is that the banks gave credit to people who they knew could not afford the mortgage, then they sold those mortgages to Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae (our government) and now that the market has dried up, they are asking our government to bail them out. Isn't that something like Double Taxation? :D

Something stinks!

I see what you're claiming to never see even right here in this thread and I have seen it repeatedly for years almost every where I go. It's a sad day in 2008 that this garbage spewed from the ignorant retains so much credibility from those that should know better.

Did you read the article?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[stang56k]

Dems passed laws where banks did not give an equal number of loans to poor folks, they would be taken to court

Libs screamed for years how the the rules for getting a home loan were to strict

Now we see the results of libs saying home ownership was a right,and not something you have to work for

Did not know about that legislation, Just shows you how bad goverment regulation in the economy is.

[red states rule]

Did not know about that legislation, Just shows you how bad goverment regulation in the economy is.

Watch and learn

Regualting the economy is the worst thing you can do. Dems tried it with housing and now we have this

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Immanuel]

So its not the greedy banks fault for making the risky loans, and the stupid people taking the loans, or the bigger institutions buying up the bad loans in packages? Its all the dems fault, seriously?

Your blind to see its not one groups fault, but everyone's and they should have to pay the repercussions, not get bailed out...

It wasn't that Dems demanded that the mortgage market be opened up to those who were not credit worthy. It was that the government allowed banks to give the credit and avoid the risk associated with that credit.

For instance, if I lend you $100k with the expectation that you will pay me back with interest over 30 years, I take a risk that somewhere down the line you will default on the loan. Depending on your characther and your financial responsibility, that risk can be either very high or very low. If it is high, I am going to charge you a higher rate of interest in order to secure my risk. If it is too high, I am not going to lend you that money.

Well, when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae began loosening their standards and buying lower quality debt, the banks could give credit to people that weren't likely to pay back the debt in full, collect the mortgage fees (points) up front then sell the risk to the government. Sounds like an excellent deal to me. The banks win all the way around.

Immie

[Immanuel]

You don't get around much, do you immie?




I see what you're claiming to never see even right here in this thread and I have seen it repeatedly for years almost every where I go. It's a sad day in 2008 that this garbage spewed from the ignorant retains so much credibility from those that should know better.

Did you read the article?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Steph posted while I was typing my response.

If I were a super fast typist, my post would have been #2. In other words, when I started my reply there were no other replies to the thread.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

Understood, immie.



Steph posted while I was typing my response.

If I were a super fast typist, my post would have been #2. In other words, when I started my reply there were no other replies to the thread.

Immie

Can I get you a refreshment?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Immanuel]

Understood, immie.




Can I get you a refreshment?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I love Margeritas. Send it my way.

Oh and one more thing, I don't mean to imply that what I said is the "only" reason we are in this position. I'm sure all the accusations that have been flying around from both sides have a little bit of truth to them.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

I love Margeritas. Send it my way.

Oh and one more thing, I don't mean to imply that what I said is the "only" reason we are in this position. I'm sure all the accusations that have been flying around from both sides have a little bit of truth to them.

Immie

Changing both to all makes that the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As the financial fat cats wallow in their unearned profits on the backs of those of us that really do care about keeping our bills paid as much as we care about each other I can't resist being somewhat resentful of those that undermine credible legislation by citing infractions as it's planned purpose. This is not a simple thing to consider, don't you know?!??!??!?!?!?!

Marqeirita comin' right up!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::cheers2::salute:

[Yurt]

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.



Quote:
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=18245

check out manu's thread, that is the real truth and the real answer, not this thread

[darin]

To some extent it IS the fault of the poor. They signed contracts beyond their means to repay. Yes, they should have never been granted loans - but our Politicians want to say things like "Home ownership among the poorest minorities is up x-percent!"

:-/

[Psychoblues]

Damn, yuk. I thought we were making progress in comprehensive discussion here on this thread!???!??!??!??! Who wants to go the shallow and vile route to extenuate ignorance?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

To some extent it IS the fault of the poor. They signed contracts beyond their means to repay. Yes, they should have never been granted loans - but our Politicians want to say things like "Home ownership among the poorest minorities is up x-percent!"

:-/

I wonder if these same libs who supported taxpayer money being used to give poor people a home loan, would have used their own money for the loan?

Libs are always generous with other peoples money

[Psychoblues]

To some extent it IS the fault of the poor. They signed contracts beyond their means to repay. Yes, they should have never been granted loans - but our Politicians want to say things like "Home ownership among the poorest minorities is up x-percent!"
:-/

That is a quote from gwb that he has used 7 times in 7 years at least!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Damn, yuk. I thought we were making progress in comprehensive discussion here on this thread!???!??!??!??! Who wants to go the shallow and vile route to extenuate ignorance?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

You are part of Jim's affirmative action program to get and keep
dysfunctional libs on the board

His goal is to use you as an example to folks under his "Do Not Let this Happen To You" program

[red states rule]

That is a quote from gwb that he has used 7 times in 7 years at least!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

and Pres Bush tried to refrom it

From the NY Times.......

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/bush-and-mccain-each-tried-to-reform-fannie-mae-democrats-blocked-them-both-times/

[PostmodernProphet]

midcan, I am puzzled why you try to paint this as conservatives blaming poor people.....none of this $700 billion is going to poor people, it's going to the people who own banks and the people who got salaries of $20mill to run big banks......

[red states rule]

midcan, I am puzzled why you try to paint this as conservatives blaming poor people.....none of this $700 billion is going to poor people, it's going to the people who own banks and the people who got salaries of $20mill to run big banks......

You wiuld think libs would want the $700billion to be divied equally between anyone with a home loan

Then add another $100 billion for those who rent

Then add another $100 billion for the homeless

Ect, ect, ect

[Psychoblues]

Let me ask you something, dumbo. Do you think for a moment that I give one shit about anything you say? Go tittering about your own little shit and stay out of conversations between adults, how about it?



You are part of Jim's affirmative action program to get and keep
dysfunctional libs on the board

His goal is to use you as an example to folks under his "Do Not Let this Happen To You" program

As far as any affirmative action program belonging to Jimbo I'd like to hear about it as I certainly don't believe anything you say. As far as using me as a tool I have no objection whatsoever. I have been a tool all my life and now is no exception. Your stint here as a comedian, however, is pretty much a failure IMHO.

Some people, damn they're ignorant and stupid too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[stang56k]

You wiuld think libs would want the $700billion to be divied equally between anyone with a home loan

Then add another $100 billion for those who rent

Then add another $100 billion for the homeless

Ect, ect, ect

I agree the money should not go to just the corporations, but no matter where the money goes it's still socalistic . And remember where we are going to get the $700 billion ,creating the moeny out or thin air or borrow it :( The 700 billion figure has been thrown around so much I think people are forgeting how MUCH money that is.

