Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Does this sound familar? :thumbsup:

 

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2500675_pf.html

 

Banning 'liar loans': Lenders would have to document a borrower's income before originating a mortgage and verify a borrower's ability to repay the loan.

 

Damn I better buy a house now while I can still use stated income. That part is actually going to suck.

 

Mortgage help for unemployed: Unemployed homeowners with good credit would be eligible for low-interest loans to help them avoid foreclosures. The bill would spend $1 billion on such relief, using funds that had been directed for Troubled Asset Relief Fund bailing out the financial system

 

Great so we "help" people that are in debt by putting them further in debt. :lol:

 

Fixed-equity annuities: Prohibits tougher federal rules on life insurance products, in which customers pay a lump sum upfront in exchange for monthly income over time, pegged to an index. The Securities and Exchange Commission had been gearing up to step in and start requiring more disclosure for these products, often sold to seniors, that are currently regulated by state insurance commissioners. Lawmakers decided to stop the SEC from tougher federal regulation

 

My broker-dealer has been treating these as securities for probably 5 years now.

Posted
Damn I better buy a house now while I can still use stated income. That part is actually going to suck.

 

When we re-fi'd, we had to provide income tax records and pay stubs. I have no idea how they're going to do that any differently than they do it already. Sounds like a bit of legislation that serves no purpose other than to say "We're doing something! Hooray for us!"

Posted
When we re-fi'd, we had to provide income tax records and pay stubs. I have no idea how they're going to do that any differently than they do it already. Sounds like a bit of legislation that serves no purpose other than to say "We're doing something! Hooray for us!"

 

I think they won't be doing it any differently. You lender probably required it to cover their own ass. With the new law every lender will be required to do this to protect the idiot consumers. Kind of like my BD treating the equity indexed annuities as a security for years when by law they didn't have to, they just chose to.

Posted
Sounds like the 18th Amendment

 

To be fair there are a lot of things that we don't know how they're going to turn out until they're put to practical use.

Posted
To be fair there are a lot of things that we don't know how they're going to turn out until they're put to practical use.

 

All the more reason to make small, incremental, targeted changes than wide, sweeping, expensive ones.

Posted
All the more reason to make small, incremental, targeted changes than wide, sweeping, expensive ones.

 

That's what I was calling for with the Health Care crap.

Posted
To be fair there are a lot of things that we don't know how they're going to turn out until they're put to practical use.

 

 

Toms right. Expecting those retards in congress to understand that is stupid. They have a history of enacting laws that they have no !@#$ing idea of the ramifercations (sic) of how its been written and what will happen. IE take your pick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

3.5

Posted

For people afraid that this bill represents major change of any kind

 

1. no reform of the credit rating agencies

 

2. no reform of stockholders rights vis a vis CEO's

 

3. no obligation for stockbrokers to pursue their customers best interests

 

4. no reform on bank leverage

 

5. consumer protection agency will be run by Fed

 

6. no reform on credit lending

 

7. no meaningful reform on derivatives

 

Like the Health Bill a huge corporate hand job pretending to be something for the people.

 

I really wish Obama was 1/20th the socialist that people on this board paint him as instead of the corporate flunky he is.

Posted

Why do these idiots thing they can solve problem with these big sweeping changes?

 

Why do they HAVE to be big, and why do they HAVE to be sweeping?

 

I hate the argument "yeah, but, we have to do all of it for it to work?" Horsechit. And, even if that was true, then the plan sucks. Anything that has so many dependencies is almost certain to fail, because one of them is certain to not work as planned, and if the whole system is based on everything else, then the whole thing collapses.

 

And, as a professional implementer of systems, I can tell you: we don't go around using the "big bang" as a sound example on which to base methodology.

Posted
For people afraid that this bill represents major change of any kind

 

1. no reform of the credit rating agencies

 

2. no reform of stockholders rights vis a vis CEO's

 

3. no obligation for stockbrokers to pursue their customers best interests

 

4. no reform on bank leverage

 

5. consumer protection agency will be run by Fed

 

6. no reform on credit lending

 

7. no meaningful reform on derivatives

 

Like the Health Bill a huge corporate hand job pretending to be something for the people.

 

I really wish Obama was 1/20th the socialist that people on this board paint him as instead of the corporate flunky he is.

Thats twice youve said that. He is not a corporate flunky. He has managed to demonize just about every profitable sector of the economy.

 

Banks bad

Oil companies bad

health insurers bad

drug makers (were bad until he struck a deal with them)

hedge funds bad

investment banks bad

gm bondholders bad

credit card companies bad

chamber of commerce bad

 

sorry, youre wrong on this one

Posted
Thats twice youve said that. He is not a corporate flunky. He has managed to demonize just about every profitable sector of the economy.

 

Banks bad

Oil companies bad

health insurers bad

drug makers (were bad until he struck a deal with them)

hedge funds bad

investment banks bad

gm bondholders bad

credit card companies bad

chamber of commerce bad

 

sorry, youre wrong on this one

yeah he talks the talks he just doesn't walk the walk- he scolds, shows his indignation and out of that comes nothing at the end of the day- either he's bought or he is tremendously weak and has no balls- Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Rahm Emanuel, when I saw who he surrounded himself with I knew that meaningful change was a long shot - but I gave him a year before I started to be critical, probably waited too long - so sorry you are wrong on this one.

Posted
yeah he talks the talks he just doesn't walk the walk- he scolds, shows his indignation and out of that comes nothing at the end of the day- either he's bought or he is tremendously weak and has no balls- Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Rahm Emanuel, when I saw who he surrounded himself with I knew that meaningful change was a long shot - but I gave him a year before I started to be critical, probably waited too long - so sorry you are wrong on this one.

The only ones who would characterize Obama as a corporate flunky are the Huffington Post/Daily Kos uber lefty loons.

Posted
Why do these idiots thing they can solve problem with these big sweeping changes?

 

Why do they HAVE to be big, and why do they HAVE to be sweeping?

 

I hate the argument "yeah, but, we have to do all of it for it to work?" Horsechit. And, even if that was true, then the plan sucks. Anything that has so many dependencies is almost certain to fail, because one of them is certain to not work as planned, and if the whole system is based on everything else, then the whole thing collapses.

 

And, as a professional implementer of systems, I can tell you: we don't go around using the "big bang" as a sound example on which to base methodology.

Might want to drop that one. Sounds like you put in septic tanks.

×
×
  • Create New...