Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Daniel Gross: We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. On the Republican side ... there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

FedUpWithPols

MORE STORIES

Special Features

World Readable

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

No, rightwingers blame liberals and their affirmative-action-social-
engineering which distorts markets by providing benefits to people who may not be able to afford them.

I wish that O'Reilly had used this kind of language when interviewing Barney Frank the other day:

www.youtube.com

but no, he was way to easy on the guy.

"which distorts markets by providing benefits to people who may not be able to afford them."

Don't forget forcing lenders to make 125%LTV loans, balloon payment loans, interest-only loans, and teaser rate loans.

Or the fact, of the two sets of signatures on the agreement, one of them went to business school.

Yes, they MADE those innocent bankers loan them the money. They MADE all those underwriters accept applications with no income, assets or job verification.

Those evil poor people.

one of them went to business school.

#3 | Posted by Danforth

While I am sure they went to business, I doubt they graduated.

Or the fact, of the two sets of signatures on the agreement, one of them went to business school.

hell, in some cases, BOTH of them did.


Don't forget forcing lenders to make 125%LTV loans, balloon payment loans, interest-only loans, and teaser rate loans.

NO!!!! It was the fucking interest rate....not that other stuff!!!!

-Danni



I'll say one thing, the liars are spinning as fast as they can to sell this load of crap but it apparently isn't selling too well, thank God.
I with there were a thread where everyone revealed their honest beliefs, even right wing tools, because I'd really like to know if, when they post this crap, are they really dumb enough to believe it or are they at least smart enough to know that it is a right wing talking point designed by professionals to divert blame from Republicans, Bush and Greenspan. I could understand the attempt by righties to do it for their cause but sometimes I suspect they are pawns who believe the spin rather than partisans trying to help their side with questionable tactics.

it is a right wing talking point designed by professionals to divert blame from Republicans, Bush and Greenspan.

I love it!!! right on cue.

Stay after Reagan and Greenspan and disgregard the rest of these facts.


it is a right wing talking point designed by professionals to divert blame from Republicans, Bush and Greenspan.

I love it!!! right on cue.

It is also an attempt to preserve their (i.e. rightys) form of unregulated free markets. For the forseeable future, the ideology of unregulated free markets is dead, dead, dead!

"Stay after Reagan and Greenspan and disgregard the rest of these facts."

I don't disregard any fact but I also don't ignore the obvious logical progression of 1% interest rates, variable rate mortgages, housing values rise at incredible rate creating equity, homeowners use equity in place of wages, we pass 2004 election, rates rise, bubble bursts leaving homeowners on average $80,000 poorer. You add all those homeowners $80,000 together and you have a huge amount of equity which just disappeared leaving banks with mortgages without adequate collateral.
That's where we are today.
If interest rates were never at or near 1% none of this would or could ever have happened.
Spin it any other way you want for whatever reason you want but it will never change the truth of it.
Greenspan created the bubble, the bubble burst, that caused the mortgage melt down.
It isn't exactly a partisan argument when you consider that the deregulation was primarily done by Republicans and their only argument now is that the evil Dems wouldn't let they UN-DEREGULATE the banking industry they deregulated with glee.

Republican argument is....the evil Dems wouldn't let us UN-DEREGULATE....it's pathetically hilarious.

yes, Danni-it is hilarious.

The repubs now have their "unregulated" Utopia.
And we're ALL looking for x-tra large condoms-and for some really big tubs of Vaseline-for the ass-raping we're about to receive.

It's funny to watch them contort themselves like that(you'd think, some of that shit would leave some serious scarring...)-but they can't contort themselves fast enough to cover for THEIR side.

"No, rightwingers blame liberals and their affirmative-action-social-
engineering which distorts markets by providing benefits to people who may not be able to afford them."

Except when Bush was trying to take credit for the false economic recovery caused by the housing boom. Then it was fine. Then he was saying we should all own homes. And his apologists were quick to point out how home ownership climbed under his watch.

And really, nobody forced all these financial institutions to keep buying up these bad loans. Everyone was eager to cash in this while the going was good. Underwriting standards just kept getting more and more lax and people were more than willing to buy up all the shit. That wasn't the government's fault.

You can pretend otherwise but nobody with a scrap of sense is going to think you are anyhting but a hack.

It is also an attempt to preserve their (i.e. rightys) form of unregulated free markets.

No it isn't. I do not blame a party for this mess. Many others here do. It is stupid.

Danni has to believe Reagan and Greenspan are mostly to blame for this when they aren't.

It is the equivilent of blaming Henry Ford for a car crash that occured yesterday.

"Danni has to believe Reagan and Greenspan are mostly to blame for this when they aren't."

Balone, 1% interest rates created the bubble, it is inescapable, without the bubble no crisis no matter how hard you try to spin it.
Reagan is the father of deregulation, no deregulation, no crisis.

A real estate agent called a right-wing radio program this morning and tried to explain how people in his business and the banks greedly set-up and then sucked-up these questionable mortgages and got very, very rich in the process.

He wasn't allowed to talk. What a surprise.

You know it's funny. When I fuck up it's My fault. When a Righty Tighty fucks up it's always someone elses fault. AMAZING.

Larry

When I fuck up it's My fault.

You must have to go to confession an awful lot.

There is plenty of blame to go around LM on both sides. Nobody was stopping the freight train bound for the broken bridge. Hussein and McCain may have meekly spoken up +/- 2 yrs ago, but sure did not do much in the meantime.

"Plenty of blame to go around...."

I've learned this is a sort of dodge, an excuse to level no blame at all.