[Abbey Marie]

Dems passed laws where banks did not give an equal number of loans to poor folks, they would be taken to court

Libs screamed for years how the the rules for getting a home loan were to strict

Now we see the results of libs saying home ownership was a right,and not something you have to work for

Red, if that first statement is true, and I don't doubt you, it is due to the same two reasons for the miserable policies already rampant in this country-fear of lawsuits, and fear of not being PC. We see their crippling effects on education and medicine, and really just about everywhere.

Until these two things lose their disproportionate power to affect policy, we will continue down the path of ruin.

[red states rule]

Red, if that first statement is true, and I don't doubt you, it is due to the same two reasons for the miserable policies already rampant in this country-fear of lawsuits, and fear of not being PC. We see their crippling effects on education and medicine, and really just about everywhere.

Until these two things lose their disproportionate power to affect policy, we will continue down the path of ruin.

Here you go Abbey


In 1995, because of insistence from Bill Clinton, the implementing
regulations for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were revised to
concentrate the Federal Financial Regulators' pressure lenders to make
risky loans to Minorities. The 1995 revisions caused a huge increase
the amount of "Sub-Prime" home loans to low-income minorities with
poor credit histories. The large increase in these risky loans was
facilitated by "Bundling" the bad loans with better mortgage loans.
The slack revisions allowed the Securitization of CRA Loans containing
these dubious Sub-Prime minority mortgages. The first Socialistic
public securitization of CRA loans was started by Leftist Democrats
in1997.

Normal requirements to qualify for loans were drastically lowered to
promote giving loans to inner city minority low-income households.
"Racial Discrimination" in mortgage acceptance rates was cited by the
National Community Reinvestment Coalition, ACORN and other Leftist
groups as a primary reason to expand the scope of the "Community
Reinvestment Act" (CRA).

[Note that ShoreBank and its banker, Ron Grzywinski, is from the South
Chicago. The same area that ObaMao agitated as a "Community
Organizer".]

The tens of thousands of Mortgage Defaults and Foreclosures in the
euphemistically named "Sub-Prime" housing market (i.e., minority
mortgage holders with bad credit ratings) is the direct result of
thirty years of socialistic Democratic Policy that forced lenders to
make bad loans to un-creditworthy minority borrowers. The policy in
question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compelled
banks to make imprudent loans to minority borrowers in what the
Marxist supporters of the Act call "Communities of Color" that they
would never have made based solely on sound economic criteria.

The original lobbyists for the "Community Reinvestment Act" were the
hardcore Leftist supporters of Jimmy Carter and they were rewarded for
their support with Government Grants and Programs like the CRA that
they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood
organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ("ACORN"). These
organizations were bragging that over $1 Trillion in CRA loans have
been made, although no one seems to know the real magnitude. A U.S.
Senate Banking Committee staffer said ten years ago that over $100
billion in Sub-Prime loans had been made in the first twenty years of
the Act.

The so-called "Community Organizer Groups" like ACORN benefit from the
CRA through a process of legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by
four Federal Government Bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation. The law is designed so that any bank merger,
branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or
prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "Protest" is
issued by a "Community Organizer." This would cost banks huge sums of
money, and the "Community Orgenizers" understand this threat perfectly
well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to extort millions
of dollars from banks as well as promises to continue making bad loans
in their minority "Communities of Color".

Banks have been forced into a Catch 22 situation by the "Community
Reinvestment Act": If they comply, they know they will have to suffer
from loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face government
financial penalties and, worse yet; their business plans for mergers,
branch expansions, etc. will be blocked by "Community Organizer"
protesters, which cost large corporations like Bank of America
billions of dollars. Like most pragmatic businesses, they have largely
buckled under and have surrendered to the government bureaucrats

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/dd2d60ea9dbe2553

[Trigg]

The blame IMO can be shared equally by the banks and the poor and financially incompetent.

The banks made shady loans..balloon payments, 2 mortgages, they weren't checking credit history and they weren't making sure people could afford the houses they wanted.

The people were buying houses they KNEW they couldn't afford and not checking the fine print on contracts they were signing.

I would say that this housing crisis is not about poor minorities and has everything do to with people of all colors and income levels who simply have no idea how to manage their money. People with poor credit ratings who chronically don't pay their bills. People who are trying to keep up with the Joneses and people in California who were buying houses to "flip" or using them for a money making venture.

Banks need to tighten up their lending practices. People with poor credit should have to apply for credit instead of banks sending out more and more "pre-approved" credit applications.


Has anyone seen the commercial of the man in the jewelry store trying to buy something for his fiancé????? His credit card is maxed out, so the woman says, well you should apply for ------credit. NO HE SHOULDN'T!!!!! Obviously the guy has no clue how to manage his finances. The LAST thing he needs is MORE credit. But people have been told that credit is ok and the more cards you have the better. That's why the average credit card debt in the US is $13,000.

Why are we bailing out banks and giving the CEO's millions???????? My kids and grandkids don't deserve to be handed this debt because people and banks are irresponsible.

[stang56k]

The blame IMO can be shared equally by the banks and the poor and financially incompetent.

The banks made shady loans..balloon payments, 2 mortgages, they weren't checking credit history and they weren't making sure people could afford the houses they wanted.

The people were buying houses they KNEW they couldn't afford and not checking the fine print on contracts they were signing.

I would say that this housing crisis is not about poor minorities and has everything do to with people of all colors and income levels who simply have no idea how to manage their money. People with poor credit ratings who chronically don't pay their bills. People who are trying to keep up with the Joneses and people in California who were buying houses to "flip" or using them for a money making venture.

Banks need to tighten up their lending practices. People with poor credit should have to apply for credit instead of banks sending out more and more "pre-approved" credit applications.


Has anyone seen the commercial of the man in the jewelry store trying to buy something for his fiancé????? His credit card is maxed out, so the woman says, well you should apply for ------credit. NO HE SHOULDN'T!!!!! Obviously the guy has no clue how to manage his finances. The LAST thing he needs is MORE credit. But people have been told that credit is ok and the more cards you have the better. That's why the average credit card debt in the US is $13,000.

Why are we bailing out banks and giving the CEO's millions???????? My kids and grandkids don't deserve to be handed this debt because people and banks are irresponsible.

Right on, I almost think we need to experience a recession to get fiscally Resposible again from the consumer to the lenders to the goverment. Kidding of course to that extreme of a measure, but somtimes you have to get kicked down to rise back up. Just a thought

[Abbey Marie]

And so it goes with colleges too. We admit and finance the higher education of tons of people who aren't dedicated and capable students, just because they are minorities. Go on a college tour and you will hear about it. We also know that a high percentage of students drop out. I see a correlation. No to mention all the kids who would qualify for admission and aid that get bumped to make room for the lower qualified. (Sounds like the mortgages, doesn't it?)

Over time, this policy will lead to a lowering of American know-how and competitiveness in the world. An intellectual bankrutpcy, if you will. And no financial bailout will fix that.

[red states rule]

And so it goes with colleges too. We admit and finance the higher education of tons of people who aren't dedicated and capable students, just because they are minorities. Go on a college tour and you will hear about it. We also know that a high percentage of students drop out. I see a correlation. No to mention all the kids who would qualify for admission and aid that get bumped to make room for the lower qualified. (Sounds like the mortgages, doesn't it?)

