Obama's America. Malazy.

[/dev/null]

it truly is... DCTom really did, invent the internet...

Most of us were already aware that Tom was the majority of TSW screen names, but we didn't know that he was also Al Gore

[Koko78]

Apologist? Not quite. The Jimmy Carter comparison has been going on since before the 2008 election. It gets old. Anyone can edit videos of Presidents to make them seem exact.

 

What videos were you even talking about in the other thread??

 

The comparison to Jimmy Carter would be getting old, if Obama did not reconfirm it every day he is in office.

 

You libs need to face the truth that Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter 2.0. Maybe he'll follow in Carter's footsteps (even more than he is now) and make a better ex-president than he is a president.

[Taro T]

The comparison to Jimmy Carter would be getting old, if Obama did not reconfirm it every day he is in office.

 

You libs need to face the truth that Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter 2.0. Maybe he'll follow in Carter's footsteps (even more than he is now) and make a better ex-president than he is a president.

Might you not be giving him too much credit? I'd say he's more Carter 1.1.

[Oxrock]

Might you not be giving him too much credit? I'd say he's more Carter 1.1.

Hopefully not Beta. I'd hate to have the full version this time next year.

[DC Tom]

He's still not Carter-level bad.

 

And even if he were...it would be because of the failed policies of the Bush Administration. [/Pelosi]

[fjl2nd]

 

 

I used to work in D'Youville's financial aid department. Database programming - my first job in the computer industry. I still remember that day I accidentally deleted a whole shitload of student loan data from the database...

 

Their Financial Aid department was really bad. One of the reasons I left.

[fjl2nd]

No, the answers I wanted you to come up with were ones that you formulated based on a little honest research. Now I know it's not my place to assign you a research project but since you have already written a ten page paper on the subject, and show absolutely no knowledge of the dynamics behind the housing/economic crisis, I thought you might want a do-over. It is a sad state of affairs that you actually went to college with a major closely related to this subject and not only know nothing about it, but have perceptions that are 180 degrees opposed to it. You never should have had to get financial aid. They should have paid you for the right to indoctrinate you.

 

Indoctrinate me? Never heard of that one before...

 

Absolutely no knowledge of the subject? You haven't shown anything except partisan BS. One side was to blame - that is your stance!

 

Look, the root of the problem with the housing crisis was pushing mortgages onto lower income families. This goes back to President Clinton in the 1990's. Fannie Mae eased the credit requirements for loans it would purchase from banks in 99. This would encourage banks to lend to lower income families. This sort of policy continued through the Bush admin.

 

Banks continued to lend to more and more people with riskier credit. Subprime mortgages were still below 10% of total mortgages until 2004. Then, it shot to over 20% and stayed until 2006 at the peak of the bubble. Then, it 2007-2008, it all started to crash. Delinquencies on subprimes went up to 25% from 10-15% normally.

 

Then, we could get into the CDO's and all that good stuff. But, it seems pointless.

 

Bottom line: The government set up an environment where big investment banks could run rampant and do anything they wanted unchecked. You could even say the government encouraged them to do these things. Banks took no responsibility for what they were doing either. Many of them were making loans that they knew were just horrible. Like I said before, lots of blame to go around.

[RkFast]

Indoctrinate me? Never heard of that one before...

 

Absolutely no knowledge of the subject? You haven't shown anything except partisan BS. One side was to blame - that is your stance!

 

Look, the root of the problem with the housing crisis was pushing mortgages onto lower income families. This goes back to President Clinton in the 1990's. Fannie Mae eased the credit requirements for loans it would purchase from banks in 99. This would encourage banks to lend to lower income families. This sort of policy continued through the Bush admin.

 

Banks continued to lend to more and more people with riskier credit. Subprime mortgages were still below 10% of total mortgages until 2004. Then, it shot to over 20% and stayed until 2006 at the peak of the bubble. Then, it 2007-2008, it all started to crash. Delinquencies on subprimes went up to 25% from 10-15% normally.

 

Then, we could get into the CDO's and all that good stuff. But, it seems pointless.

 

Bottom line: The government set up an environment where big investment banks could run rampant and do anything they wanted unchecked. You could even say the government encouraged them to do these things. Banks took no responsibility for what they were doing either. Many of them were making loans that they knew were just horrible. Like I said before, lots of blame to go around.

 

 

This is a very good post.

