It Really Is Clinton III
 

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. They did that on their own.

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. What's to keep me honest? "Liar loans"? Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Jan 9, 10:28*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, *race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. *They did that on their own. *

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. *So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. *What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? * The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. *In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. *What's to keep me honest? *"Liar loans"? *Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. *Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. *It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. *F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? *No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. *Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk. *
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. *A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill. *

I still remember the bull**** I took here a couple of years back when
I complained about Bank of America openly advertizing to illegals and
anyone else with a pulse that they were handing out free money. They
still have the ads in spanish, "bank of opportunity". They knew what
they were doing, they knew they would get bailed out as they were
paying Dodd, Frank, Obama, Kerry, et al barrels of money...

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:18:18 -0500, BAR wrote:


Racist and illegal? It was based upon risk analysis. Why would I want to
lend money to people who were most likely not going to pay it back. And,
if I did have to foreclose just before getting the sheriff to evict them
they would trash the place. Where is my motivation to lend money in
those areas?

Yup, racist and illegal. When I find the link I'll post it, but those
"redlined" areas have reasonably low default rates. Where most of the
problems have arisen, is the more affluent borrower who over extended
thinking of their home as an investment, not as a home.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. They did that on their own.

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. What's to keep me honest? "Liar loans"? Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Ah, but you left out *why* banks felt safe making the loans. In general,
banks are the
most conservative, no risk lenders in the world. In a normal economy you
basically have
to prove you don't need the money in order to qualify for it.

The problem was the government getting involved via Freddie and Fanny to
take the
risks away and that started in 1995.

Eisboch

It Really Is Clinton III
 

It Really Is Clinton III
 

It Really Is Clinton III
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:

20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you
have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have
to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney
Frank or Chris Dodd have to say.


Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else.

Sadly no. But, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd all had a hand in
loosening the rules which contributed to the problem we find ourselves
in today. McCain and Bush saw the problem coming and tried to arrest and
turn it around but, they were thwarted by Frank and Dodd. The public and
Congressional record supports me.


You're hilarious. Really.


He's also correct.
Not quite that straightforward, but the point is that it was basically
another "giveaway" program that backfired. Now, according to Obama, the
solution is more giveaway programs.

Handing out money will not solve the mess we are in just as creating
artificial jobs won't. (FDR's programs didn't work either ... it took a
war to escape the Depression).

There are two basic solution options.
The first will take time and most Democrats, especially those on the far
left won't like it.
The second is to throw in the towel and become another European style
socialist republic.

Eisboch



Obama quote on how many jobs will be created vs. money spent comes out to
about $313k per job. Not very fiscally effective.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the
mortgages.

And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil
market that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

--

If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

It Really Is Clinton III
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later for
$1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

It Really Is Clinton III
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the
mortgages.

And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil
market that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

Our discretionary spending was cut way back in anticipation of the
increases in the cost of the necessities. When hundreds of thousands or
millions of families do this it puts tremendous pressure on the economy
worldwide.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:00:05 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are.
A few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the mortgages.

Of course, they are just as guilty, and just as stupid, but it is still
greed over-balancing risk. There is enough blame to go around, but I
still say, those that were in the business should have known better.
It's also true, that if I speculated on three houses, the damage is
considerably less than if I were a broker that mortgaged thousands, and
chances are, I'd be in bankruptcy now, as opposed to getting money from
Washington.


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic of
buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for $400,000 was
too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in Woodstock right down
the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a case
of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil market
that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

It sure didn't help, but I thought, IIRC, the sub-prime fiasco was
already ongoing well before the major oil increases. And again, it's a
handful of fat cat "financiers" that brought the world's economy to a
standstill. ;-)

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:18:17 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)

It Really Is Clinton III
 

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:20:10 -0500, hk wrote:

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)


He was really upside down in that house. I sorta miss him. He was
exasperating, but a hell of a lot brighter than most of the
"conservatives" who remain here.

I'm not sure. IIRC, it was more the funky loan than the price of the
house. He was planning to stay in the house. So any price decline
should recover, but that loan? It would need to be refinanced some time
about now. ;-(

It Really Is Clinton III
 

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:18:18 -0500, BAR wrote:


Racist and illegal? It was based upon risk analysis. Why would I want to
lend money to people who were most likely not going to pay it back. And,
if I did have to foreclose just before getting the sheriff to evict them
they would trash the place. Where is my motivation to lend money in
those areas?

Yup, racist and illegal. When I find the link I'll post it, but those
"redlined" areas have reasonably low default rates. Where most of the
problems have arisen, is the more affluent borrower who over extended
thinking of their home as an investment, not as a home.


those redlined areas had low default rates and the lender did due diligence
and loaned on what the house was really worth, and if the borrower could
afford the payments.

As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:04:41 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

As I recall NOYB is a dentist with a good income.
He should be doing just fine.
As to refi's, I'm not sure how people got into trouble with the
various home loans. Must have not read the terms or lost their jobs.
I did a 3 yr ARM refi about 6 years ago at 3.75%. I had planned on
paying it off before it adjusted from 3.75%, but didn't quite make it
before I retired, and still have about 30 g's on it.
Thing is it never went past 6.75% and is now 5.75%.
So far I haven't wanted to take the tax hits in cashing in IRA's to
pay it off.
It's not easy figuring out how to best do that, as we have little
taxable income. And I'm lazy about thinking since I retired.
But I think I have to figure out how to knock down the principal
pretty soon, as I'll be paying that interest forever - and maybe even
at a higher interest rate.
Once they adjusted this one it went on a 30 year amort schedule and
though the payment is low, it's nearly all goes to interest.
I hate paying interest, and on the surface it looks like I would pay
more in taxes by cashing in CD's.
But if you look at an amort schedule and see TOTAL payments over some
years, it might make sense to just take the one time tax hit. Depends
too on when and if I move south.
Just have to make sure I can still afford the "boat(s) of my dreams."
I'm thinking of getting a little help on handling my money.
Anybody know about a guy named Bernie Madoff?
He's been highly recommended by those "in the know."

--Vic

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:31:21 -0500, Jim wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.


Ewwwwwh!

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:52:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:04:41 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


As to NOYB the guy in Florida, he may lose the house if he can not
refinance, but he bought the house early enough before a lot if the price
inflation and he got to write off 35% of his payment. Probably cheaper than
renting a house. The taxpayers subsidized his renting the house. May owe
taxes on the unpaid part of the loan if foreclosed. Do not know the rules
on that. Credit cards, they write down the balance owed, and you get a 1099
for the amount written down. Ordinary income.

As I recall NOYB is a dentist with a good income.
He should be doing just fine.
As to refi's, I'm not sure how people got into trouble with the
various home loans. Must have not read the terms or lost their jobs.
I did a 3 yr ARM refi about 6 years ago at 3.75%. I had planned on
paying it off before it adjusted from 3.75%, but didn't quite make it
before I retired, and still have about 30 g's on it.
Thing is it never went past 6.75% and is now 5.75%.
So far I haven't wanted to take the tax hits in cashing in IRA's to
pay it off.
It's not easy figuring out how to best do that, as we have little
taxable income. And I'm lazy about thinking since I retired.
But I think I have to figure out how to knock down the principal
pretty soon, as I'll be paying that interest forever - and maybe even
at a higher interest rate.
Once they adjusted this one it went on a 30 year amort schedule and
though the payment is low, it's nearly all goes to interest.
I hate paying interest, and on the surface it looks like I would pay
more in taxes by cashing in CD's.
But if you look at an amort schedule and see TOTAL payments over some
years, it might make sense to just take the one time tax hit. Depends
too on when and if I move south.
Just have to make sure I can still afford the "boat(s) of my dreams."
I'm thinking of getting a little help on handling my money.
Anybody know about a guy named Bernie Madoff?
He's been highly recommended by those "in the know."

--Vic

Dentists suffer big time during recessions. A lot of their work is
'voluntary', like veneers, some caps, some alignment, etc.

I too hope NOYB is in good shape. But, I can call my dentist in the
afternoon and get a next morning appointment. Six months ago I'd have
waited a week, unless it was an emergency.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:05:25 -0500, John H
wrote:



Dentists suffer big time during recessions. A lot of their work is
'voluntary', like veneers, some caps, some alignment, etc.

I too hope NOYB is in good shape. But, I can call my dentist in the
afternoon and get a next morning appointment. Six months ago I'd have
waited a week, unless it was an emergency.

Yeah, didn't give that much thought. One of my daughters is still a
part-time dental assistant while in college, and the orthodontist she
works for has cut back on his spending.
I think the younger guys who haven't been through recessions/layoffs
are at risk if they don't have their heads screwed on straight.
Used to live paycheck to paycheck myself before I got married.
Hey, that was fun!

--Vic