Over time, this policy will lead to a lowering of American know-how and competitiveness in the world. An intellectual bankrutpcy, if you will. And no financial bailout will fix that.

As with Police and Fire departments. I doubt if this is an isolated case

Saginaw, Michigan, police and fire departments are losing minority ranks as hiring freezes, low pay send candidates elsewhere
by Justin Engel | The Saginaw News
Sunday April 13, 2008, 12:05 AM

Saginaw is aching for a comeback, but not every aspect of the city should return to its old form, leaders say.

The city's police and fire forces face a lack of minority and female candidates to fill anticipated vacancies, and the trend is threatening to return both outfits to their less diverse days.

"If we don't do something about it, our police and fire (departments) are going to look like they did in the 1950s," City Manager Darnell Earley said, referring to the era's largely white male hold on public safety posts.

The problem isn't just a projection, Earley said. It's happening now.

A 23-year firefighter official predicts the Saginaw Fire Department will consist of 97 percent white males within five years.

The Saginaw Police Department already doesn't match the city's racial makeup. The 97-officer force has 35 percent minorities, whereas Census data indicate Saginaw is nearly half minority.

Police plan to fill seven to eight positions this year when eligible employees leave because of retirements or resignations, Police Chief Gerald H. Cliff said. Forty total positions could open within four years.

The applicant pool available today looks like this: 48 whites, three Hispanics and one black. Of those 52 candidates, one is female. Two additional applicants didn't identify a race or gender. Officials must hire from an approved list of Civil Service Commission candidates.

"This is a problem that's not going to correct itself," Earley said.

http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/news/index.ssf/2008/04/saginaw_michigan_police_and_fi.html

[Immanuel]

And so it goes with colleges too. We admit and finance the higher education of tons of people who aren't dedicated and capable students, just because they are minorities. Go on a college tour and you will hear about it. We also know that a high percentage of students drop out. I see a correlation. No to mention all the kids who would qualify for admission and aid that get bumped to make room for the lower qualified. (Sounds like the mortgages, doesn't it?)

Over time, this policy will lead to a lowering of American know-how and competitiveness in the world. An intellectual bankrutpcy, if you will. And no financial bailout will fix that.

tsk-tsk-tsk! How dare you speak against Affirmative Action! You should be beaten with a wet noodle. Do you realize how many students have gotten into institutions of higher education because of AA and on your tax dollar too? It doesn't matter if they don't graduate or even thrive at least they are there. You should be ashamed of even suggesting that AA is not a perfect plan.

Go to your room and don't come out until you can behave!! :)

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

I happen to think that it is good for city police forces to have a large black presence. I think it can lessen the chance of racial tension in those neighborhoods where police presence is most needed. Cities should encourage minority children to pursue it as a career. PAL is a good thing, no?

But at the same time, I don't think you should lower the test standards to admit who you want. As with anything, figure out exactly what qualifications you need from an applicant to make them a desirable police officer, and then apply them across the board.

[Abbey Marie]

tsk-tsk-tsk! How dare you speak against Affirmative Action! You should be beaten with a wet noodle. Do you realize how many students have gotten into institutions of higher education because of AA and on your tax dollar too? It doesn't matter if they don't graduate or even thrive at least they are there. You should be ashamed of even suggesting that AA is not a perfect plan.

Go to your room and don't come out until you can behave!! :)

Immie

Can I just stay in my office? I promise to be good!

[Trigg]

Yes, it's a wonderfull institution.

It's also the reason that most of the people in the military come from the middle class. That group that gets NO financial help from the states or federal gov.

[Trigg]

Can I just stay in my office? I promise to be good!

Hey he's telling you to go home, take advantage of it.:laugh2:

[Immanuel]

Can I just stay in my office? I promise to be good!

Well, I thought about what I said and then I thought, I should amend that and say... you can not take your husband into your room either, no hanky panky allowed. So, if you are alone and working in the office then I suppose that is sufficient.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Well, I thought about what I said and then I thought, I should amend that and say... you can not take your husband into your room either, no hanky panky allowed. So, if you are alone and working in the office then I suppose that is sufficient.

Immie

Hmm. Punishing my husband for my sins.


I like it! (j/k).

[red states rule]

Right on, I almost think we need to experience a recession to get fiscally Resposible again from the consumer to the lenders to the goverment. Kidding of course to that extreme of a measure, but somtimes you have to get kicked down to rise back up. Just a thought

Why worry about anything?

The messiah, known as Obama, will save the nation

After all, he has half of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae advising him on economic matters.

[Psychoblues]

I don't know about that, rsr, but I do know for certain that he can do better than what we've had now for about 8 years and better than what your party is now offering up for executive leadership.



Why worry about anything?

The messiah, known as Obama, will save the nation

After all, he has half of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae advising him on economic matters.

Freddie and Fannie do quite well with McCain as well. Haven't you been keeping up? I doubt it.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

I don't know about that, rsr, but I do know for certain that he can do better than what we've had now for about 8 years and better than what your party is now offering up for executive leadership.




Freddie and Fannie do quite well with McCain as well. Haven't you been keeping up? I doubt it.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Obama wants to do for the entire nation, what Dems and his advisors did to Freddie and Fannie

So much for the "crisis" on Wall St. Did you see the Dow today? The price of oil?

[stang56k]

Obama wants to do for the entire nation, what Dems and his advisors did to Freddie and Fannie

So much for the "crisis" on Wall St. Did you see the Dow today? The price of oil?

Sigh, have you not learned Wall St is not an indicator of anything but emotions that sway in the wind of hysteria? The only reason the Dow was up today is the fed side step congresses bail out bill and injected 630 BILLION dollars into the economy? Which will weaken the dollar and cause inflation which pales in comparison to the contrast of a few hundred + points on the Dow?

[midcan5]

The desire to help those who want homes to get them is commendable, but lending them more than they can afford is downright foolish. That is why we are in this crunch today.

Your reading is off base.



"This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-3

[red states rule]

Your reading is off base.



"This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-3

Are you dense, or being a hack?

There have been multipal links and videos showing it was Dems who forced banks to ease credit requirement for home loans

It was Dems who blocked attempts by Pres Bush and McCain to reform Fannie and Feddie

It was Dems who called Republicans racists in the House committees who were for the reforms

Yet, you ignore all this and tell us Dems, more money, more regulation, and higher taxes will solve the issue

[Yurt]

Are you dense, or being a hack?

There have been multipal links and videos showing it was Dems who forced banks to ease credit requirement for home loans

It was Dems who blocked attempts by Pres Bush and McCain to reform Fannie and Feddie

It was Dems who called Republicans racists in the House committees who were for the reforms

Yet, you ignore all this and tell us Dems, more money, more regulation, and higher taxes will solve the issue

all of the above

[red states rule]

all of the above

Thank you for a quick and concise answer :salute:

[Psychoblues]

Do you expect the words of your compadre, yuk, to be anything resembling what mc5, the person to whom you asked the questions, to be relevant in this conversation?