 

 

To simplify it....everyone KNEW there was a bubble. I was looking at houses a lot during this time. NOT ONE realtor or mortgage guy failed to mention "the bubble we are in" and how one day it was going to all go away. EVERYONE knew what was going on....the subprime mortgages, the overpriced properties, on and on. The lenders, the sellers, the buyers, EVERYONE. And then when it all came crashing down, all of a sudden everyone was surprised and looking to blame other people?

 

What a crock of ****.

 

EVERYONE bought a one way ticket on that airplane they KNEW had two ****ty engines and a drunk Captian. EVERYONE. And when it crashed out into the cold Atlantic all the dumbass survivors had the unmitigated gall to act surprised.

Edited December 2, 2011 by RkFast

[3rdnlng]

Indoctrinate me? Never heard of that one before...

 

Absolutely no knowledge of the subject? You haven't shown anything except partisan BS. One side was to blame - that is your stance!

 

Look, the root of the problem with the housing crisis was pushing mortgages onto lower income families. This goes back to President Clinton in the 1990's. Fannie Mae eased the credit requirements for loans it would purchase from banks in 99. This would encourage banks to lend to lower income families. This sort of policy continued through the Bush admin.

 

Banks continued to lend to more and more people with riskier credit. Subprime mortgages were still below 10% of total mortgages until 2004. Then, it shot to over 20% and stayed until 2006 at the peak of the bubble. Then, it 2007-2008, it all started to crash. Delinquencies on subprimes went up to 25% from 10-15% normally.

 

Then, we could get into the CDO's and all that good stuff. But, it seems pointless.

 

Bottom line: The government set up an environment (requirment is more like it) where big investment banks could run rampant and do anything they wanted unchecked. You could even say the government encouraged them to do these things. Banks took no responsibility for what they were doing either. Many of them were making loans that they knew were just horrible. Like I said before, lots of blame to go around.

 

 

OK, we are now getting somewhere. The CRA actually started under Carter and was revised under Clinton. Do you know which congressmen/congresswomen defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right up to their implosion? Do you know what party got the vast amount of political donations from them? Do you know who was warning of problems with both GSE's as far back as 2004? What part did ACORN have in the whole mess? Find the answers to these questions and you'll have a better idea about what happened.

[Chef Jim]

This is a very good post.

 

 

To simplify it....everyone KNEW there was a bubble. I was looking at houses a lot during this time. NOT ONE realtor or mortgage guy failed to mention "the bubble we are in" and how one day it was going to all go away. EVERYONE knew what was going on....the subprime mortgages, the overpriced properties, on and on. The lenders, the sellers, the buyers, EVERYONE. And then when it all came crashing down, all of a sudden everyone was surprised and looking to blame other people?

 

What a crock of ****.

 

EVERYONE bought a one way ticket on that airplane they KNEW had two ****ty engines and a drunk Captian. EVERYONE. And when it crashed out into the cold Atlantic all the dumbass survivors had the unmitigated gall to act surprised.

 

My wife wanted to get into real estate in 2006 (I think). She wanted to attend a seminar put on by the company she wanted to work with. I sat there and listened to the presentation. as we left I looked at her and said........no thanks.

 

It was so easy to see. I'd just run the numbers. Our home that we bought in 2002 for $320k was valued at $650k in 2006. That's nearly 20% per year. If you run the numbers out an additional four year, not at the 20% it had risen per year but even at 10%, it would have been worth nearly $1 mill. This was a 1300 sq ft track home with a patio for a back yard. Come on....really??? It was so obvious to me.

[RkFast]

My wife wanted to get into real estate in 2006 (I think). She wanted to attend a seminar put on by the company she wanted to work with. I sat there and listened to the presentation. as we left I looked at her and said........no thanks.

 

It was so easy to see. I'd just run the numbers. Our home that we bought in 2002 for $320k was valued at $650k in 2006. That's nearly 20% per year. If you run the numbers out an additional four year, not at the 20% it had risen per year but even at 10%, it would have been worth nearly $1 mill. This was a 1300 sq ft track home with a patio for a back yard. Come on....really??? It was so obvious to me.

 

 

Same thing here....people were getting ARMs or interest only loans on original three bedroom capes on 50X100 lots in so-so neighborhoods for half a million. I didnt buy becuase to me, it made no sense. Im no genius (shut up, Tom) but still could see it just didnt wash. I just looked at the homes and said "NO WAY is this worth 3,500/month....NO WAY."

