I have read over some of the transcripts of the debates. In particular, this response by Biden stuck out:
quote
IFILL: Sen. Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill. Sen. Obama voted against it. Some people have said that mortgage- holders really paid the price.
BIDEN: Well, mortgage-holders didn't pay the price. Only 10 percent of the people who are -- have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 -- it gets complicated.
But the point of this -- Barack Obama saw the glass as half- empty. I saw it as half-full. We disagreed on that, and 85 senators voted one way, and 15 voted the other way.
But here's the deal. Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, "You'd better get on the stick here. You'd better look at it."
John McCain said as early as last December, quote -- I'm paraphrasing -- "I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis," number one.
Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.
That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that.
There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Gov. Palin.
Allowing a bankruptcy court to readjust the principle attacks at the very heart of property ownership. The bank owns the property until the borrower pays off the mortgage. If the court is allowed to change the value of the mortgage, they are in effect changing the price of the house that the bank owns. A borrower could abuse the system if their house's value drops dramatically by filing bankruptcy, having the principle set at the current low value, wait until the price goes back up, then sell and pocket the money.
Banks are not going to take that kind of a hit sitting down. Expect zero down mortgages to go away and 20% down to become the standard again. That means that on a $200,000 mortgage, you will need $40,000 cash before the banks will even let you apply for a loan. Good luck to any of you in your 20's that wants to own a house. You may not save that much money until you get into your 40-50's if at all.
Obama supporters buy into the there must be "change" chant that Obama perpetuates. Do you really want this kind of "change"?
I don't want that to happen whoever wins the election. No readjustment of interest or principal. It isn't fair. Those people had bad credit or made bad decisions, and they purchased homes they couldn't afford. I have good credit, and I knew I couldn't buy a 400K house. Let them rent like me.
IP: Logged
03:48 PM
FieroFanatic13 Member
Posts: 3521 From: Big Rapids, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2006
I don't want that to happen whoever wins the election. No readjustment of interest or principal. It isn't fair. Those people had bad credit or made bad decisions, and they purchased homes they couldn't afford. I have good credit, and I knew I couldn't buy a 400K house. Let them rent like me.
I commend you on this outstanding post connecticut. I totally agree with you!
IP: Logged
03:52 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33133 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
It simply another political ploy to get folks to vote for that ticket. What's really unfortunate is some folks will actually believe it. It's scary how gullible some of our populace is. Just plain frightening to be perfectly honest.
It simply another political ploy to get folks to vote for that ticket. What's really unfortunate is some folks will actually believe it. It's scary how gullible some of our populace is. Just plain frightening to be perfectly honest.
Ron
I agree we elected Bush twice J/k
Both parties dance around this topic, I'm convinced that neither have a clue how to fix what Bush built.
He appointed deregulators to regulatory bodies. Then they sat around and watched soap operas all day apparently. The banks wanted a new market, ceo's skimmed from the top, values were falsified, basically the country ran a muck. Now this was actually good for Bush during election times because A. Everybody was drunk on money B. Home ownership grew.
He appointed deregulators to regulatory bodies. Then they sat around and watched soap operas all day apparently. The banks wanted a new market, ceo's skimmed from the top, values were falsified, basically the country ran a muck. Now this was actually good for Bush during election times because A. Everybody was drunk on money B. Home ownership grew.
So there's that to start with.
Ok so that's what Clinton did. What exactly did Bush do?
Well the captain is responsible for the ship, is he not. C'mon Frank it's OK to dislike Obama, but to defend Mr.Bush. If all was well with America I'm sure Bush Fans would give him credit.
Well the captain is responsible for the ship, is he not. C'mon Frank it's OK to dislike Obama, but to defend Mr.Bush. If all was well with America I'm sure Bush Fans would give him credit.
And that in no way answers my question. Would like to try again or do you not know how to actually answer the question asked? I know its hard to answer with out using talking points and needing actual facts instead.