Thank you for a quick and concise answer :salute:

You are more sad than I ever imagined, dumbo.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

Do you expect the words of your compadre, yuk, to be anything resembling what mc5, the person to whom you asked the questions, to be relevant in this conversation?




You are more sad than I ever imagined, dumbo.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Why don't you answer the questions since midcan will not. Go ahead PB, try and regute that vicious pack of facts

[Psychoblues]

mc5 speaks very well from his/her standpoint.



Why don't you answer the questions since midcan will not. Go ahead PB, try and regute that vicious pack of facts

Is it your purpose to try and start some shit with me as is usual with your misinformed ass?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

mc5 speaks very well from his/her standpoint.




Is it your purpose to try and start some shit with me as is usual with your misinformed ass?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

As usual you addressed the points about Dems screwing up Fannie and Freddie in your noraml fashion

Like San Fran Nan, you show the same type of bipartisonship as she does.

BTW, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) issued a statement saying Dems were wrong over the last 5 years when they said there was not a problem

[Psychoblues]

And just what is my "normal fashion", dumbo?




As usual you addressed the points about Dems screwing up Fannie and Freddie in your noraml fashion

Like San Fran Nan, you show the same type of bipartisonship as she does.

BTW, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) issued a statement saying Dems were wrong over the last 5 years when they said there was not a problem

The complete history of Fannie and Freddie covers several thousand pages. What do you know about them? So far as you have demonstrated, I would suggest very little.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[red states rule]

And just what is my "normal fashion", dumbo?





The complete history of Fannie and Freddie covers several thousand pages. What do you know about them? So far as you have demonstrated, I would suggest very little.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

So the NY Times is wrong

The You Tube videos are fake

and Bill Clinton was lying when he said Dems blocked reform attempts by Republicans

OK, I got it now :rolleyes:

[Psychoblues]

I don't agree with any of what you say, rsr.



So the NY Times is wrong

The You Tube videos are fake

and Bill Clinton was lying when he said Dems blocked reform attempts by Republicans

OK, I got it now :rolleyes:

Do you have any links? I thought not. What a puss you are!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Immanuel]

Your reading is off base.



"This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-3

No, it seems that your BS website is off base.

Immie

[avatar4321]

I was unaware that Barney Franks and the other Democrats who screwed the American people over were minorities.

[Psychoblues]

What's this?!?!?!?!?!?!? rsr ditched out???????? Not surprising.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you have any links? I thought not. What a puss you are!!!!!!!!!

apparently we have evidence now that Psycho reads nothing on this board except his own posts......

[red states rule]

What's this?!?!?!?!?!?!? rsr ditched out???????? Not surprising.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

The links have been posted on several threads - you saw them but you ignore them and continue to act like a pompous ass

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/bush-and-mccain-each-tried-to-reform-fannie-mae-democrats-blocked-them-both-times/

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[midcan5]

As I read through the responses it is as if some finger pointing monster aims all the blame on poor people who cannot now afford their house. No one asked the pertinent questions. Almost everyone except Psycho and Trigg could have been scripted by a corporate tool.

Should a person get a loan they cannot pay back? And why would they be able to pay for it at first but not later. What changed? The poor are pretty steady, could it be that it is not the poor but the upper classes that are responsible. I know a realtor who walked away from a million plus home in OC, NJ. hmmm...

Fannie and Freddie are another example of the failure of privatization, did anyone notice they are now back in the hands of that bad old government. "....Fannie and Freddie took steps in 2006 and 2007 that came back to bite them. The companies lowered their standards for loans they would buy, and they backed riskier mortgages, including loans that didn't require borrowers to provide proof of their stated income. Such loans accounted for half the companies' credit losses in the second quarter this year." * Is this poor people's fault? More like greed and stupidity.

F&F are still AAA and the bad old government is behind that rating. They should do fine with minimum help.

RSR's youtube on republicans wanting regulations on F&F was something out of the twilight zone, republicans are the free market evangelists. Too funny for words. It is what you do not what you say that matters.

Anyone here remember the S&L crisis, google it for some knowledge of a similar screw up and then go back and see if you can blame the poor for this one too. LOL

The current mess is the results of a bubble caused by low interest, greed, and some truly hokey debt transfers. Both parties are responsible as lobbyists and corporate interest continue to control them. Tough regulation and qualified people are required in this world or mankind does what they normally do, screw up.

But it is immoral and un-American to put the blame on poor people trying to live the American dream. Another sad instance of how far down our nation has sunk in its morals and care of its own people. Rather sad.

And reread the article with an open mind this time.


*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-qanda8-2008sep08,0,7402339.story

[red states rule]

As I read through the responses it is as if some finger pointing monster aims all the blame on poor people who cannot now afford their house. No one asked the pertinent questions. Almost everyone except Psycho and Trigg could have been scripted by a corporate tool.

Should a person get a loan they cannot pay back? And why would they be able to pay for it at first but not later. What changed? The poor are pretty steady, could it be that it is not the poor but the upper classes that are responsible. I know a realtor who walked away from a million plus home in OC, NJ. hmmm...

Fannie and Freddie are another example of the failure of privatization, did anyone notice they are now back in the hands of that bad old government. "....Fannie and Freddie took steps in 2006 and 2007 that came back to bite them. The companies lowered their standards for loans they would buy, and they backed riskier mortgages, including loans that didn't require borrowers to provide proof of their stated income. Such loans accounted for half the companies' credit losses in the second quarter this year." * Is this poor people's fault? More like greed and stupidity.

F&F are still AAA and the bad old government is behind that rating. They should do fine with minimum help.

RSR's youtube on republicans wanting regulations on F&F was something out of the twilight zone, republicans are the free market evangelists. Too funny for words. It is what you do not what you say that matters.

Anyone here remember the S&L crisis, google it for some knowledge of a similar screw up and then go back and see if you can blame the poor for this one too. LOL

The current mess is the results of a bubble caused by low interest, greed, and some truly hokey debt transfers. Both parties are responsible as lobbyists and corporate interest continue to control them. Tough regulation and qualified people are required in this world or mankind does what they do normally does, screw up.

But it is immoral and un-American to put the blame on poor people trying to live the American dream. Another sad instance of how far down our nation has sunk in its morals and care of its own people. Rather sad.

And reread the article with an open mind this time.


*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-qanda8-2008sep08,0,7402339.story

Fannie and Fredie are government run and backed lending institutions. This is what happens when liberalism takes over what should be run by the private sector

Dems wanted to make home ownership a right and not something that has to be worked for and earned

The video saows Dems at their best. Denying their liberalism is a failure and attacking those who want to make changes. The race card was played several times for good measure

[Immanuel]

The current mess is the results of a bubble caused by low interest, greed, and some truly hokey debt transfers. Both parties are responsible as lobbyists and corporate interest continue to control them. Tough regulation and qualified people are required in this world or mankind does what they normally do, screw up.