 

But a lot of people bought under these conditions and are now shocked at the situation they are in. As are the lenders and the govt, too.

Edited December 2, 2011 by RkFast

[DC Tom]

Im no genius

 

You can say that again.

 

(shut up, Tom)

 

And...you can say that again.

 

 

Wife had a coworker (wife does real estate closings, for the newbies's info) who in 2004 bought an 800k house on a 35k annual salary. The loan officer told her, point-blank: "You do understand that if you take this loan, in a few years we will foreclose on your house?"

 

A lot of people were that stupid..."I don't have to worry, I can refinance later when I have a better job making more money." Or mortgage brokers telling them that, or telling them worse: "This is the only way you can afford a house right now, you have to take this loan."

 

Really, the bubble and crash could have been mitigated by shooting mortgage brokers en masse. Worse than lawyers.

[RkFast]

You can say that again.

 

 

 

And...you can say that again.

 

 

Wife had a coworker (wife does real estate closings, for the newbies's info) who in 2004 bought an 800k house on a 35k annual salary. The loan officer told her, point-blank: "You do understand that if you take this loan, in a few years we will foreclose on your house?"

 

A lot of people were that stupid..."I don't have to worry, I can refinance later when I have a better job making more money." Or mortgage brokers telling them that, or telling them worse: "This is the only way you can afford a house right now, you have to take this loan."

 

Really, the bubble and crash could have been mitigated by shooting mortgage brokers en masse. Worse than lawyers.

 

 

I dont know....how much responsiblity does the broker really have to tell the idiots that took loans that would require 75% of their income to cover each month that they are !@#$ing nuts?

 

Plus, there is this....lets say a broker really did stop making loans or tried to talk couples out of bad loans. Black couples.Im thinking the result wouldnt be pretty.

Edited December 2, 2011 by RkFast

[DC Tom]

I dont know....how much responsiblity does the broker really have to tell the idiots that took loans that would require 75% of their income to cover each month that they are !@#$ing nuts?

 

The brokers (as opposed to officers - completely different animals) my wife typically had to deal with actively worked to convince people that they could afford loans the clearly couldn't afford. It wasn't "withholding information", it was providing "materially false information".

 

On the whole, mortgage officers (i.e. that work for banks, directly with the borrowers) are better behaved. Mortgage brokers (i.e. that work for themselves as go-betweens between buyers and banks) have absolutely no vested interest in the loan outside of closing the deal (mortgage defaults? So what...they don't own it, they only played matchmaker), and are scum.

 

Plus, there is this....lets say a broker really did stop making loans or tried to talk couples out of bad loans. Black couples.Im thinking the result wouldnt be pretty.

 

Changing "broker" to "officer"...yes, it wouldn't. And quite a bit of the low-income lending was promoted by government policy on the principle that, since minorities generally earn less, NOT lending to low-income families discriminated against minorities. A true triumph of touchy-feely bull **** over reality: the solution to solving disparity in lending to minorities isn't to lend them money they can't pay back, it's fixing the damn income disparity to begin with.

 

And take that to its logical interim result...now you've got lots of minorities who defaulted, were foreclosed on, and lost a good chunk of net worth...meaning that their cost of credit just went up, and the income disparity in real purchasing terms just got even worse. They're victimized by an incredibly short-sighted and stupid policy intended to help them.

[3rdnlng]

I dont know....how much responsiblity does the broker really have to tell the idiots that took loans that would require 75% of their income to cover each month that they are !@#$ing nuts?

 

Plus, there is this....lets say a broker really did stop making loans or tried to talk couples out of bad loans. Black couples.Im thinking the result wouldnt be pretty.

 

The borrower still had to "qualify" for the loan. That means that they must have an acceptable ratio of not only mortgage debt but overall debt to income. The kicker here is that they allowed "stated income" loans. You could get this type of loan just by signing a paper attesting that your income was whatever you wanted or needed it to be. The borrower would pay more in points or interest but so what? The worst case scenario would be that he would sell his house at a great profit if he found he couldn't afford it, that is if the bubble didn't inconveniently burst.

[Chef Jim]

You can say that again.

 

 

 

And...you can say that again.

 

 

Wife had a coworker (wife does real estate closings, for the newbies's info) who in 2004 bought an 800k house on a 35k annual salary. The loan officer told her, point-blank: "You do understand that if you take this loan, in a few years we will foreclose on your house?"

 

A lot of people were that stupid..."I don't have to worry, I can refinance later when I have a better job making more money." Or mortgage brokers telling them that, or telling them worse: "This is the only way you can afford a house right now, you have to take this loan."

 

Really, the bubble and crash could have been mitigated by shooting mortgage brokers en masse. Worse than lawyers.

 

And those people were idiots when they thought they would be making more money to afford their loan. Not a little more money....a LOT more money. I on the other hand was in a career that I was 100% responsible for my paycheck. So I took out one of those creative loans. And over the next 5 years watched my income go up 600%.

[ny33]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/business/how-a-financial-pro-lost-his-house.html?pagewanted=all

 

Read the above article for a great take on the nature of mortgages during the bust. The Times profiled a guy- a financial adviser, mind you- who says, verbatim: "We borrowed 100 percent of the purchase price. In fact, I was told I could borrow even more if I wanted. I had perfect credit and a solid income that was growing. But even so, when the lender approved us at 100 percent, it was more than I had expected. I remember thinking something like “Wow. I guess if they’re willing to lend it to us it must be O.K. I should have known better. No matter how well things are going, borrowing 100 percent of the purchase price of a home is not a good idea."

 

I apologize for not using a block quotation above, as the formatting of the message board did not allow me to use proper spacing. Anyway, on point: this guy basically is admitting that he knew the mortgage was unreasonable for him, and others in his community to take. He had no problem taking the mortgage, though, just so he could own a house.

 

Were banks predatory and perhaps expecting the majority of loans given to fail? Yes, of course. Were there scumbags like Angelo Mozilo who gave favorable, possibly illegal rates to guys like Chris Dodd and collected outrageous golden parachutes after being forced out? Sadly, there were. But the bottom line is this: if people were too stupid to not realize the massive risk they were taking by accepting mortgages they couldn't afford, they deserved what was coming for them. If you don't take the time to do the math on the most important financial investment you have to make- your mortgage- then, no, you really shouldn't be thinking about buying that $400,000 house on a $40,000 salary. People brought the mortgage crisis on themselves.

[DC Tom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/business/how-a-financial-pro-lost-his-house.html?pagewanted=all

 

Read the above article for a great take on the nature of mortgages during the bust. The Times profiled a guy- a financial adviser, mind you- who says, verbatim: "We borrowed 100 percent of the purchase price. In fact, I was told I could borrow even more if I wanted. I had perfect credit and a solid income that was growing. But even so, when the lender approved us at 100 percent, it was more than I had expected. I remember thinking something like “Wow. I guess if they’re willing to lend it to us it must be O.K. I should have known better. No matter how well things are going, borrowing 100 percent of the purchase price of a home is not a good idea."

 

 

I went through the exact same thing...right up to accepting that big a loan. We still financed almost 100% (97%, actually)...but at half what the bank said we could afford.

 

Really, I don't get what's so hard about saying "We can't afford it." Or even more, asking yourself "Should I really take at his word a guy who has a vested interest only in giving me as big a loan as possible, no matter what I can afford?" You really want to reform home lending, require that the mortgage officers and brokers receive most of their pay in bonuses or commission, in the form of mortgage securities backed by the mortgages they approve (junior rights, vested in 5 or 10 years). Then see how quickly subprimes go away.

[....lybob]

A Banker Speaks, With Regret

 

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

 

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

[RkFast]

I went through the exact same thing...right up to accepting that big a loan. We still financed almost 100% (97%, actually)...but at half what the bank said we could afford.

 

Really, I don't get what's so hard about saying "We can't afford it." Or even more, asking yourself "Should I really take at his word a guy who has a vested interest only in giving me as big a loan as possible, no matter what I can afford?" You really want to reform home lending, require that the mortgage officers and brokers receive most of their pay in bonuses or commission, in the form of mortgage securities backed by the mortgages they approve (junior rights, vested in 5 or 10 years). Then see how quickly subprimes go away.

 

I did it, Tom. Im STILL renting becuase like I said earlier....layout out massive montly payments for little value just didnt make sense for us. So I continue to rent. Not thrilled about it, but Im in a nice renovated house in a good neighborhood and we continue to scan the online listings for a house that works for us, financially and otherwise.

 

Im dumb...but maybe not so dumb.

 

By the way, thanks for the clarification on officer vs broker, above.

 

Good thread.