And that in no way answers my question. Would like to try again or do you not know how to actually answer the question asked? I know its hard to answer with out using talking points and needing actual facts instead.
Food for thought Frank, If the president of the United States has no control or shares no blame in the condition of the country, why are you worried about Obama. He'll have no control or accountability like Bush
And that in no way answers my question. Would like to try again or do you not know how to actually answer the question asked? I know its hard to answer with out using talking points and needing actual facts instead.
Clinton didn't put people against regulation and oversight as the heads of regulation and oversight. He did sign a big deregulation and reorganizng regulation law though. And if I recall, that's not even all that relevant to this particular problem. After all it didn't cause problem for what 15 years?
IP: Logged
04:27 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33133 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by troyboy: Well the captain is responsible for the ship, is he not. C'mon Frank it's OK to dislike Obama, but to defend Mr.Bush. If all was well with America I'm sure Bush Fans would give him credit.
Yeah, I do think President Bush bares some of the blame, President Clinton and President Carter also but I blame Congress more and the back slapping thieves in Congress. Very few agree with me on this and I know the idea is only valid if we as voters stick to our guns but I'm a firm believer in Term Limits. There seems to be a lack of honor in Congress and in politics in general. I'll leave it at that. Got to go take a blood pressure pill.
Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-10-2008).]
Food for thought Frank, If the president of the United States has no control or shares no blame in the condition of the country, why are you worried about Obama. He'll have no control or accountability like Bush
So you have no idea how exactly Bush is to blame for this. Yet it doesn't stop you from saying it. I never said Bush had no blame I asked what it was exactly you are blaming him for. You don't know. If you did you would have answered the question the first two chances you had.
Clinton didn't put people against regulation and oversight as the heads of regulation and oversight. He did sign a big deregulation and reorganizng regulation law though. And if I recall, that's not even all that relevant to this particular problem. After all it didn't cause problem for what 15 years?
So Clinton's big push for loans to people who couldn't pay for them is in no way relevant to the loan problem and his big deregulation of credit has nothing to do with the credit problems......
When you have some bit of creditability get back to me.
IP: Logged
04:34 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Food for thought Frank, If the president of the United States has no control or shares no blame in the condition of the country, why are you worried about Obama. He'll have no control or accountability like Bush
It has to do with their intention. Also the changes that president will make, and who they will elect as judges, etc that will make changes for years to follow.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-10-2008).]
IP: Logged
04:40 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
All share responsibility. Why? One name: Alan Greenspan.
He sat by and watched as the dot com bubble burst, obliviously unaware that it was happening. Cheap interest is a good thing, but TOO cheap interest is a very bad thing because it undervalues currency. IOW, it makes it appear to be more available than it should be, even when there isn't that much out there.
It's true, we can just print more. The effect of that is getting the US dollar valued almost on par with the Canadian dollar and 30% below the Euro. Greenspan throughout his career was so frightened of inflation that, until the last four years or so, kept the money supply so tight, it was stifling the economy. Just before the dot com bubble burst, the grip he had was loosened and, in effect, helped CAUSE the bubble to burst while he was trying to stop it.
In the aftermath of 9/11, to stimulate our economy, all caution was thrown aside and the interest rates fell to 1% from the central bank. 1%. Think about that. What does that tell you the value of money is? That's right, almost nothing. I was amazed he didn't resign sooner and, in fact, should have while sounding a warning bell that this was NOT going to work. Oh, it caused a great jump in real estate purchases and speculation. When you can get money for 40 years for almost no cost, why not? Especially when EVERYONE wanted to do it and that was causing real estate values to have 20% gains per year. Do the math. 5% loans on real estate to the consuming public, values growing at 20%, how can you go wrong? You can go wrang when you can't pay it back, that's how. If values stay up, you can just roll it over and keep making the payments, but they don't always go up as many first time "speculators" have found out.
Two hard rules in any market be it real estate, stocks/financials, commodities, whatever. 1) When it's putting in record highs it's time to get out. 2) When it's putting in record lows or having record declines, it's time to start thinking about getting in.
I'll be perfectly honest here, back in Jan of '08, the dow was at 12,400 and change. I did not believe it would approach again the highs of 14,000 and change before a major retraction, and I got out of stocks completely. I don't day trade. I buy what I think are good funds and then let them do their job. As conditions change, I might make adjustments, but not very often. I'd had my portfolio since I got in at near a low of 7500 back in '98. I had made good money for the time invested and my funds actually did better percentage wise than the dow. I felt that we could, at any time, see a retracement of a minimum of 66% of the difference between 14,000 and 7,000, or about 4500 points to a level of 9500. It's actually done a lot more than that and it's been panic based, but it's still done it. I'm still thinking, until the charts tell me otherwise, that the floor is at or near 7,000, probably a bit above but it might have to touch 7,000 to put the bottom in. Companies, many GOOD companies, will then have stock grossly undervalued and contrary to the news, a lot of them have money, and have been making money. They will then begin buying their own stock back because THEY know what it's worth, and the bottom will be in. For now, until the panic eases, I'm sitting on the sidelines watching.
We scream (rightly) about a 700 billion dollar bailout. It's so small it doesnt' really matter. Care to guess on an estimate of the amount of money owed world wide right now? How does a little number like $100 TRILLION dollars sound? We have roughly 7 billion people in the world today. It takes 1,000 billions to make a trillion. It takes 100,000 billions to make 100 trillion. Now how much do you think 700 billion dollars is going to do for a problem of this magnitude?
The extent of the blame for the housing problems, mortgage problems, dot com bubble, and any other financial difficulty that you can pin on the President, ANY president, it pretty limited. I think Geenspan over his last term of tenure, caused us a great amount of damage to our economy, and the blame for that goes to the Presidents that nominated and supported him. HOWEVER, the primary burden for this is the congress of the last 20 years, that thought they could print however much money they needed and there would be no reprecussions.
Remember that it is the CONGRSS' responsibility to protect the good faith and currency of the US, NOT the President's. He can affect it, but it is not his job.
John Stricker
PS: Conn, as this whole thing has been going on, I've thought about you OFTEN. I remember us talking in a few threads about you trying to buy a home and couldn't find anything that you could afford, so you just didn't buy. I thought then, and think even moreso now, that you are one of the smart ones, and I'm glad you didn't do what way to many others did.
It has to do with their intention. Also the changes that president will make, and who they will elect as judges, etc that will make changes for years to follow.
So you have no idea how exactly Bush is to blame for this. Yet it doesn't stop you from saying it. I never said Bush had no blame I asked what it was exactly you are blaming him for. You don't know. If you did you would have answered the question the first two chances you had.
Frank you got me, I don't know exactly how Bush f**kup this country so bad, but the sad part is he doesn't either. I sure can tell you this "I CAN FEEL IT"
Frank you got me, I don't know exactly how Bush f**kup this country so bad, but the sad part is he doesn't either. I sure can tell you this "I CAN FEEL IT"
So you don't how Bush did it but you know he did it? How can you know he did if you don't even know what it may be that he did. How can you honestly blame a man for something when you don't even know what you are blaming him for?
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 10-10-2008).]
So you don't how Bush did it but you know he did it? How can you know he did if you don't even know what it may be that he did. How can you honestly blame a man for something when you don't even know what you are blaming him for?
once again frank your right, it's not like he was the leader of the country (although that was what he was elected to do). I guess he was just along for the ride for the last 8 years.
edit: "How can you honestly blame a man for something when you don't even know what you are blaming him for?" I don't blame the man I blame the President
[This message has been edited by troyboy (edited 10-10-2008).]
once again frank your right, it's not like he was the leader of the country (although that was what he was elected to do). I guess he was just along for the ride for the last 8 years.
Ok so what exactly did he do? If you don't know then its very dishonest of you to blame him for something you don't even know if he did or not.
Can I blame you for the children that get raped in your 'hood? I don't even know if you did it or not by just like you blaming Bush I don't have to know. I just assault your character willynilly proof or even understanding be damned.
So you are a child rapist.
IP: Logged
06:24 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I blame Jimmy Carter for the Community Reinvestment Act. I blame Bill Clinton for expanding on the CRA and basically creating the subprime market. I blame Fannie Mae for dubious accounting procedures to cook the books and make their risk assessments look better to investors. I blame Congress for blocking the Bush administration's efforts to strengthen regulation of Fannie Mae. I blame Barack Obama for suing Citibank for not making enough subprime mortgages when he was working as a lawyer. I blame Nancy Pelosi for looking the American people in the face and saying "it's not our fault."
Ok so what exactly did he do? If you don't know then its very dishonest of you to blame him for something you don't even know if he did or not.
Can I blame you for the children that get raped in your 'hood? I don't even know if you did it or not by just like you blaming Bush I don't have to know. I just assault your character willynilly proof or even understanding be damned.
So you are a child rapist.
Gee Frank what do you want blood, I already said that you were right. Bush was just an innocent bystander. Now I'm a child rapist in my hood'. BTW what's a hood ?
IP: Logged
06:37 PM
FieroJam Member
Posts: 1118 From: Zephyrhills, FL Registered: Feb 2008
Yeah, I do think President Bush bares some of the blame, President Clinton and President Carter also but I blame Congress more and the back slapping thieves in Congress. Very few agree with me on this and I know the idea is only valid if we as voters stick to our guns but I'm a firm believer in Term Limits. There seems to be a lack of honor in Congress and in politics in general. I'll leave it at that. Got to go take a blood pressure pill.
Ron
Oh you mean the Democratic members who keep saying their was no problem when ever any one asked for regulation of Freddie Mac And Fanny Mae. Yeah i would agree they should shoulder the lions share of blame since it was their lies and cheating that let the problem get this big.
Oh you mean the Democratic members who keep saying their was no problem when ever any one asked for regulation of Freddie Mac And Fanny Mae. Yeah i would agree they should shoulder the lions share of blame since it was their lies and cheating that let the problem get this big.
Gee Frank what do you want blood, I already said that you were right. Bush was just an innocent bystander. Now I'm a child rapist in my hood'. BTW what's a hood ?
Again I never said Bush was an innocent bystander. So that logical fallacy wont fly.
IP: Logged
06:47 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
I don't want that to happen whoever wins the election. No readjustment of interest or principal. It isn't fair. Those people had bad credit or made bad decisions, and they purchased homes they couldn't afford. I have good credit, and I knew I couldn't buy a 400K house. Let them rent like me.
This is what you said in a previous post;
"I wonder how you "conservatives" feel about John McCain's socialist plan to buy up your mortgages and SAVE YOU and your BANK from your own stupid decisions, or wait a second... I thought the economic problems were because poor ghetto people bought homes they couldn't afford thanks to Democrats and Fannie and Freddie. Which is it?"
So would you also call the Biden and Obama plan a socialist plan? BTW, I think that both plans are socialist.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 10-10-2008).]
IP: Logged
06:53 PM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
I blame Jimmy Carter for the Community Reinvestment Act. I blame Bill Clinton for expanding on the CRA and basically creating the subprime market. I blame Fannie Mae for dubious accounting procedures to cook the books and make their risk assessments look better to investors. I blame Congress for blocking the Bush administration's efforts to strengthen regulation of Fannie Mae. I blame Barack Obama for suing Citibank for not making enough subprime mortgages when he was working as a lawyer. I blame Nancy Pelosi for looking the American people in the face and saying "it's not our fault."
I'll add one. I blame John Q. Public for listening to Nancy, Obama and the rest of the Dems for taking loans they knew they could not afford. At least the 5% that aren't paying back.
Originally posted by jimbolaya: I'll add one. I blame John Q. Public for listening to Nancy, Obama and the rest of the Dems for taking loans they knew they could not afford. At least the 5% that aren't paying back.
Jim
And the banks for making too many loans that were too risky.
"I wonder how you "conservatives" feel about John McCain's socialist plan to buy up your mortgages and SAVE YOU and your BANK from your own stupid decisions, or wait a second... I thought the economic problems were because poor ghetto people bought homes they couldn't afford thanks to Democrats and Fannie and Freddie. Which is it?"
So would you also call the Biden and Obama plan a socialist plan? BTW, I think that both plans are socialist.
Yeah that's right. Post the whole quote in context, it's pretty obvious I was skewering the idea and the people who need the help. Sorry people who overbought or took out ridiculous equity loans. I just don't have sympathy.
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
"In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review -- an influential bastion of conservative thought -- derided the plan as "creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable" and called it a "gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years.""
IP: Logged
09:11 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Yeah that's right. Post the whole quote in context, it's pretty obvious I was skewering the idea and the people who need the help. Sorry people who overbought or took out ridiculous equity loans. I just don't have sympathy.
I wonder how you "conservatives" feel about John McCain's socialist plan to buy up your mortgages and SAVE YOU and your BANK from your own stupid decisions, or wait a second... I thought the economic problems were because poor ghetto people bought homes they couldn't afford thanks to Democrats and Fannie and Freddie. Which is it?
So how do you like that? John McCain will buy up all these mortgages that should never have been written... at face value, THEN he will lower the amount you owe on the mortgage and give you a great 30 year fixed rate low interest loan. All the while people like were forced out of the market because people like you bought houses you couldn't afford, because you sold a house at a ridiculously inflated price and you had the money "on paper".
This economic mess won't go away until first time home buyers can buy into the market. House prices HAVE to fall in order for that to happen, OR salaries HAVE to rise across the board. If salaries rise, inflation sets in. If home prices plummet, home owners that bought in the last 7 years will lose 1/3rd of the value of their home.
So what do we do? Avoid inflation and plummeting home prices and instead promote McCain's socialist plan that will keep the bubble cycle going while taxing responsible people like me and forcing me out of a house to reward irresponsible people and banks? Is that answer?
Is that better? I thought you calling his plan, which mirrors the Biden/Obama plan socialist a brilliant comment, because it is pure socialism. Now that I have posted your full quote, will you say the Biden/Obama plan is also socialistic?
IP: Logged
09:22 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3152 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
Yeah that's right. Post the whole quote in context, it's pretty obvious I was skewering the idea and the people who need the help. Sorry people who overbought or took out ridiculous equity loans. I just don't have sympathy.
Couldn't agree more.
BTW yes, both plans are too socialist. I don't agree with either one. If they'd just leave the damn market alone maybe those who have held off (like you and I) would be able to buy homes without paying artificially outrageous prices. In the meantime I'll be saving up at least half what I plan on paying, and looking for something. The smaller and cheaper the better; easier to maintain, clean, heat, etc.
Is that better? I thought you calling his plan, which mirrors the Biden/Obama plan socialist a brilliant comment, because it is pure socialism. Now that I have posted your full quote, will you say the Biden/Obama plan is also socialistic?
Let me be clear, I don;t support renegotiating interest or principal no matter who wins the election. I was making a point that McCain is actually proposing a pretty ridiculous idea that's worse than the Democrat. I am a Democrat, but I don't like this talk about rewarding irresponsibility no matter who says it.
IP: Logged
11:07 PM
Oct 11th, 2008
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Let me be clear, I don;t support renegotiating interest or principal no matter who wins the election. I was making a point that McCain is actually proposing a pretty ridiculous idea that's worse than the Democrat. I am a Democrat, but I don't like this talk about rewarding irresponsibility no matter who says it.
Please educate me on what makes one plan better or worse than the other. There is no difference in either, but what am I missing?