But it is immoral and un-American to put the blame on poor people trying to live the American dream. Another sad instance of how far down our nation has sunk in its morals and care of its own people. Rather sad.


Maybe you need to put on your glasses. I never put the blame on poor people... not once.

In fact, everything you said in this post is pretty much what I have been saying.

Immie

[red states rule]

Maybe you need to put on your glasses. I never put the blame on poor people... not once.

In fact, everything you said in this post is pretty much what I have been saying.

Immie

They are part of the problem. They took a loan they knew damn well they could not afford

[Immanuel]

They are part of the problem. They took a loan they knew damn well they could not afford

And I totally disagree with that statement. They took loans that at the time they thought they could afford. Life has changed in the last 10-15 years. The economy changes and people end up in troubles that they would not have expected. That is not their fault.

As you told me, only about 2-3% of homes are in foreclosure at the moment. That is an awful lot of poor people who are still paying their mortgage bills. They are doing their part. It is not their fault that the market has dried up and lenders are feeling the pinch. {edit} Putting the blame on them is assinine.

You also need to look at today's housing market. People are not buying. They are waiting to see what happens.

Loosening the credit markets was a bad idea. You just don't give credit to people who won't be able to pay their mortgage off, but it is not the sole reason we are in this crisis today.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

And I totally disagree with that statement. They took loans that at the time they thought they could afford. Life has changed in the last 10-15 years. The economy changes and people end up in troubles that they would not have expected. That is not their fault.

As you told me, only about 2-3% of homes are in foreclosure at the moment. That is an awful lot of poor people who are still paying their mortgage bills. They are doing their part. It is not their fault that the market has dried up and lenders are feeling the pinch. {edit} Putting the blame on them is assinine.

You also need to look at today's housing market. People are not buying. They are waiting to see what happens.

Loosening the credit markets was a bad idea. You just don't give credit to people who won't be able to pay their mortgage off, but it is not the sole reason we are in this crisis today.

Immie


I don't know Immie (really, I don't know). But were these ARM's? If so, both the borrower and the lender have to be able up front to make their mortgage payments if/when the rate goes up. Even if it goes up a lot. If not, then they should not be considered able to afford it.

Best old quote for our current situation: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be".

[red states rule]

And I totally disagree with that statement. They took loans that at the time they thought they could afford. Life has changed in the last 10-15 years. The economy changes and people end up in troubles that they would not have expected. That is not their fault.

As you told me, only about 2-3% of homes are in foreclosure at the moment. That is an awful lot of poor people who are still paying their mortgage bills. They are doing their part. It is not their fault that the market has dried up and lenders are feeling the pinch. {edit} Putting the blame on them is assinine.

You also need to look at today's housing market. People are not buying. They are waiting to see what happens.

Loosening the credit markets was a bad idea. You just don't give credit to people who won't be able to pay their mortgage off, but it is not the sole reason we are in this crisis today.

Immie

Sorry Immie. These people knew they were getting in over their head. The libs tinkered with the home loan business and this is what we get

They lowered the standards of what it really does take to get a loan, and these people took advantage of it - and got something they could not afford

[Immanuel]

I don't know Immie (really, I don't know). But were these ARM's? If so, both the borrower and the lender have to be able up front to make their mortgage payments if/when the rate goes up. Even if it goes up a lot. If not, then they cannot be considered able to afford it.

Best old quote for our current situation: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be".

I had a lender try to sell me an ARM. What I remember him trying to tell me was that I should not worry about the possibility that rates will go up. He said even if they do they won't go up that much, more than 5-10% so your monthly payment won't be that high. It won't be much of a stretch. Even at historical high interest rates you can afford the payment and look at the low rates you get now!

I told him if the only way I could get a loan was an ARM then I was staying put.

Now, I am hearing of people's monthly payment going up 50%. That is a heck of a jump.

Now, I have a degree in finance so I believe that gave me a slight advantage over the everyday person. The deals look mighty inviting when rates are low, but they all had snakes in the grass and those snakes were Cobras. All kinds of people were getting caught in those traps not just the poor.

Basically, buyers were dealing with "used car salesmen" who only cared about the commission they were going to receive yet claimed to be looking out for you the consumer.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Sorry Immie. These people knew they were getting in over their head. The libs tinkered with the home loan business and this is what we get

They lowered the standards of what it really does take to get a loan, and these people took advantage of it - and got something they could not afford

Sorry, but you are wrong... see my last post. Didn't you say you were in the industry?

Hope you don't take offense to the "used car salesman" classification, but it is the truth.

Immie

[red states rule]

Sorry, but you are wrong... see my last post. Didn't you say you were in the industry?

Hope you don't take offense to the "used car salesman" classification, but it is the truth.

Immie

Yes I am, and no offense was taken

Like with credit cards, people get in over their heads and they blame the company that extended the credit

The banks were forced to issue these loans or were threatened with court action. Dems whined how the credit requirement were to strict and whined how minorities were not owning their own homes

Now libs are shocked when they default on the loans

[Immanuel]

The banks were forced to issue these loans or were threatened with court action. Dems whined how the credit requirement were to strict and whined how minorities were not owning their own homes

Now libs are shocked when they default on the loans

That is still not the fault of the borrower.

It is the government's and the lenders fault. Sure, a borrower should be prepared to walk away from a deal if things look too good to be true, but that is a difficult thing to do at times. It is easy to convince yourself that if you cut down on certain expenses you can afford the payment. Some day though that ARM Cobra bites.

Immie

[Yurt]

That is still not the fault of the borrower.

It is the government's and the lenders fault. Sure, a borrower should be prepared to walk away from a deal if things look too good to be true, but that is a difficult thing to do at times. It is easy to convince yourself that if you cut down on certain expenses you can afford the payment. Some day though that ARM Cobra bites.

Immie

so the government and lender FORCED the borrower to borrow the money and FORCED the borrower into an insolvent financial position....

if you told me that i could borrow money from you because the government said you should loan to me and that if you don't loan to me, IF I APPLY, you will be fined, i then apply knowing that it doesn't matter whether i pay you off or not, the government will pay you, so i borrow the money knowing i can't pay it, but still borrow it.....that makes it not my fault?

[Immanuel]

if you told me that i could borrow money from you because the government said you should loan to me and that if you don't loan to me, IF I APPLY, you will be fined, i then apply knowing that it doesn't matter whether i pay you off or not, the government will pay you, so i borrow the money knowing i can't pay it, but still borrow it.....that makes it not my fault?

Except that is not the way that it happened. What happens it that people go out shopping for a home because they want to move or maybe they need to move. They look at a home and think that maybe they would like to buy it. They sit down with a real estate agent who starts working numbers for them. It usually starts out with "how much can you afford per month" and it usually ends up there as in that is where the monthly payment ends up.

They had no idea that the Fannie Mae lowered the requirements. They simply went shopping for a loan. Instead of the typical response that they needed X % down payment the lender says, "Have I got a deal for you... I can get you in this house at the monthly payment you want and..." {an ear to ear grin crosses his face} "... now get this, I can do it with only the closing costs up front. Now, sign here and we have a deal."