Bush and the Republican Party bragged constantly about the very conditions they now describe as catastrophic. You claim the credit; you also get the goat.

Blame the poor, fuck the poor, kill the poor, then go to church and praise Jesus.

I've been poor.
I've been rich.

Rich is better.

Being 19 again would beat rich any time.
(Especially if I got to keep my stock picks; More Xerox and TI.)

Greed is suicidal, like the parasite killing the host, and just as stupid. I've never met a successful rancher who was greedy.


But when 85% of the population believes they are immortal because they joined the right church, well folks, nature has little patience with stupid.

Greed is suicidal, like the parasite killing the host, and just as stupid. I've never met a successful rancher who was greedy.


Didn't you watch "Chisum"?

Blame the poor, fuck the poor, kill the poor, then go to church and praise Jesus.


Kill the poor? Well, I do the others a lot but I haven't killed anybody.

'Didn't you watch "Chisum"?"

Posted by eberly

I don't recall if I did.
John Wayne was an asshole and his cigarettes killed him.
Good riddance.

I've been ranching cattle in Texas in one way or another for over half a century.

Excellent!

Wrong! Plain and simple... You loan 130% of the home value and loan money to people than can not pay the premium.

Real estate agent gets commission.
Loan officer gets commission.
CEO gets >$100M.
Buyer steals pipes.
Taxpayer gets the shaft.


Any questions, suckers?

Interesting how so many people can remain so ignorant, even after so much information has been posted. They are just too lazy to read actual links about this issue, they would rather live in their delusions.

We have an economy based on debt. Float the debt and you float the economy. Eventually the debt weighs everyone down.

"Eventually the debt weighs everyone down.'

Posted by STIRSUMUP

In that respect, when I was a kid of seven, I recall an old man saying of his debt, "I'll be dead by then."

Asshole.

The economy is overfinancialized, that is lenders have conspired to drive everyone into their indenture. So much so that taxes have been lowered just so the banks could have the difference. Then Insurance Companies and the Real Estate Industry has joined the Military Industrial Complex to render Government powerless, which is why Shrub was perfect for that role. The more waste the more profits for crooked gamers of a broken system.

Learn more, read Michael Hudson or Paul Craig Roberts. They explain the whole scam in ways forbidden in commercial media.

GREEDY U.S.Banks & Real Estate Cos."Created" this Financial Apocalypse!!!

In fact the "corruption and blatant greed" of big American banks and real estate companies precipitated today's financial crisis! Housing and real estate prices were artificially jacked up since the early 1970's in a "price fixing" ploy by America's banks and real estate firms.

How else could the price of housing go from approximately 2 and a half times the average worker's annual salary in the 1960's (say $15.000 to $20.000 per house) to $300.000 to $500.000 per house in the year 2003? Most US Federal Govt workers plus teachers etc. earn,even these days in the area of $25.000 to $45.000 per annum.So 2 and a half times say a $30.000 salary is $75.000 - and just where can you buy a half decent house for that money now in the USA?
Whats really happened in this financial crisis is that the big banks and real estate companies have,in their monopolistic greed,so overpriced the housing market that it was out of the reach of most American workers.Fewer and fewer people were buying homes.What "panicky" banks and real estate firms did next,just for their greedy cash flow was to start giving loans to almost anybody,because making some money on quick loans was better than having nothing at all coming in!

The biggest CROOKS in the banking and real estate market didn't care what happened because they made sure to fully insulate themselves from any financial or criminal "liabilities" plus now with the "bail out" (which they of course engineered) they have sucked in even more piles of easy money from the taxes of average Americans workers! Touche Wall St.!

Actually I think the wingnuts believed their own trickle down bullshit... that and the fact they had run out of prime loans clients because of property flipping that stuck many people in over priced properties. So the lenders had to look for new horizons.

Besides truth be told even prime loan clients got upside down in their mortgages... because wages went stagnant.

Then you add to the fact that manufacturing here went away and the hard goods installed in new homes were imported and installed at inflated prices.... and jobs were not created domestically to create the hard goods.. like what used to happen during real estate booms.

Then there was the cost of building material that went through the roof because they were competing with Haliburton for the lumber sheet rock etc. used for rebuilding Iraq.

But go ahead blame the poor victimized financial experts that loaned to quasi welfare recipients awaiting the trickle to come down their way... oh wait the financial "experts" set the standards... and underwrote the loans.

Republicans are such high maintenance hand wringing crybaby doom gloom drama queens... especially when they shit the bed.

#27 Ignorance and delusions fit well, real well
#28 Consumer so called wealth based on debt
meaning you "own" nothing or it's debt leveraged.
Yes CRA

The MF assholes that dems keep giving hand outs to will bring the country down. THOSE PEOPLE who will not pick up the trash in their own yard, who never work, and who spend their kids money on drugs would love to drag us down to their level. Obama will let it happen.

How bout we spread a little of the blame around? How bout this golden oldie from 2005?

www.nytimes.com

Oh, yeah. We had a GOP president, a GOP friendly Supreme Court, a GOP-run FDIC, a GOP-run Treasury, a GOP-run Department of Justice, and a GOP Congress, all running scared to kowtow to the demands of ACORN and their clientle of poor minorities who weren't going to vote for Republicans anyway.

Bull. Farking. Crap.

its a tottal croc of shit and im surprised we havent had a stronger response from the left on this false claim. Banks were COMPETING to give out bad loans. That how the whole process eventually devolved into interest only payments and no income verification loans. You think this would be a national phenomenon with 223,000 foreclosures in a month happens when it is only "poor minorities" being affected. Give me a break

www.youtube.com

The Republican power structure is compelled to blame this on everything but an unregulated capitalist system that ran amok in an orgy of greed. A situation that they encouraged through their belief in deregulation, laissez faire, trickle down, supply side and all the other fancy names they invented to enrich corporations, the well-connected and the wealthy with a travesty of free market principles. The rest of us meanwhile suffer the downside effects of a free market capitalism perverted in such a fashion.

