PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader going down in flames II!



LWW
05-26-2011, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LOS ANGELES — Sales of homes in some stage of foreclosure declined in the first three months of the year, but they still accounted for 28 percent of all home sales — a share nearly six times higher than what it would be in a healthy housing market.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43175612/ns/business-personal_finance/)

Perky
05-26-2011, 12:17 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Weenie-poop safety barrier !!!</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif
Just as when coming near any obviously hazardous material it is always recommended to employ proper precautions.

Perky
05-26-2011, 12:22 PM
Think this means The Weenie is ready to slither up and take that bet???

I truly doubt it... he far too busy hiding down his weenie hole. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif Just more... Bla... Bla.... Bla... weenie-poop

The Weenie lives in a world of weenie-poop... (but you already knew that ) ...it is hardly surprising since... The Weenie’s political opinions are weenie-poop ...his logic is weenie-poop ...his level of integrity is weenie-poop ...he is blinded by weenie-poop

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa134/bperkins_photo/WeeniesWorld.jpg

pooltchr
05-26-2011, 12:32 PM
I heard somewhere that new home construction is back at the level we had in the 60s. What a wonderful leader we have!

(Perk...take note....that means there aren't a lot of new homes being built....you better hang on to the one you have in your picture...it might be all you can get.)


Steve

Soflasnapper
05-26-2011, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard somewhere that new home construction is back at the level we had in the 60s. What a wonderful leader we have!

(Perk...take note....that means there aren't a lot of new homes being built....you better hang on to the one you have in your picture...it might be all you can get.)


Steve </div></div>

In which alternative universe does the president have the power to reverse the effects of a burst bubble in housing, and what tools does he use?

Maybe his Green Lantern ring, or what?

LWW
05-26-2011, 01:16 PM
If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

And as far as what tool(s)?

- A growing economy.

- Going after banksters to restore faith in the system. (Of course they might take down the regime.)

- Disposing of the oversupply of housing stock. Imagine what it might do if every person in public housing was given a home for $20,000.00 at 1% interest in exchange for forgoing public housing in the future.

eg8r
05-26-2011, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In which alternative universe does the president have the power to reverse the effects of a burst bubble in housing, and what tools does he use?

</div></div>Well, since you asked, wasn't the stimulus bill a tool he was supposed to use? Crash and burn.

eg8r

LWW
05-26-2011, 01:31 PM
No, that was to repay unions for getting the regime elected.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2011, 04:06 PM
If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.

And as far as what tool(s)?

- A growing economy.

The economy is growing. How much more would it have to grow for your purported solution to work, and how long would it take?

If we had sustained 5% real gdp growth, are you saying we'd have solved this problem by now?

- Going after banksters to restore faith in the system. (Of course they might take down the regime.)

That would neither dispose of the overhanging inventory of the foreclosures, nor give people the incomes to be able to afford that housing at the pre-bursting price levels achieved.

- Disposing of the oversupply of housing stock. Imagine what it might do if every person in public housing was given a home for $20,000.00 at 1% interest in exchange for forgoing public housing in the future.

This kind of radical step would be both unprecedented, and probably dictatorial. Imagine what the right would do and say if any such thing were suggested, let alone tried.

So you have a bunch of wishful thinking that wouldn't work. You might as well complain that Obama hasn't stopped bad weather events. It just isn't possible.

pooltchr
05-26-2011, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]- Disposing of the oversupply of housing stock. Imagine what it might do if every person in public housing was given a home for $20,000.00 at 1% interest in exchange for forgoing public housing in the future.

This kind of radical step would be both unprecedented, and probably dictatorial. Imagine what the right would do and say if any such thing were suggested, let alone tried.

</div></div>

Actually, his idea makes a lot more sense than the community redevelopment act did. With massive forclosures ending up in the banks hands, what should they do with them? Should they hire real estate people to try and sell them all off? At firesale prices? Because banks do not want houses on their books as assets. So, why not get something out of all those empty houses, help some people who presently are relying on taxpayers to pay for their housing? The banks get rid of inventory, people in public housing get affordable houses, and the taxpayers are off the hook for all that government housing.

Looks like everybody wins.

Steve

Soflasnapper
05-26-2011, 06:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]- Disposing of the oversupply of housing stock. Imagine what it might do if every person in public housing was given a home for $20,000.00 at 1% interest in exchange for forgoing public housing in the future.