The borrower had no idea that the standards had been reduced. They could afford the payments on the home. What they can't afford are the unmentioned property taxes, insurance etc that were underestimated at the time of negotiation.

Sure, they should know those things, but the lender doesn't let them know it and does everything he can to keep them from finding out. The lender knows the borrower can't afford the loan but the government has basically insured it with Fannie Mae so why should the lender worry about it?

Immie

[crin63]

Its the attempts at wealth redistribution and Socialism through partial regulations that cause the problems. The Democrats go in and try to regulate the profit out of being in business, claiming they are trying to watch out for the little guy. Then the corporations look for loopholes to make money and end up exploiting the loopholes at the expense of the public to make a profit which is the reason they are in business in the first place.
If genuine free market without government involvement were allowed prices would come down. Preventing a large scale monopoly that could strangle the people financially would not be good and probably needs some government intervention but beyond that let competition run its course.

[Yurt]

Except that is not the way that it happened. What happens it that people go out shopping for a home because they want to move or maybe they need to move. They look at a home and think that maybe they would like to buy it. They sit down with a real estate agent who starts working numbers for them. It usually starts out with "how much can you afford per month" and it usually ends up there as in that is where the monthly payment ends up.

They had no idea that the Fannie Mae lowered the requirements. They simply went shopping for a loan. Instead of the typical response that they needed X % down payment the lender says, "Have I got a deal for you... I can get you in this house at the monthly payment you want and..." {an ear to ear grin crosses his face} "... now get this, I can do it with only the closing costs up front. Now, sign here and we have a deal."

The borrower had no idea that the standards had been reduced. They could afford the payments on the home. What they can't afford are the unmentioned property taxes, insurance etc that were underestimated at the time of negotiation.
Sure, they should know those things, but the lender doesn't let them know it and does everything he can to keep them from finding out. The lender knows the borrower can't afford the loan but the government has basically insured it with Fannie Mae so why should the lender worry about it?

Immie

immie, what responsibility is it of the government or lender to inform the lender of property taxes? like you said, they 'should' know it. the lender cannot keep them from learning about those issues. if the lender knows the borrower cannot afford the loan, how is it the borrower thinks he or she can afford the loan?

i think you expect to the government and lender to hold our hand through the whole process, i do not believe either is in that business.

[Immanuel]

immie, what responsibility is it of the government or lender to inform the lender of property taxes? like you said, they 'should' know it. the lender cannot keep them from learning about those issues. if the lender knows the borrower cannot afford the loan, how is it the borrower thinks he or she can afford the loan?

i think you expect to the government and lender to hold our hand through the whole process, i do not believe either is in that business.

Here is what happens... the lender tells the borrower that property taxes on the property will be let's say $500 per year when the lender knows full well that the property taxes will actually be $1500 per year. That is a significant understatement of facts and happens all the time. The same thing occurs with property insurance. By short-sheeting the estimated additional expenses the lender can close the deal. It is not until a year later when the borrower gets a tax/insurance bill that was dangerously understated when the home was sold.

We're talking about ARM's here. The lender tells the borrower not to worry about interest rates climbing. It will never happen and even if the rates go up the mortgage payment won't change much at all. But, the truth is that those rates do change significantly and they go up with every up tick the prime rate... they don't come down nearly as fast. Sort of like gasoline prices. With every increase in the cost of a barrel of crude, the cost of gasoline goes up. When the cost of a barrel goes down, the cost of gasoline does not reciprocate near as fast.

Now, you can say that this is the borrowers fault. They should know better. Have you ever bought something and then thought you got taken by the seller? Anyone that is honest, has to say yes to that. Borrowers are not always that savvy and when you have a salesman who has experience he can sell the borrower the moon.

{edit}



i think you expect to the government and lender to hold our hand through the whole process, i do not believe either is in that business.

I don't expect anything except for honesty. Being a salesman requires one to be slightly dishonest and they take advantage of it.

Immie

PS to any of you salesmen out there, I do not apologize for the slant of your profession. :p It is the way you make a living.

[red states rule]

immie, what responsibility is it of the government or lender to inform the lender of property taxes? like you said, they 'should' know it. the lender cannot keep them from learning about those issues. if the lender knows the borrower cannot afford the loan, how is it the borrower thinks he or she can afford the loan?

i think you expect to the government and lender to hold our hand through the whole process, i do not believe either is in that business.

Most people fail to figure in taxes when they go for a home loan. If they gave an escrow account they can see their monthly payment go up by a few dollars to several hundred per month

If you buy a new home, chances are the last assessment was based on an empty lot. When the new tax bill come in with the home included - the h/o has a heart attack when they see their new payment

Of course it is not THEIR fault their payment went up. They blame the servicer of their loan

The same with their h/o ins, or if they need flood ins. If the h/o does not have enough ins, the servicer puts the ins on the loan and charges their escrow account

And again, it is not THEIR fault if their payment goes up. No, it is the evil mortage company

[Immanuel]

Most people fail to figure in taxes when they go for a home loan. If they gave an escrow account they can see their monthly payment go up by a few dollars to several hundred per month

If you buy a new home, chances are the last assessment was based on an empty lot. When the new tax bill come in with the home included - the h/o has a heart attack when they see their new payment

Of course it is not THEIR fault their payment went up. They blame the servicer of their loan

The same with their h/o ins, or if they need flood ins. If the h/o does not have enough ins, the servicer puts the ins on the loan and charges their escrow account

And again, it is not THEIR fault if their payment goes up. No, it is the evil mortage company

No... not the mortgage company... the lying salesman. :D No offense. :laugh2:

Immie

[red states rule]

No... not the mortgage company... the lying salesman. :D No offense. :laugh2:

Immie

More BS

The closing agent goes by the info provided by the taxing authority. The agent does not know how the amount of the tax is figured. It varies from TA to TA

The same with H/O ins. Usually the buyer pays the first years ins, and then the following years premium is paid into escorw with the moneth house payment. Again, the agent has no idea if the premium will go up, go down, or saty the same

[Immanuel]

More BS

The closing agent goes by the info provided by the taxing authority. The agent does not know how the amount of the tax is figured. It varies from TA to TA

The same with H/O ins. Usually the buyer pays the first years ins, and then the following years premium is paid into escorw with the moneth house payment. Again, the agent has no idea if the premium will go up, go down, or saty the same

That is true, the closing agent does not know what the actual tax bill or the actual insurance payment will be. That is absolutely true. However, they have a good idea what it is going to be and they should make damn sure the borrower has that information before signing in 118 places on a 72 page contract that they hand to you at the time of closing and begin looking at their watches the minute that you start trying to read all of that.

Immie

[red states rule]

That is true, the closing agent does not know what the actual tax bill or the actual insurance payment will be. That is absolutely true. However, they have a good idea what it is going to be and they should make damn sure the borrower has that information before signing in 118 places on a 72 page contract that they hand to you at the time of closing and begin looking at their watches the minute that you start trying to read all of that.

