It Really Is Clinton III
 

Eisboch wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...


Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to
drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.


It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the
housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's
roots back in the mid 1990's.

A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership
available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage
lending. Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their
participation was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans.
Enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all
Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal
viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government
intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work,
can't work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be
encouraged to buy it. But many were, and now everybody pays.

"Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody
regardless of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly
favored what became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest
about government oversight and a return to tougher lending practices.

Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but
that's not how I feel.
I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony
economics, particularly those who sincerely thought it was an
opportunity that they would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are
also many who realized, "screw it, what do I have to lose?"

Eisboch


I think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not
even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending
institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street.

Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending
methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall
practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge
standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime."

The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent
"subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn,
along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what
happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing
opportunities to lower income buyers.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

"hk" wrote in message
m...


I think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not
even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending
institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street.


The social engineering (and I said it was well intentioned) is what enabled
the greed of the financial institutions. (notice I didn't say "lending").
And then the government failed to exercise
the required oversight for a social program it initiated.


I don't blame local banks. They were simply complying with the law and
taking
advantage of the opportunity to issue more mortgages including the high risk
ones
because they could sell them off and wash their hands of them.



Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending
methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall
practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge
standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime."


I bought my first house with a VA "backed" loan when I was released from the
Navy.
The VA basically guarentees the amount of a typical down payment, or part of
it, based on the rational that someone exiting the military and trying to
buy a house did not have years of civilian level income behind him/her from
which to save the down payment. You *still* had to otherwise qualify for
the loan under the standards of the time, meaning credit rating, income,
etc. to indicate your ability to repay and be approved.

Not quite the same as the sub-prime loans starting in the 90's where all you
had to do was consume oxygen and sign your name to get a loan.


The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent
"subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn,
along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what
happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing
opportunities to lower income buyers.


Both. Chicken and Egg.
A fact that cannot be argued is that many of the loans were issued with full
knowledge
that the probability of default was 100 percent.

Eisboch

It Really Is Clinton III
 

hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...


Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam
to drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.


It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the
housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's
roots back in the mid 1990's.

A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership
available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage
lending. Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their
participation was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans.
Enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all
Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal
viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government
intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work,
can't work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be
encouraged to buy it. But many were, and now everybody pays.

"Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody
regardless of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so
strongly favored what became sub-prime lending now are screeching the
loudest about government oversight and a return to tougher lending
practices.

Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but
that's not how I feel.
I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony
economics, particularly those who sincerely thought it was an
opportunity that they would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there
are also many who realized, "screw it, what do I have to lose?"

Eisboch


I think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not
even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending
institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street.

The social engineering part was the primary driver of Congress' threat
to the lending industry to make more loans to those who were marginally
qualified, unqualified and completely and totally unqualified. This
opened up lending to those who couldn't handle their own finances across
the entire spectrum of haves and have nots.

Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending
methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall
practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge
standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime."

Within the last 20 years the lending market was cracked open wide, very
wide and just about anybody who was breathing and had a pay stub was
getting a lone whether they were getting a pay stub next week or not.

Risk analysis was thrown out the window with the Congress opening the
window and holding one side of the manual.

The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent
"subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn,
along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what
happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing
opportunities to lower income buyers.

The banks were stupid, they wanted as many of these loans off of their
books as possible. But, then they saw that others were making buckets of
money from these "packaged" sub prime loans and they started to get in
on the act.

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.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

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.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

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.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

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.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Jan 9, 8:41*pm, 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.

Top three recipients of election bribes from Fannie and Freddie:
Dodd
Obama
Kerry...

Frank was way up there too, but our do nothing Dodd is laughing all
the way to the bank..

It Really Is Clinton III
 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:08 -0500, 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.

Damn conservatives, always wanting government to regulate everything. ;-)

From my seat, it wasn't the CRA or the sub-prime loans that did this
economy in. It was the stupid actions of the banks and investment houses
in their dealings with sub-prime loans. Lehman Brothers was leveraged
somewhere @ 33 to 1. That's just downright dumb.

Remember "redlining"? It was a racist, and illegal, policy of grouping
entire neighborhoods as "out-of-bounds" for loans. That was what the CRA
was intended to alleviate. What a concept, banks doing their jobs
loaning money without regards to race, religion, or gender.

It Really Is Clinton III
 

"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

It Really Is Clinton III
 

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:08 -0500, 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.

Damn conservatives, always wanting government to regulate everything. ;-)

From my seat, it wasn't the CRA or the sub-prime loans that did this
economy in. It was the stupid actions of the banks and investment houses
in their dealings with sub-prime loans. Lehman Brothers was leveraged
somewhere @ 33 to 1. That's just downright dumb.

Remember "redlining"? It was a racist, and illegal, policy of grouping
entire neighborhoods as "out-of-bounds" for loans. That was what the CRA
was intended to alleviate. What a concept, banks doing their jobs
loaning money without regards to race, religion, or gender.


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.

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.

Eisboch