This kind of radical step would be both unprecedented, and probably dictatorial. Imagine what the right would do and say if any such thing were suggested, let alone tried.

</div></div>

Actually, his idea makes a lot more sense than the community redevelopment act did. With massive forclosures ending up in the banks hands, what should they do with them? Should they hire real estate people to try and sell them all off? At firesale prices? Because banks do not want houses on their books as assets. So, why not get something out of all those empty houses, help some people who presently are relying on taxpayers to pay for their housing? The banks get rid of inventory, people in public housing get affordable houses, and the taxpayers are off the hook for all that government housing.

Looks like everybody wins.

Steve </div></div>

If the banks were willing to take $20k a foreclosure, we'd already be well on the way to clearing the inventory overhang. They are generally not willing to do that, as this would multiply their losses many fold.

Unless the government owns those houses, they'd have to use eminent domain to seize them, in order to do this kind of thing. But eminent domain requires paying fair market value, and the banks have enough muscle to assure they'd not let these things go at $20k each. Non-starter.

Even if they would, look at what the supposed small government advocates would be proposing-- that the GOVERNMENT buy some large amount of the private housing stock, probably using gangster confiscation methods against paying the banks who are the property owners a fair market price, then HOLD THE MORTGAGE at virtually a 0% interest rate.

These ideas are so radically outside any policy the government has ever had as to be impossible. And if the president proposed them, there would be an incredible backlash of outrage and political opposition (even if the people rather liked the idea, funded by the banks).

pooltchr
05-26-2011, 06:33 PM
OK, the $20k I suspect was just an arbitrary number he came up with...The idea still has merit. How much government money is spent on subsidized housing? I know in our area, the government is talking about building more low income housing. That is going to be very expensive. I suspect several banks that own property they really don't want to own would consider a lot of creative, out of the box, solutions to move the real estate off their books. I still think there are some possibilities here.

Do you have a better suggestion?


Steve

Soflasnapper
05-26-2011, 06:39 PM
This week I asked that very question of a real estate developer I work with, who is a conservative Christian Republican.

I was genuinely interested in his answer, both given his perspectives, plus given my lack of an answer myself.

He said that what would have to happen is the so-called cram down, where banks are forced by a new law and policy to directly eat some significant percentage of their outstanding mortgage amounts, accept as payment in full repayment of far less principle, and get far less of an amortized monthly payment.

Which I agree would help, but which I doubt would really solve this any time quickly. Plus realistically, which the banks would never allow if they had anything to say about it.

LWW
05-27-2011, 03:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.</div></div>

Your lack of comprehension as to how an economic system works is amazing.

There is so much demand for homes (Families and money.) and so much supply (Occupied and empty homes.)

Reducing the over supply would not lessen the demand, hence the remaining supply would increase in value.

This isn't rocket science.

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.</div></div>

Your lack of comprehension as to how an economic system works is amazing.

There is so much demand for homes (Families and money.) and so much supply (Occupied and empty homes.)

Reducing the over supply would not lessen the demand, hence the remaining supply would increase in value.

This isn't rocket science. </div></div>

Quite right-- it isn't rocket science, and it is shocking you can't understand it better.

Obviously, if unoccupied housing units are reduced by your suggested method, (over)supply is (perhaps slightly) reduced (although that isn't to say there won't still be an oversupply), but demand is reduced one-for-one (by the number of those put into houses by your method), and/or supply is exactly the same (as housing units available in public housing are then unoccupied by those same people leaving for private housing).

If perchance what you claim works anyway, to some degree, there is no showing that any such purported increase in value in the remaining housing stock will recover enough of the lost value to either a) restore equity, thereby encouraging greater consumer spending form the wealth effect, b) make the house now as valuable as the mortgage, taking them out from an underwater condition, c) allow the resident to afford the mortgage.

Given the overall conditions in the market, it might not even stop the continued decline in housing values, just reduce it, which wouldn't be bad, but is no solution.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.</div></div>

Your lack of comprehension as to how an economic system works is amazing.

There is so much demand for homes (Families and money.) and so much supply (Occupied and empty homes.)

Reducing the over supply would not lessen the demand, hence the remaining supply would increase in value.

This isn't rocket science. </div></div>

Quite right-- it isn't rocket science, and it is shocking you can't understand it better.