Immie

Immie, I deal with these people on a daily basis. You would be shocked how uninformed these people are. They signed all the papers, and acknowledged they understand them - but they whine because they have to pay the tax increase

The states, BTW, with the highest taxes are mostly blue states

These people spend more time learing about the their new big screen TV then they do the biggest purchase they will ever make

The closing agent can explain things until they are blue in the face, but in most cases, the buyer wants to get out of the office and move in to the house

[manu1959]

That is true, the closing agent does not know what the actual tax bill or the actual insurance payment will be. That is absolutely true. However, they have a good idea what it is going to be and they should make damn sure the borrower has that information before signing in 118 places on a 72 page contract that they hand to you at the time of closing and begin looking at their watches the minute that you start trying to read all of that.

Immie

let me guess....they also don't know there will be a water bill....and electric bill....a gas bill....a trash bill.....that you will have to maintain the house.....do these people also not know you have to buy gas for their car....tires...oil....

economic darwinism......and to think the dems forced banks to give these folks loans....and now lay this mess at the feet of the president.....

and these same idiots will vote dem yet again....

[Immanuel]

Immie, I deal with these people on a daily basis. You would be shocked how uninformed these people are. They signed all the papers, and acknowledged they understand them - but they whine because they have to pay the tax increase

The states, BTW, with the highest taxes are mostly blue states

These people spend more time learing about the their new big screen TV then they do the biggest purchase they will ever make

The closing agent can explain things until they are blue in the face, but in most cases, the buyer wants to get out of the office and move in to the house

Funny... it seems to me that in every purchase I have made it is the closing agent that always has another appointment, "right after this one all the way across town" and they are the ones who are rushing you to finish the deal and get out of their office.

I don't blame the borrower for getting caught in the web of deceit that salesmen have woven for years. Like I said, those salesmen know every trick in the book and if one doesn't work with a particular buyer, another will. It is impossible for the buyer to know everything a salesman can and will do to get the buyer to sign the contract.

The best thing that a buyer can do is to go into a negotiation with the determination that if things don't go the way they expect or want, that they will get up out of their chairs and walk out leaving the salesman wondering what the hell just happened and pissed off that he spent all this time and got nothing out of it.

Unfortunately that is a hard thing to do.

Immie

[red states rule]

Funny... it seems to me that in every purchase I have made it is the closing agent that always has another appointment, "right after this one all the way across town" and they are the ones who are rushing you to finish the deal and get out of their office.

I don't blame the borrower for getting caught in the web of deceit that salesmen have woven for years. Like I said, those salesmen know every trick in the book and if one doesn't work with a particular buyer, another will. It is impossible for the buyer to know everything a salesman can and will do to get the buyer to sign the contract.

The best thing that a buyer can do is to go into a negotiation with the determination that if things don't go the way they expect or want, that they will get up out of their chairs and walk out leaving the salesman wondering what the hell just happened and pissed off that he spent all this time and got nothing out of it.

Unfortunately that is a hard thing to do.

Immie


Immie, these people go to Circuit City with a tape measure when they buy their big screen TV. They check with CR and read the reviews of the various models. They ask the salesperson many question before they buy

When it comes to a home, they want to sign the papers and get the hell out of the office

You can pass the buck to the closing agent if you wish - I know better. I am looking at a copy of the documents they signed while they are telling me they never did

[Immanuel]

let me guess....they also don't know there will be a water bill....and electric bill....a gas bill....a trash bill.....that you will have to maintain the house.....do these people also not know you have to buy gas for their car....tires...oil....

economic darwinism......and to think the dems forced banks to give these folks loans....and now lay this mess at the feet of the president.....

and these same idiots will vote dem yet again....

Where did I say the banks forced anyone to take any loans at all?

Maybe you have not been following the discussion.

What happened was that the government opened up the market allowing banks to sell these loans on terms that the borrower would find quite satisfactory. The banks were allowed to sell loans to borrowers who would not normally qualify for these loans because they knew the government was insuring them against default.

No one forced anyone to do anything at all. The government (to my knowledge) did not force banks to make the loans. Banks did not force borrowers to take out the mortgage. What happened was that when the government reduced the requirements for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lending, they made it possible for lenders to make the sale and then transfer the risk to the government. Lenders were winning both ways. They made the sale (a sale that without the government's assistance they never would have made because of the risk) collecting points up front (buried in the loans) and then transferred the risk of the loan to the American people through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. A win/win situation for both the borrower and the lender.

By the way, according to RSR, home foreclosure is not the problem here. The problem that banks are having is that the home buying Market has died. People are not buying homes which means lenders are not lending money and making those sales. Foreclosure isn't the issue here... it is that no one is buying homes and that has been going on for almost two years now, if not longer.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Immie, these people go to Circuit City with a tape measure when they buy their big screen TV. They check with CR and read the reviews of the various models. They ask the salesperson many question before they buy

When it comes to a home, they want to sign the papers and get the hell out of the office

You can pass the buck to the closing agent if you wish - I know better. I am looking at a copy of the documents they signed while they are telling me they never did

Sure, and you provide those documents before the date of the closing so that they can read them in advance. You give them time to read them while they are in your office. You answer every question they have. You never decieve them. You never distract them when they have legitimate questions that they need to ask. You never rush them through a closing... is that right?

Immie

[red states rule]

Sure, and you provide those documents before the date of the closing so that they can read them in advance. You give them time to read them while they are in your office. You answer every question they have. You never decieve them. You never distract them when they have legitimate questions that they need to ask. You never rush them through a closing... is that right?

Immie

I do not close the loans Immie. However, by listeing to thses people they are in a hurry, wnat everything done yesterday, and if do not understand the documents I suggest they spend a couple hundred extra and have a lawyer go over them

[Immanuel]

I do not close the loans Immie. However, by listeing to thses people they are in a hurry, wnat everything done yesterday, and if do not understand the documents I suggest they spend a couple hundred extra and have a lawyer go over them

Well, I am sure that in your position things are different, but when I have been involved in a closing, and I have on a few but I can't claim to be an expert, the closing agent is always in a hurry. He wants you out of his office before the second hand makes it to the 12. They are pushy and they don't want you around any longer than you must be there. Time is money!

With you, seeing as how you are in the industry, I imagine things are different. You probably know what you AND they are doing so you are aware of it and they most likely don't try as much with you. But, if you were just a pawn that they will never see again... well, they don't need to worry about return customers.

Immie

[red states rule]

Well, I am sure that in your position things are different, but when I have been involved in a closing, and I have on a few but I can't claim to be an expert, the closing agent is always in a hurry. He wants you out of his office before the second hand makes it to the 12. They are pushy and they don't want you around any longer than you must be there. Time is money!

With you, seeing as how you are in the industry, I imagine things are different. You probably know what you AND they are doing so you are aware of it and they most likely don't try as much with you. But, if you were just a pawn that they will never see again... well, they don't need to worry about return customers.