At least it's understandable that they should want to cover their asses and keep the gravy train going full steam ahead. What do all their faithful sheep who are suffering along with the rest of us get out of it though?

How convolutedly humorous this blame can be.

The poor are to blame for this credit crises. Well, last time I looked, throughout the history of all economies of mankind, the poor don't give out credit, the rich do.

Oh, yeah, Wall Street just packaged up bazillions of loans the working poor and lower middle class took out on $60,000 homes in the inner city. Yep. That's what did it.

I'm surprised the GOP hasn't figured out a way to work Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity into their convenient theories.

Damn poor folks and their lust for granite counter tops!!

the poor don't give out credit, the rich do.

Kewpie doll for you.

They are trying to re-enliven the old Myth of the Welfare Cadillac in a different form.

Besides truth be told even prime loan clients got upside down in their mortgages... because wages went stagnant.

Unfortunately, I think that you are 100% right. If enough people had jobs that paid enough, they would be able to pay their mortgage! The REAL solution to this problem is not going to emerge until we put Americans back to work with well paying jobs.

It will take YEARs, a lot of legislation and a lot of what the wealthy likes to call "class warfare" to solve our problems. Note: the wealthy have been practicing "class warfare" for decades. However they just don't call it that. They call it deregulation, trickle down economics, free trade and globalism.

"Don't forget forcing lenders to make 125%LTV loans, balloon payment loans, interest-only loans, and teaser rate loans."

The worst teaser rate loans were called KOSI or negative ammortization loans. In addition to starting with a very low teaser rate that goes up after 3-6 months, those loans had a provision allowing someone to make a minimum payment that was lower than the interest owed every month. By making the minimum payment, the borrower sees the principle on the loan go up. When that balance goes 10% higher than the orginal balance, the loan locks in at a still higher rate and requires a principle and interest payment every month. But since the borrower was qualified for the loan based on the minimum payment, most of thesee people have no chance of making the full payment once they lock in. The product was acually designed for wealthy people who make their money in large chunks during the year and who would pay the principle down when those windfalls come in. But most people who got them did not fall into this category. The way the product was marketed by most banks, it was a guarnateed foreclosure in almost every case.

my 90 year old father complained loudly when he moved and his mortgage jumped from 2.5% to 3.25%,between the fifties and sixties. His house cost twice his annual income. How many can say that today?

In Sweden the average bus driver owns more than one home. By own I mean paid for. Many own two,onein the country and onein the city. Bus drivers cannot pull that off here because WallStreet's Class Warfare has destroyed their ability to earn a fair wage.

Many so called "Conservatives" laud the low prices China has delivered to our door, as consumer goods. But more significant costs: homes, cars, gasoline, education, food have gone through the roof. Wages have not kept up because Immigration is unregulated, Unions have been crushed and foriegn slaves and indentured servants perform most manufacturing.

"Conservative Think Tanks" have dominated academia, particularly in the soft scienceof economics. They have rationalized a return to a medieval distribution of health and wealth. Nations that resist our domination are isolated or killed. Our 1700 military bases are used for intimidation.Without an Industrial base to support it, it an only lead to collapse.

Yes, blame the poor, for their vigorous exercise of flawed policy.

What really differentiates the US from other developed Nations is our reliance on military force (since WWII) and a mind bogglingly expensive completely commercialized media. These two factors are powerful distorters of truth. But, eventually, even here reality has the last word.

Many so called "Conservatives" laud the low prices China has delivered to our door, as consumer goods. But more significant costs: homes, cars, gasoline, education, food have gone through the roof. Wages have not kept up because Immigration is unregulated, Unions have been crushed and foriegn slaves and indentured servants perform most manufacturing.

Are you saying that some people (we will call them republicans) are not really conservative???

I got jumped by several lefties yesterday for saying that.

We passed the bailout bill, the Fed is coughing up another 900 B but the markets don't seem to notice, I wonder why???
Perhaps it is because we bailed out the banks with money we don't have just like we conducted the war in Iraq with money we don't have.
We will not begin to straighten out our economy until we back up those debts with taxes. As FDR realized, we will not bluff our way out of this crisis. We need real solutions and real solutions are made out of real money. When and if we get serious about fixing our economy it will be done by doing the OBVIOUS!
Raise taxes on the wealthy as FDR did. Make the bailout dollars real dollars not just inflated imaginary money.
This is the idea I intend to promote every day from now on. Some how politicians will be forced to listen to voices of reason and stand up to the well heeled greed fuckers who created this crisis.

I don't blame the poor per se. Pretty much the blame has to lay at the feet of the stupid and greedy, i.e. the people who took the loans. Some of those were poor families who saw a chance to buy a house "like everyone else"; some were upper-middle-class families who grabbed onto more house than they could possibly afford just because they could.

They were stupid. They were greedy. Had our union-run schools taught them about economics, they wouldn't have taken the bait. They'd have bought as much house as they could actually afford, and there wouldn't be a foreclosure crisis.

Government regulation of the markets is an answer to this, but it's the wrong answer.

"Had our union-run schools taught them about economics"....they would have demanded that corporations allow unions, would have earned the wages necessary to pay the bills.

"Government regulation of the markets is an answer to this, but it's the wrong answer."

The what, pray tell, would be the answer???

The lack of government regulations is what allowed the catastrophe to develop.

I managed to reply to your post without insults though my anger about the situation makes it difficult. People do not yet realize, at all, the repurcussions to their own personal lives that this catastrophe will bring about. I am furious about what is happening and I believe that either the government gets serious about dealing with it or else we ALL are going to suffer far more than we even imagine.

much the blame has to lay at the feet of the stupid and greedy, i.e. the people who took the loans.



sorry valis but you have it wrong. think of something....

A person wants to buy a house, the zero down, Adjustable rate mortgages give them that opportunity,

BUT...

what is the buyer and the mortgager investing in the property?

the mortgager is providing the funds 100% ofthe funds, often MORE than that as closing costs and other fees are rolled into the Mortgage.

The buyer is investing NOTHING, zero down is zero down.

soooooo, it is a no brainer, use other people's money to make money (equity by a rising home value).

well the bottom drops out.

who loses? the mortgager loses the reduced value of the home, to which you must add loss of value from having to have a fire sale to unload property, legal and other foreclosure fees, etc. in some cases this could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

the buyer walks away, for as little at $900, with MAYBE a black mark on their credit report.

who is the greedy one in the formula? both

BUT who is stupid?

they wouldn't have taken the bait.


what bait? Free money to make significant cash?

you do understand the concept of flipping a house, right?

Buy a house and sell it for more than it is worth.

you buy the house with other peoples money, you possibly invest other peoples money to renovate the house, you sell the money, lender makes a little and you make alot.

the downside is well

NOTHING.

Joe buys a house for $80k and lives in it for 5 years with mo improvements made.

Joe sells it to Ralph for $150k who puts $5k into it and flips it for $200k to Ed.

Ed gets an interest only loan on it with the intention of making a killing on it in this hot market but the bottom falls out of it. The real value of his $200k house is only about $120k.

Why should we feel sorry for Ed or the bank? Greed got both of them.

"Why should we feel sorry for Ed or the bank? Greed got both of them."

We shouldn't but unfortunately when you multiply that situation a few million times it makes for problems for the rest of us. It isn't about Ed or the bank it is about the American economy. Justice is not a concept for economists. You seem to want justice while the economy swirls in the toilet. Forget justice, let's do what we need to do to stop the swirling in the toilet no matter if some undeserving idiots benefit or not.

Sniper

Lets continue with the picture you have painted.

Ed has been living in an apartment that is to small for his family because that is all he could afford; plus his credit is bad. For just a wee bit more than his rent, an interest only, no down payment, no documentation mortgage he could get into a house that meets his family's needs, what would you do if you were Ed?

Also, what is the downside for Ed if he defaults on his mortgage?

Considering all the experts including the president, the Sec. of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Fed etc. were telling Ed that if he bought that house it would continue to increase in value perhaps he can be forgiven for not being capable of predicting the future.
OK, you can blame him for his mistake but how about all those who were cheering him on and telling him, at the time, he was smart for buying real estate???

Republican, Democrat, Christian, Atheist, Conservative, and Liberal are emotionally charged words that mean different things to different people and therby obstruct communication. I am often labeled a Communist, because I have noticed that Marx was correct about almost everything. But Russia, China, Cuba and North Kora have never really followed Marx's economic teaching. The successful period of the American labor movement is a better example of Marxism playing out. That broad prosperity has been squelched with class warfare that begins with misinformation.

Marx aside, no one can run a company without embracing Conservative principals.

Be honest. The dividend for this is big, but slow to materialize. Government and Advertising violate this simple value.

Avoid judging other peoples lifestyles and values. (Mind your own business). Avoid war, whenever possible.

Careful what you borrow. It can make you lots of money very fast in an upturn, but destroy you faster in a downturn.

Religion, free market theory, deregulation, health care costs have nothing to do with these simple important conservative principals.

Fire Departments, Libraries, Roads, Sewers and Schools are Socialism in action. Health Care is as well in the most prosperous countries. Privatizing water and electricity has been an abject failure, if costs matter. This is because they are natural monopolies which will never conform to free market principals. Socialism should not be a dirty word, but Wall Street's class warfare has rendered it so. Their bullshit has paid huge dividends and they aim to continue.

Conservatism is not enough. One should also embrace these "Liberal Values", invention and change. The need for change drives life. But you can never afford to invent and adapt if you don't maintain a Conservative Base.

Also, what is the downside for Ed if he defaults on his mortgage?

#55 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

If he doesn't have any other assets????? none

If he gets kicked out then he has to find a roof for his family but it was already pointed out that the mortgage payment was about the same as the rent payment....not paying is not paying so Ed is in the same boat either way. It just takes longer to kick Ed out of a home he owns but defaults on than it takes to kick him out of something he rents. (I think).

Again, not being able to put down 20% should have forced Ed to purchase mortgage insurance to protect the lender for this risk. Lenders are shit because they were not requiring this....this is the crux of this problem to me. There would be a minimal amount of default if mortgage insurance had been purchased. There would be a backdrop for these lenders.

No one who actually understands how economics works would take out a zero down, 100% (+), 50-year, 5-1 ARM, 80-10-10, negatively amortized, interest only, etc. mortgage. If you've been taught conservative economic principles, you know those instruments are stupid. Intelligent home buyers also don't take on a payment more than 25% of their income. These are simple concepts which none of our kids learn in schools.

I didn't catch if it's part of this stupid bailout or something proposed by one of the candidates, but someone was talking the other day about renegotiating loans so the payment is no more than a third of income. That sounds like a government idea, since that's what HUD charges. To me that's just preposterous -nobody should be paying a third of their income to purchase a house. That's bad economics.

My 15-year fixed rate mortgage runs 9% of my income. Cars I buy with cash. I don't have a big house or a fancy car, but I sleep well at night.

Of course what's scarier is that if they're negotiating DOWN to 33%, that means people were willingly walking into mortgages higher than that percentage of their income. That's stupid.

"No one who actually understands how economics works would take out a zero down, 100% (+), 50-year, 5-1 ARM, 80-10-10, negatively amortized, interest only, etc. mortgage. "

Nor would anyone who actually understands how economics works loan to people like this.

My 15-year fixed rate mortgage runs 9% of my income. Cars I buy with cash.

Mine is about 14% and like you I have no other debt.

However, I put over $250K down on my home.


"No one who actually understands how economics works would take out a zero down, 100% (+), 50-year, 5-1 ARM, 80-10-10, negatively amortized, interest only, etc. mortgage. "


Nor would anyone who actually understands how economics works loan to people like this.

agreed on both counts.

"Again, not being able to put down 20% should have forced Ed to purchase mortgage insurance to protect the lender for this risk. Lenders are shit because they were not requiring this....this is the crux of this problem to me. There would be a minimal amount of default if mortgage insurance had been purchased. There would be a backdrop for these lenders."

Excellent point.

"There would be a minimal amount of default if mortgage insurance had been purchased."

Riiight. And how much have we had to spend bailing out AIG???
Virtually no insurance company could have withstood the amount of loss that is occurring right now. The most that it could have done would have been to slightly slow the spiral into the toilet.
I think that perhaps we need to evaluate home values over a longer period of time and use the average for the value. Artifically low interest rates created rapid increases in value which evaporated when interest rates went back up, if lenders had appraised homes over a ten year period that spike in value would not have effected the amount of money a mortgage company was willing to risk.

"Again, not being able to put down 20% should have forced Ed to purchase mortgage insurance to protect the lender for this risk."

As if millions of homes have not already dropped over 20% in value.

"Pretty much the blame has to lay at the feet of the stupid and greedy, i.e. the people who took the loans. "

I think the problem lies more with the people who lent unqualified borrowers money and who then sold the loans to someone else pretending that actual underwriting took place before the loan was approved.

In many cases the borrowers were clueless as to how finances work and they were just listening to the people who sold them the loan. Their thinking went like this "The bankers are supposed to be experts. They aren't going to lend me money I can't pay back because its against their interest to do so. So if I qualify for this loan, I should be able to pay it back...."

I'm not saying it is OK for people to be ignorant. Those people are learning a hard lesson and deservedly so. But the bankers are paid to know better. They knowingly lent money to people would never be able to pay it back. They simply didn't give a shit about long term consequences.

Now we are basically approving their behavior by bailing them out.

Riiight. And how much have we had to spend bailing out AIG???

Danni, you don't know shit about anything do you??

AIG is in trouble because of investment decisions......not poor underwriting.


Virtually no insurance company could have withstood the amount of loss that is occurring right now.

Again, you don't know shit about anything. You sure as hell don't know anything about how an insurance company charges for their products. you are 1 million light years away from being an actuary. You don't even know what that means.


Artifically low interest rates created rapid increases in value which evaporated when interest rates went back up, if lenders had appraised homes over a ten year period that spike in value would not have effected the amount of money a mortgage company was willing to risk.


Yawn.....If you are reading these threads you will see that 99% of what is discussed here relates to lending practices, not interest rates.

Keep talking to yourself though...

Keep in mind that at any given time there is always a certain amount of mortgage default going on. Obviously that has increased significantly recently due to flaws in lending practices over the past 10 years. If proper discipline had been applied then there would still perhaps be an increase in defaults but it could have been tolerated by the banking industry without a bailout.

They knowingly lent money to people would never be able to pay it back. They simply didn't give a shit about long term consequences.


Now we are basically approving their behavior by bailing them out.

I believe they knew then that they would get a bailout now.

The mortgage industry is looking at losses in the trillions and you think any insurance company could have withstood that loss. You are full of crap.

"Artifically low interest rates created rapid increases in value which evaporated when interest rates went back up, if lenders had appraised homes over a ten year period that spike in value would not have effected the amount of money a mortgage company was willing to risk."

REad it again, perhaps this time you will understand the logic. Then, if you disagree with the statement either explain why of STFU.
Tell me how appraising values over a longer period of time would not have prevented all these bad mortgages....if you dare...I'll be waiting for your response.

As if millions of homes have not already dropped over 20% in value.

Posted by danni

Again, you just can't wrap those arms of yours around this can you?

By forcing either 20% down or purchase PMI, many bad loans wouldn't have occured meaning that some of these real estate transactions wouldn't have occured either.

"I believe they knew then that they would get a bailout now."

I suspect they were expecting a bail out but at what point I'm not sure.

One thing is certain: We are leading future business leaders to believe that should they get themselves into this type of trouble, we will bail them out. We can't expect better behavior in the future when bad behavior is consistently rewarded.

"By forcing either 20% down or purchase PMI, many bad loans wouldn't have occured meaning that some of these real estate transactions wouldn't have occured either."

That may be true but pretending that government forced lenders to make loans without down payments is ridiculous.
When it is all boiled down if Greenspan had not cut interest rates to 1% the housing bubble would never have been created so it wouldn't have burst...but then George Bush would not have been reelected in 2004. His Daddy complained loudly about Greenspan not lowering interest rates to enable his reelection, Greenspan did not make that mistake the second time around.
It is simply inescapable, the housing bubble created the mess, what enabled the bubble is the real cause. The rest is just deflection of the blame.

Who's the skunk in the room. Well Jimmy Carter gave us the Ayatollahs controlling Iran, and his initiative enabled this mortgage crisis to develop. The politicians providing "bread and circuses" to their constituents are the ones who should be in the slammer for setting up this crisis.

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to package "bad loans" made pursuant to the CRA, created during the Carter administration, the fuse was lit and the explosives would inevitably eventually detonate.

The compulsion to make bad loans to "under-served" (read unable to afford and make payments on debt) minorities was bad enough. There were restraints as there was no market for the loans. Then when Fannie and Freddie were directed to reduce the standards for acquiring and packaging loans, the fat was in the fire.

There had been restraint when there was no mechanism to cash in. Once the market was available for bad loans, the incentive to make bad loans was there and the entrepreneurs became active marketers of the questionable but valuable negotiable paper.

BOOM. BOOM. Comes the explosion of the credit markets with all of this paper that transmuted into non-performing status, circulating.

Who established the situation? Why the leftist ideologues who contrived this "something for nothing" scheme as if providing people with loans they could not service was conferring a boon on them. Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Dodd, and others "investigating the problem," had shortly before the crisis emerged, made declarations concerning the solvency of Fannie and Freddie. The foxes are pretending that they are not the ones who were in the henhouse. The great leftist deceivers still proceed under the delusion that fiat can make an economy operate. And they are either so dense, or so depraved and lacking in integrity that they are trying to shift blame for the failures they orchestrated.

The lament of leftists that they were just trying to help the poor, is presented as an excuse for their cupidity. Their model of how the economy operates will provide a prototype for future economic disasters. It was too much government intervention, politicians commanding that bad loans be made and providing a market for them, that led to this debacle.

Whatever became of "tarring and feathering" and riding politicians out of town on a rail? Or is that purported practice just an urban myth? Jimmy Carter should at least be disgraced with some type of "Ig-noble Award" for his participation in creating the Iran problem and in the genesis of the current financial crisis. Foreign policy and domestic problems can be traced back to arguably the worst President in the history of this great country. But a competitor, Obama, waits in the wings for an opportunty to display his abilities in forging misbegotten policies.

We are also leading homeowners to believe the same thing. Take two guys who both bought houses they can't afford. One of them gets a second job and works 70 hours a week to pay for his house. The other guy works 40 hours a week and defaults. With McCain's plan the government will buy the second guy's mortgage and renegotiate his payments. Why is that fair?

The mortgage industry is looking at losses in the trillions and you think any insurance company could have withstood that loss.

No, the insurance industry would have withstood that loss. The premiums charged would have taken care of it. the insurance industry knows how to charge for exposure.....you don't.

why do you think lenders were creating loans that got people out of purchasing that insurance? Because it was a substantial premium....enough to tolerate this problem. First of all, again, by having to purchase this insurance, many many many many many many many crappy loans would have been avoided.

case closed.

"Artifically low interest rates created rapid increases in value which evaporated when interest rates went back up, if lenders had appraised homes over a ten year period that spike in value would not have effected the amount of money a mortgage company was willing to risk."

stupid statement. Lenders don't appraise homes....real estate appraisers do and appraising a home "over a ten year period" isn't easy to do especially in areas where growth has been significant. And AGAIN, disiplined lending practices LIKE I HAVE MENTIONED would have kept all of this from happening.


That may be true but pretending that government forced lenders to make loans without down payments is ridiculous.

oh, you stole bob's playbook did you? I NEVER SAID THE GOVT FORCED LENDERS TO MAKE LOANS WITHOUT DOWN PAYMENTS!

Oh, and it IS true....not "may be" true.

When it is all boiled down if Greenspan had not cut interest rates to 1% the housing bubble would never have been created

If Henry Ford hadn't invented the automobile then my best friend wouldn't have been killed in that car crash in 1988.

LOL

Danni, what do you suppose is the average age of a mortgage in default right now???? over 10 years.....less than 5 years...Anybody care to guess?

........but then George Bush would not have been reelected in 2004. His Daddy complained loudly.......

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....keep going danni......blah blah blah blah blah.

:-(

AIG is in trouble because of investment decisions......not poor underwriting.

Everything that I have heard indicates that poor underwriting IS the cause of AIG's trouble. AIG's underwriting standards for evaluating collateralized debt obligations (CDO) was what got them into trouble. AIG improperly assessed the risk of CDOs and consequently collected to little in fees to insure them. AIG isn't exclusively to blame because some of the CDOs got higher investment grades than they should have. The ratings industry is also going to take a hit on this debacle.

The FBI is investigating. I suspect that many people are going to eventually end up giving some money back and going to jail.

"The premiums charged would have taken care of it. the insurance industry knows how to charge for exposure.....you don't."

Uh-huh...tell that to the homeowners who never recovered their losses after hurricanes.

You still won't even recognize the obvious effects of the 1% interest rate which have been blamed by most economists for the crisis.

"Danni, what do you suppose is the average age of a mortgage in default right now???? over 10 years.....less than 5 years...Anybody care to guess?"

I am guessing here, but I would guess about 5 years or so.

"........but then George Bush would not have been reelected in 2004. His Daddy complained loudly......."

Just can't face the reality of how evil those bastards you voted for really are can you???

Must suck to be you.

"If Henry Ford hadn't invented the automobile then my best friend wouldn't have been killed in that car crash in 1988."

Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile.

"The FBI is investigating."

Don't tell Eberly, it will force him to confront reality.

By the way Eberly, you never explained why you don't think that averaging appraisal value over a period of years wouldn't solve the problem of spiking real estate values which create the bubble and the crisis....

I'm still waiting....I'm sure you have a brilliant answer for me.....

Everything that I have heard indicates that poor underwriting IS the cause of AIG's trouble.

Fedup, we need to agree on what you mean by "underwriting". I am talking about when you look at a business and decide is will cost $5,000 to insure the building and personal property and you accept that risk. AIG has not lost money doing that....they have lost money on their investment decisions specifically in these CDOs.

Uh-huh...tell that to the homeowners who never recovered their losses after hurricanes.

how many insurance companies went broke after the hurricane? what a deflecting idiot!!

By the way Eberly, you never explained why you don't think that averaging appraisal value over a period of years wouldn't solve the problem of spiking real estate values which create the bubble and the crisis....

how would you do that? specifically tell us how you would do that if you were a lender.

then I will answer your stupid question.


Must suck to be you.

#79 | Posted by danni

life is quite good for me. I have read your posts...obviously is must really suck to be you.



The FBI is investigating. I suspect that many people are going to eventually end up giving some money back and going to jail.

That is correct and any insurance company who invested into these things has been hurt by this.

you just lost danni. she still thinks she is an insurance actuary

I am guessing here, but I would guess about 5 years or so.

so, a decision made during Reagan's tenure(20 years prior) IS to blame but a decision made in the mid 90's is to be discounted and we should go back to Reagan and jump all over that.

that is what you are all about danni, blame the republicans.

You can do that....it won't change facts on this issue. furthermore, you attack me for who I have voted for.... I couldn't have voted for REagan or Bush Sr.

I have voted for 2 republicans for president in my life....Bob Dole and GWB in 2000.

that is it.

"how would you do that? specifically tell us how you would do that if you were a lender."

The same way the do appraisals now except you would consider all homes sold in that area for a longer period of time. What is hard about that???

When you consider the fact that wild fluctuations in values is the root cause of this crisis it seems obvious that valuations need to be figured over a longer period of time.

"that is what you are all about danni, blame the republicans."

Er....Reaganomics....voodoo economics...supply side economics....is the weapon of the Republicans throughout the war on the working class. It began under Raygun so I blame he who is deserving.

GWB in 2000....thanks a heap. What a great legacy he is leaving. I bet you're proud.

Don't forget the "trickle-down theory".

Which, as the bailout proves, is truly the "trickle-on" theory.

The same way the do appraisals now except you would consider all homes sold in that area for a longer period of time. What is hard about that???

I'll tell you what, in some limited areas where real estate skyrocketed in value this practice would have perhaps helped in keeping appraisal values down. But here is the crux of your problem......many if not most of the homes in these areas where prices went through the roof were/are in neighborhoods that didn't even exist at the time you would appraise a home (new home). My development where I live didn't exist 10 years ago and certainly if we go back 5 years to a time when these mortgages were underwritten and approved, there would be no homes to use in these comparisons.

I bet you're proud.

#88 | Posted by danni

you lecturing me about pride??? what a laugh!!!

I have read what you have posted about your personal life danni........how much pride could you possibly have???

gotta go.

"gotta go."

Typical, say something like "........how much pride could you possibly have???" and then run away.
Hilarious.

BTW, in new developments they could easily compare prices with similar existing homes. They could easily develop methods of figuring values, they hae to anyway when a new developement is created. If they couldn't then how could a developer get a loan to build the homes in the first place.
Once again you show lack of ability to use logic to figure things out. Go listen to some right wing talker to get some new thoughts, notice I don't say ideas.

they have lost money on their investment decisions specifically in these CDOs

AIG may have purchased some CDOs but their real exposure was associated with insurance: i.e. credit default swaps. Investors that purchased CDOs wen to AIG for insurance. AIG collected premiums (i.e. insurance fees) for that insurance. When the value of these CDOs evaporated, the investors came to AIG to collect on their insurance policy. AIG didn't have enough money to pay off those claims. In other words, their underwriting standards didn't correctly account for the risk.

"In other words, their underwriting standards didn't correctly account for the risk."

Which is---of course---the taxpayers' fault.

and I would imagine that noone has said that we should remember that because of political correctness and downright fear of being sued that there had to be maybe thousands of loans given to people who simply COULDNT AFFORD THe house
but because the people were of color that they got in anyway..........any libs who dont believe that didnt happen are just naive........
and anyway.........I am sure that there are plenty of whites and 'others' who did the same damn thing
and WHICH PARTY was calling for more mortgages and which party is called insensitive to poor people when they preach restraint in areas like this one

"there had to be maybe thousands of loans given to people who simply COULDNT AFFORD THe house
but because the people were of color that they got in anyway..."

Hey BL2,

Were there two sets of signatures on that loan, or only one?

And of the two, didn't one---presumably---go to business school?

"And of the two, didn't one---presumably---go to business school?"

If all contracts were presumptively unfair because one party was smarter than the other, we'd have no contracts at all. Most homeowners didn't go to business school, but most homeowners aren't defaulting. So why a lack of business education an excuse for those that are?

Hey BL2,


Were there two sets of signatures on that loan, or only one?


And of the two, didn't one---presumably---go to business school?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2008


are you saying that I should also blame the lender.

hell yeah.......but again........political correctness can outrank common sense in cases like this.........

but you notice that we on the right dont just blame one side on this argument like the left does when they TOTALLY IGNORE THE bullshit from frank and dodd and frank rich and jim johnson and all those others who had a hand in this mess and who are now on the obama team


DAMN the time flies..........gotta go

have a great day

Nor would anyone who actually understands how economics works loan to people like this.

Except, perhaps, someone who understood economics and the market all too well. The problem wasn't the bad loans. If the companies writing those loans and lending the cash had had to KEEP those loans on their books, the problem would never have developed in the first place -- the loans would never have been made. BUT some smart guys on Wall Street figured out how to "package" them and get them well rated because, I mean, geez, these Wall Street guys know what they're doing, right? And people around the world fell for it.

Our crisis has three interrelated, primary causes:

1) "Innovative financial products" from Wall Street (criminal charges may be forthcoming)

2) An absolute unwillingness on the part of this administration to regulate these new financial instruments because the market should be "free" to sort itself out.

3) Political cowardice in the White House. Bush had to have this bubble or we would have had a much longer recession after 9/11 (like we should have, given that attack and the fundamental problems in our economy). He couldn't ask us to put up with hard times because it would have cost him his second term. Instead, the administration poured fuel on the fire, keeping the housing sector booming to prop up the rest of the economy.

The way the product was marketed by most banks, it was a guarnateed foreclosure in almost every case.

#45 | Posted by Sully

No no no. It was the buyer's fault. The lender has zero responsibility to ensure that they can get their money back.

I saw firsthand the fraud that exists in the lending institutions. When I bought my first house, the appraiser came out and appraised it at the mortgage value. What he did not know is that the mortgage was actually going to be higher than the original agreed on mortgage due to some changes to the house. So he issued another value, again at exactly the mortgage value. Nothing changed on the house other than a new roof which techically should not raise the value since it is maintenance. Fraud?

Then when I went to close, my 30 year fixed rate was actually a 5 year ARM on the paper work. The bank attorney told me to "not worry about it and just sign the closing document". I refused. The sellers attorney became quite irate at me for refusing. I told him to back the fuck down that it was the bank screw up not mine. The bank attorney then got off the phone and informed me that I did not qualify for a 30 year fixed rate, which was news to me. I showed him the approval letter saying it was a 30 year fixed agreement. They still would not budge.

I walked out. Everyone was pissed. My family, my lawyer, the seller, the bank. The bank said they made "an error" and gave me the 30 year fixed. Error my ass. The only error was that I wanted to look over every single piece of paper I was signing and when something did not look right I questioned it.

"political correctness can outrank common sense in cases like this...."

Political correctness had nothing to do with it. Up-front fees did.

Any doubt? Ask yourself how many billions Lehman Brothers gave out in bonuses last year....

"a new roof which techically should not raise the value since it is maintenance. "

Not according to the IRS tax code. It "extends the life of the property", therefore it is added to the cost basis.

"The only error was that I wanted to look over every single piece of paper I was signing and when something did not look right I questioned it."

Bonus points!

That reminds me of a small business loan I went to take out years ago. At the signing, the rate was higher than the one agreed upon. I was told that was a fee, simply added into the rate. I got up and walked out, but not before I made sure everyone in the bank could hear my very loud displeasure at "these deceptive banking practices!". I'm sure it cost them nothing but a little embarrassment, but that was good enough for me.

Except, perhaps, someone who understood economics and the market all too well.

YES! Absolutely

That is why many of these scoundrels are going to have to pay back a lot of money and spend some time in jail. Because of the number of cases, and the complexity of the issues, they will probably have to set up special "mortgage fraud courts" ala "drug courts".

"Political cowardice in the White House. Bush had to have this bubble or we would have had a much longer recession after 9/11 (like we should have, given that attack and the fundamental problems in our economy)."

Wow, another person recognizes the obvious truth among the sea of posts that completely ignore it or rather prefer to see a different reality...the Republican reality which exists only in the mind of dilusional right wingers.

"That reminds me of a small business loan I went to take out years ago. At the signing, the rate was higher than the one agreed upon."

That is a result of the "Truth in Lending Law" of 1968 requiring the lender to disclose the TOTAL cost of borrowing, expressed as an APR, on a disclosure statement. The APR is determined by adding any prepaid fees such as origination fees, points etc. to the interest rate. If you took out a 6% loan, the APR on the disclosure statement will ALWAYS be higher if you paid fees up front. Maybe something like 6.25%. If you look at the promissory note, it would say 6% interest but the APR, the TRUE cost to the borrower, is higher as a result of the additional fees already paid to the lender. You'll actually be paying 6% on the loan after closing.
If the rate on the note was higher than what you agreed to, it would be a violation, but the APR will always be higher on the Disclosure Statement based on the prepaid fees to the lender. It has caused MUCH confusion to borrowers over the years.

"...the Republican reality which exists only in the mind of dilusional right wingers."

Here's the reality, Danni...and it's backed up by Snopes. Read it ALL, Danni, learn the FACTS, it's the New York Times after all!


query.nytimes.com

query.nytimes.com

www.snopes.com

No, rightwingers blame liberals and their affirmative-action-social-
engineering which distorts markets by providing benefits to people who may not be able to afford them.

#1 | Posted by member2586

::sigh:: All of this is spin. Listen to me, people are trying to control how you view this situation.

People are trying to link this to anything and anything, "it was racism", "stupid people", "it was greedy banks", "it was deregulation", it was -insert reason here-.

Dig about, look for the answer, your going to find it was not so much a single party .. or even elected officials but government and government bureaucrats on the whole that caused this, they will cause it again and again, and they are sneaking the truth by you. The root of the problem is the Federal Reserve.

"The root of the problem is the Federal Reserve."

I thought we discussed this already, it was the HOUSING BUBBLE! Most of the regulations, etc. were the same before the bubble and we had no problems.