Obviously, if unoccupied housing units are reduced by your suggested method, (over)supply is (perhaps slightly) reduced (although that isn't to say there won't still be an oversupply), but demand is reduced one-for-one (by the number of those put into houses by your method), and/or supply is exactly the same (as housing units available in public housing are then unoccupied by those same people leaving for private housing).

If perchance what you claim works anyway, to some degree, there is no showing that any such purported increase in value in the remaining housing stock will recover enough of the lost value to either a) restore equity, thereby encouraging greater consumer spending form the wealth effect, b) make the house now as valuable as the mortgage, taking them out from an underwater condition, c) allow the resident to afford the mortgage.

Given the overall conditions in the market, it might not even stop the continued decline in housing values, just reduce it, which wouldn't be bad, but is no solution. </div></div>

Good post, and given the massive outsourcing of jobs, and decades long continued falling wages, in America, even if the housing market recovered, somewhat, it would seem that only those who had bought their homes, say back in the early nineties, could stay above water on their home values, enough, to pull any real equity out of their homes, by selling them, one would think.

G.

Stretch
05-28-2011, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.</div></div>

Your lack of comprehension as to how an economic system works is amazing.

There is so much demand for homes (Families and money.) and so much supply (Occupied and empty homes.)

Reducing the over supply would not lessen the demand, hence the remaining supply would increase in value.

This isn't rocket science. </div></div>

Quite right-- it isn't rocket science, and it is shocking you can't understand it better.

Obviously, if unoccupied housing units are reduced by your suggested method, (over)supply is (perhaps slightly) reduced (although that isn't to say there won't still be an oversupply), but demand is reduced one-for-one (by the number of those put into houses by your method), and/or supply is exactly the same (as housing units available in public housing are then unoccupied by those same people leaving for private housing).

If perchance what you claim works anyway, to some degree, there is no showing that any such purported increase in value in the remaining housing stock will recover enough of the lost value to either a) restore equity, thereby encouraging greater consumer spending form the wealth effect, b) make the house now as valuable as the mortgage, taking them out from an underwater condition, c) allow the resident to afford the mortgage.

Given the overall conditions in the market, it might not even stop the continued decline in housing values, just reduce it, which wouldn't be bad, but is no solution. </div></div>

Good post, and given the massive outsourcing of jobs, and decades long continued falling wages, in America, even if the housing market recovered, somewhat, it would seem that only those who had bought their homes, say back in the early nineties, could stay above water on their home values, enough, to pull any real equity out of their homes, by selling them, one would think.

G. </div></div>

What a bad situation to have a housing crash. The difference in Value is the trillion or so the banks stole. Then the Government had to race in to save the.....Banks? and "reascue" them with trillions more. Did anyone ever go to jail for causing a world economy crash? any charges? nothing? *shakes head* St.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can claim presidential policy caused it, how can you claim presidential policy can't fix it?

An arsonist may use incendiaries to burn down a house. How does the arsonist use the same tools to rebuild it? Clearly, once actions are taken that blew up several trillions of dollars in the housing market valuations, this is a problem without any easy solutions, and none that can be accomplished in any short to medium term time frame.</div></div>

Your lack of comprehension as to how an economic system works is amazing.

There is so much demand for homes (Families and money.) and so much supply (Occupied and empty homes.)

Reducing the over supply would not lessen the demand, hence the remaining supply would increase in value.

This isn't rocket science. </div></div>

Quite right-- it isn't rocket science, and it is shocking you can't understand it better.

Obviously, if unoccupied housing units are reduced by your suggested method, (over)supply is (perhaps slightly) reduced (although that isn't to say there won't still be an oversupply), but demand is reduced one-for-one (by the number of those put into houses by your method), and/or supply is exactly the same (as housing units available in public housing are then unoccupied by those same people leaving for private housing).

If perchance what you claim works anyway, to some degree, there is no showing that any such purported increase in value in the remaining housing stock will recover enough of the lost value to either a) restore equity, thereby encouraging greater consumer spending form the wealth effect, b) make the house now as valuable as the mortgage, taking them out from an underwater condition, c) allow the resident to afford the mortgage.

Given the overall conditions in the market, it might not even stop the continued decline in housing values, just reduce it, which wouldn't be bad, but is no solution. </div></div>

Good post, and given the massive outsourcing of jobs, and decades long continued falling wages, in America, even if the housing market recovered, somewhat, it would seem that only those who had bought their homes, say back in the early nineties, could stay above water on their home values, enough, to pull any real equity out of their homes, by selling them, one would think.

G. </div></div>

What a bad situation to have a housing crash. The difference in Value is the trillion or so the banks stole. Then the Government had to race in to save the.....Banks? and "reascue" them with trillions more. Did anyone ever go to jail for causing a world economy crash? any charges? nothing? *shakes head* St. </div></div>

All on Bush's watch!

LWW
05-28-2011, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, the $20k I suspect was just an arbitrary number he came up with...The idea still has merit. How much government money is spent on subsidized housing? I know in our area, the government is talking about building more low income housing. That is going to be very expensive. I suspect several banks that own property they really don't want to own would consider a lot of creative, out of the box, solutions to move the real estate off their books. I still think there are some possibilities here.

Do you have a better suggestion?


Steve </div></div>

Here's a little more insight to those with an honest memory.

Bad loans were made because the gubmint forced banks to make them.

Once those loans couldn't be sold, because they were underperforming ... because they were bad loans, FANNY and FREDDIE started buying them up.

Once FANNY and FREDDIE started buying them up, they became marketable because of the implicit guarantee of the US gubmint.

Once that paper, including all the sliced and diced derivatives they gave birth to, went bad FANNY and FREDDIE was on the hook to cover the investor's losses.

Once that happened, FANNY and FREDDIE couldn't pay ... so Uncle Sam had to.

Because of that TARP, or something like it had to happen ... the gubmint was on the hook.

TARP was passed on the premise that the gubmint would buy back all these toxic assets.

Once the bill was passed, the p;lan changed and TARP was used as a slush fund to re-capitalize the banksters who would in turn invest those funds into treasuries to keep rates artificially low and allow them to earn a guaranteed return on money they paid nothing to get ... which of course some of which would flow back into DNC coffers.

Meanwhile ... what about those toxic assets? Well ... since TARP was never used for it's original intent, FANNY and FREDDIE needed a separate bail out.

That bail out is ever expanding and seems to be never ending. Meanwhile, there are many many many many homes sitting vacant and are deteriorating. These homes will never recoup anything approaching the bail out amount. Cities across the country are struggling to find the funds to demolish them after they are condemned. Many more should be condemned, but aren't because local laws require them to be torn down if condemned ant the funds are simply not available.

As brutal as the losses to the taxpayer would be to sell them so cheaply ... the alternative, doing nothing, is worse.

Meanwhile, dear leader's plan is to relax in the hot tub with a bottle of Campari while saying "CALGON, TAKE ME AWAY!"

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 04:32 PM
That's all about entirely false, starting with your first statement of alleged history.

Bad loans were made because the gubmint forced banks to make them.

Completely false. The subprime loans were about 80% let out of mortgage companies that were not under the CRA requirements at all. You remember at least one of them-- Countrywide ring a bell?

Nothing the government did forced the banks to relax underwriting standards. They didn't care if those loans were obviously doomed to fail, because the after-market of securitizing these mortgages meant they would be sold into that market and the bank would not lose any of its money from them.

The government didn't create those mortgage-based securities markets-- that was Wall Street. The government didn't tell everyone those were AAA rated-- that was the rating companies, who are the paid shills of... Wall Street.

And the government didn't create the collateralized debt obligation swaps-- again, it was Wall Street.

This is what became the virus that nearly destroyed the host. Wall Street turned a relatively minor amount of mortgage value (especially limited when talking only the subprime sectors) into literally some thousand trillion dollar (quadrillion dollar) market, through excess leverage they made sure remained unregulated. A smallish 5% loss in a quadrillion dollar market is (cough, OMG!) $50 trillion dollars, several times the world's gdp aggregate.

That's what happened, and how the financial world got blown to pieces. The enormity of these losses cannot be admitted, and they continue to be held off the books via forced changes in GAAP, wherein the old mark-to-market rule has been allowed to be stated instead as mark-to-model pro-forma values. Nobody can say for sure if these assets have ANY value to anyone, but when a smallish portfolio or two have been sold, it has been at 10 cents on the dollar.

Now, what's even worse still is that the obviously wholly depreciated collateral (prices down 40-50% from their peaks) may be worth NOTHING to the alleged holders of the notes and mortgages, because in their corner-cutting to make more and more money, these bankers most likely lost all legal claim to their collateral, through their use of MERS. They literally seem to have no legal right to reclaim these collateral assets, lacking standing as holders in due course of these promissory notes.

Qtec
05-29-2011, 12:18 AM
Brilliant post S.

I might also add that many who actually qualified for prime loans were sold sub-prime loans instead.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-29-2011, 09:15 AM
TapTapTap...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing the government did forced the banks to relax underwriting standards. They didn't care if those loans were obviously doomed to fail, </div></div>

GREED! Not only did they not care, they were betting on the failure!

PIGS!

Sev
05-29-2011, 09:42 AM
Not quite.
Government interference in the market created the opportunity for the abuses to take place.

There is culpability on both sides. However the root of the problem are individuals in the government exercising their power over a market they of little of no understanding of.

Poorly thought out good intentions often have dire consequences decades in the future.

Qtec
05-29-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> created the opportunity for the abuses to take place. </div></div>

So you are saying that if you leave your door open its your own fault that you get robbed?

Q

Soflasnapper
05-29-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not quite.
Government interference in the market created the opportunity for the abuses to take place.

There is culpability on both sides. However the root of the problem are individuals in the government exercising their power over a market they of little of no understanding of.

Poorly thought out good intentions often have dire consequences decades in the future. </div></div>

What the GOVERNMENT changed was the regulatory framework, REDUCING IT, at the lobbying request of the financial sector.

When the STATES wanted to prosecute under state laws, they were ordered off by the feds (the Office of the Comptroller), as Eliot Spitzer documented after he led a group of state attorneys general (at least 48 of them) in a lawsuit against the federal government to allow state laws to rein in these abuses (the 48+ AGs lost their suit, and the feds allowed various predatory lending practices to run to their ruinous ends).

pooltchr
05-29-2011, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> created the opportunity for the abuses to take place. </div></div>

So you are saying that if you leave your door open its your own fault that you get robbed?

Q </div></div>

Actually, I think he was saying that if the government takes your front door, they share in the fault when you get robbed.

Steve

Sev
05-29-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What the GOVERNMENT changed was the regulatory framework, REDUCING IT, at the lobbying request of the financial sector.



</div></div>

And if they never passed the Community Reinvestment Act?

LWW
05-29-2011, 05:26 PM
Sir ... that post is delusional.

Soflasnapper
05-29-2011, 08:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What the GOVERNMENT changed was the regulatory framework, REDUCING IT, at the lobbying request of the financial sector.



</div></div>

And if they never passed the Community Reinvestment Act? </div></div>

That was passed in '78, iirc. For 30 years, it did not create what transpired late in W's term. Something changed, as the proximate cause, not the then-30 year old CRA.

Sev
05-29-2011, 08:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What the GOVERNMENT changed was the regulatory framework, REDUCING IT, at the lobbying request of the financial sector.



</div></div>

And if they never passed the Community Reinvestment Act? </div></div>

That was passed in '78, iirc. For 30 years, it did not create what transpired late in W's term. Something changed, as the proximate cause, not the then-30 year old CRA. </div></div>

So you dont believe in long term effects of legislation?

LWW
05-30-2011, 03:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What the GOVERNMENT changed was the regulatory framework, REDUCING IT, at the lobbying request of the financial sector.



</div></div>

And if they never passed the Community Reinvestment Act? </div></div>

That was passed in '78, iirc. For 30 years, it did not create what transpired late in W's term. Something changed, as the proximate cause, not the then-30 year old CRA. </div></div>

There you go ... CRA went steroidal in the late 1990's and Glass-Stegall was repealed.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When he was testifying before Congress the other day about the world's economic crisis, former Bush Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that too many unqualified people got loans. He suggested that one of the culprits might have been George W. Bush's "ownership society."

Borrowing the concept from conservative thinkers, President Bush began touting an ownership society early in his first term. The idea encompassed a range of policies -- from healthcare to house buying -- in which Republicans believed government should get out of the way and empower individuals to make their own financial decisions. In a fact sheet, the White House said:

The president believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security.

Challenging the real estate and mortgage finance industries to "close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities," the president argued that increasing homeownership would enroll everyone in the fabric of their communities, thus decreasing crime, improving schools and cementing a sense of local civic pride.</div></div>

Was Bush's 'Ownership Society' responsible for the world economic meltdown? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/blame-bush.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit
Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults

By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004

President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off.

"If you're really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house," said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island.

Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill's passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis.

Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.</div></div>