Immie


I do know the folks I talk to do not have a clue as to how a loan works or what their escrow act is for

It can't be because they did not know - they signed the documents. If they don't understand what they are signing - who is to blame Immie?

Hint - it is NOT the agent or the bank that loaned them the money

[manu1959]

you may wish to do a tad of research on the who forced who to give subprime loans to high risk borrowers and who chose to underwrite those loans.....


Where did I say the banks forced anyone to take any loans at all?

Maybe you have not been following the discussion.

What happened was that the government opened up the market allowing banks to sell these loans on terms that the borrower would find quite satisfactory. The banks were allowed to sell loans to borrowers who would not normally qualify for these loans because they knew the government was insuring them against default.

No one forced anyone to do anything at all. The government (to my knowledge) did not force banks to make the loans. Banks did not force borrowers to take out the mortgage. What happened was that when the government reduced the requirements for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lending, they made it possible for lenders to make the sale and then transfer the risk to the government. Lenders were winning both ways. They made the sale (a sale that without the government's assistance they never would have made because of the risk) collecting points up front (buried in the loans) and then transferred the risk of the loan to the American people through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. A win/win situation for both the borrower and the lender.

By the way, according to RSR, home foreclosure is not the problem here. The problem that banks are having is that the home buying Market has died. People are not buying homes which means lenders are not lending money and making those sales. Foreclosure isn't the issue here... it is that no one is buying homes and that has been going on for almost two years now, if not longer.

Immie

[Immanuel]

you may wish to do a tad of research on the who forced who to give subprime loans to high risk borrowers and who chose to underwrite those loans.....

Why don't you provide a link?

Again, I didn't say anyone forced anyone. You are putting words in my mouth.

Immie

[mundame]

Dems caused the problem by demanding banks and lending institutions give loans to poor people who could not pay the money back. Then act shocked when they default on the loans



Three groups are mainly at fault.

1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their collaborators pushing banks to make bad loans to deadbeats.

2) The mortgage loan pushers, signing up people who had no way to pay; all of these guys should be in jail.

3) The blacks (and it was indeed mainly blacks: the Wall Street Journal reported on that) who signed up for liar loans and Alt-A loans and balloon loans they could not possibly pay. They HAVE collapsed our financial system: they should be blamed for that. Are they people, or aren't they? To defraud the system, to take a house and not pay for it, that's simply stealing and there is no defense for behavior of that sort. I can't understand ANYone who feels sorry for people who deliberately took out a loan and didn't pay it!

[mundame]

You know that if anyone on this forum took out a home loan and didn't bother to pay it, people would condemn us.

But these people......"they need HELP." "Help to stay in their homes."

Be sure, no one would "help" you or me if we did these things. Banks expect us to pay when we sign for a loan.

[Immanuel]

2) The mortgage loan pushers, signing up people who had no way to pay; all of these guys should be in jail.


3) The blacks (and it was indeed mainly blacks: the Wall Street Journal reported on that) who signed up for liar loans and Alt-A loans and balloon loans they could not possibly pay. They HAVE collapsed our financial system: they should be blamed for that. Are they people, or aren't they? To defraud the system, to take a house and not pay for it, that's simply stealing and there is no defense for behavior of that sort. I can't understand ANYone who feels sorry for people who deliberately took out a loan and didn't pay it!


You know that if anyone on this forum took out a home loan and didn't bother to pay it, people would condemn us.

But these people......"they need HELP." "Help to stay in their homes."

Be sure, no one would "help" you or me if we did these things. Banks expect us to pay when we sign for a loan.

According to RSR, and I have not done verified his numbers, but only 2-3% of loans are in foreclosure. With all the loans that #2 in your first post gave out over the last 20 years or so one would think those numbers would be much higher.

If people get into trouble through no fault of their own then I believe that we should help them. I do not believe we should help people in this situation simply because the market has collapsed. It may not be their fault, but I don't think we want a nanny state either.

From everything I have read the bailout is a horrible idea... but, we're going to get it whether we like it or not.

Immie

[mundame]

According to RSR, and I have not done verified his numbers, but only 2-3% of loans are in foreclosure. With all the loans that #2 in your first post gave out over the last 20 years or so one would think those numbers would be much higher.




They ARE a lot higher for the loans we are talking about: the subprime loans. Some 50% of them are in trouble, not performing up to date. A lot more than 2--3% are in foreclosure!

[mundame]

From everything I have read the bailout is a horrible idea... but, we're going to get it whether we like it or not.

Immie


So it seems. I don't like it, either.

[stang56k]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

Here's a video on this CRA scam...

[manu1959]

Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating By Tim Wise

"The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights."

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise09292008.html

".... for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble."

please tell me where mortgage brokers get the loans from that people signed up for .....

[Abbey Marie]

Fantastic video, stang. I already forwarded the link to people I know.

Rep for you, too.

[stang56k]

Your welcome.:salute:

[Immanuel]

They ARE a lot higher for the loans we are talking about: the subprime loans. Some 50% of them are in trouble, not performing up to date. A lot more than 2--3% are in foreclosure!

Not that I don't trust you, but do you have a link to that information. I'd like to see it.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Fantastic video, stang. I already forwarded the link to people I know.

Rep for you, too.

I watched that video and it would have earned Stang some rep from me as well... unfortunately, I have to spread some around first.

Nice find Stang.

Immie

[red states rule]

They ARE a lot higher for the loans we are talking about: the subprime loans. Some 50% of them are in trouble, not performing up to date. A lot more than 2--3% are in foreclosure!

As usal, your emotion are running wild, From the 9/5/08 edition of the NY Times

snip

About 2.75 percent of all home loans, or about 1.75 million mortgages, were in foreclosure at the end of June, up from 2.47 percent in March. That was the highest foreclosure rate since 1979, when the Mortgage Bankers first collected the data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/06lend.html

[mundame]

As usal, your emotion are running wild, From the 9/5/08 edition of the NY Times

snip

About 2.75 percent of all home loans, or about 1.75 million mortgages, were in foreclosure at the end of June, up from 2.47 percent in March. That was the highest foreclosure rate since 1979, when the Mortgage Bankers first collected the data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/06lend.html


Okay, RSR, good cite.

However, my post that you quote says that the rate is much, much higher in the subprime tranche of mortgages, which obviously it is.

[red states rule]

Okay, RSR, good cite.

However, my post that you quote says that the rate is much, much higher in the subprime tranche of mortgages, which obviously it is.

Mundame, please read s-l-o-w-l-y. Out of all mortgages only 2.75% are in default

That is what I have been saying all along

[Psychoblues]

This direct question was asked tonight from Sarah Palin. She puts the entire blame on "predatory lenders". Are you prejudiced jerks now satisfied?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Trigg]

This direct question was asked tonight from Sarah Palin. She puts the entire blame on "predatory lenders". Are you prejudiced jerks now satisfied?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

She also said. People shouldn't be buying a 300,000 dollar house if they can only afford a 100,000 dollar house. She said people need to live within their means.

By the end of her answer she put the blaim on both. :clap: