Looking for the Gobment to pay Your Mortage? Move to California!

[soonercruiser]

Apparently, California, the home of "how much more stupid can it get", has developed a new form of "Reverse Mortgage".
Just have the bank and tax-payers pay your mortgage.
And, don't worry....if the bank doesn't come through.....the Fed will pay it all!
:triumphant:

Saw an interview on Fox of a hispanic woman who does not have to pay her $2,400 mortgage payment.
Under this gobment program, supposedly to "Keep people in their homes", the bank is forced to pay half of the payment. And, the federal government pays the other half.
Wonder why we can't balance the federal budget!
STUPID!

US taxpayers bail out California homeowners, as banks fail to pay their share
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/us-taxpayers-bailout-california-homeowners-as-banks-fail-to-pay-their-share/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/us-taxpayers-bailout-california-homeowners-as-banks-fail-to-pay-their-share/#ixzz2496k9KIh

The program homepage...
http://keepyourhomecalifornia.org/faqs.htm

[cleller]

$7.6 billion in federal funds to pay off mortgages of people too irresponsible to do it themselves. People that would have never had a mortgage if the government hadn't pushed banks into lending to them to begin with.

[Midtowner]

$7.6 billion in federal funds to pay off mortgages of people too irresponsible to do it themselves. People that would have never had a mortgage if the government hadn't pushed banks into lending to them to begin with.

When will you folks stop spouting this stuff? If you're talking about the CRA, that's verifiably false and has been debunked plenty of times here.

These folks were the victims of unregulated financial markets, plain and simple. There never would have been that sort of money for banks to lend in the first place if we hadn't allowed commercial banks to act like investment banks.

[cleller]

When will you folks stop spouting this stuff? If you're talking about the CRA, that's verifiably false and has been debunked plenty of times here.

These folks were the victims of unregulated financial markets, plain and simple. There never would have been that sort of money for banks to lend in the first place if we hadn't allowed commercial banks to act like investment banks.

They are victims, eh? They cannot honor their debts, so the taxpayers do, yet they are the victims?
I will shift half the blame, if you like, to that Clinton guy that took the credit for arm-twisting the financial industry into giving money to his constituents to buy houses they couldn't afford.

[olevetonahill]

They are victims, eh? They cannot honor their debts, so the taxpayers do, yet they are the victims.
I will shift half the blame, if you like, to that Clinton guy that took the credit for arm-twisting the financial industry into giving money to his constituents to buy houses they couldn't afford.

Hey cleller I got this figured out
You an me go borrow more money than we can afford to pay back and then make Mid pay it for us

[cleller]

Hey cleller I got this figured out
You an me go borrow more money than we can afford to pay back and then make Mid pay it for us

Yes! We can be Victims, too! Its our civil right!

Where does it end? Don't have enough cash for your groceries? You're a victim of the inflated cost of food, because the government refined it into fuel to help voters (er, farmers) in Iowa. Lets get you some relief.
Can't make that payment on the Benz? Obviously, you are a victim of the government's policies. Hello, taxpayer?

By the way, why aren't ALL mortgage holders getting money from the government, instead of just select ne'er do wells?

[diverdog]

Apparently, California, the home of "how much more stupid can it get", has developed a new form of "Reverse Mortgage".
Just have the bank and tax-payers pay your mortgage.
And, don't worry....if the bank doesn't come through.....the Fed will pay it all!
:triumphant:

Saw an interview on Fox of a hispanic woman who does not have to pay her $2,400 mortgage payment.
Under this gobment program, supposedly to "Keep people in their homes", the bank is forced to pay half of the payment. And, the federal government pays the other half.
Wonder why we can't balance the federal budget!
STUPID!

US taxpayers bail out California homeowners, as banks fail to pay their share
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/us-taxpayers-bailout-california-homeowners-as-banks-fail-to-pay-their-share/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/us-taxpayers-bailout-california-homeowners-as-banks-fail-to-pay-their-share/#ixzz2496k9KIh

The program homepage...
http://keepyourhomecalifornia.org/faqs.htm

Did Fox also report that California only gets pennies on the dollar back on taxes they pay to the federal government while states like Oklahoma gets a buck thirty two back for every dollar they pay. Ya gotta wonder who is the real welfare queen.

And why did you have to identify the woman as "hispanic"?

[olevetonahill]

Did Fox also report that California only gets pennies on the dollar back on taxes they pay to the federal government while states like Oklahoma gets a buck thirty two back for every dollar they pay. Ya gotta wonder who is the real welfare queen.

And why did you have to identify the woman as "hispanic"?


Cause she wernt Black would be my guess.

[diverdog]

Cause she wernt Black would be my guess.

You are up early vet. Or did you just get back from running moonshine? ;)

[olevetonahill]

You are up early vet. Or did you just get back from running moonshine? ;)

Dont do that anymore. It causes ya to break out in ugly jewelry and spending nights in nasty places :smug:

[cleller]

Dont do that anymore. It causes ya to break out in ugly jewelry and spending nights in nasty places :smug:

More people should realize these types of situations before they start looking stupid.

[badger]

If the program was about keeping houses occupied, I could see the benefits. But the home should not belong to the occupiers after the bills are paid, but rather, the taxpayers that footed the bill.

[XingTheRubicon]

we sure have a lot of victims

[Sooner5030]

Did Fox also report that California only gets pennies on the dollar back on taxes they pay to the federal government while states like Oklahoma gets a buck thirty two back for every dollar they pay. Ya gotta wonder who is the real welfare queen.

And why did you have to identify the woman as "hispanic"?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-pushing-more-welfare-recipients-142406301.html


California is the national leader in welfare recipients. About 3.8 percent of state residents were on welfare in 2010, the highest percentage in the country. In fact, California houses about a third of the nation's welfare recipients, while only housing one-eighth of the national population

Maybe you should be against progressive taxes if you want to change the donor/debt state status.....b/c it has nothing to do with welfare, SNAP, and unemployment as cali leads okie in all of these by rate and total. The debt/donor state is driven more by cost of living differences (progressive tax rates) and retiree to non-retiree ratios.

[jkjsooner]

When will you folks stop spouting this stuff? If you're talking about the CRA, that's verifiably false and has been debunked plenty of times here.

These folks were the victims of unregulated financial markets, plain and simple. There never would have been that sort of money for banks to lend in the first place if we hadn't allowed commercial banks to act like investment banks.

I agree with everything Mid said except for the victim part. I suspect Mid was using the term victim very loosely and was not attempting to say the homeowners were not responsible for their debts.

But in some respects anyone who lived in California and didn't own a home before 1998 or so were victims of the unregulated financial markets. The most responsible of this group have been renting for well over a decade because the conditions that Wall Street created drove prices to unreasonable levels.

[soonercruiser]

Did Fox also report that California only gets pennies on the dollar back on taxes they pay to the federal government while states like Oklahoma gets a buck thirty two back for every dollar they pay. Ya gotta wonder who is the real welfare queen.

And why did you have to identify the woman as "hispanic"?

The residents, poor and illegals in Cal are gettin' plenty of free stuff from the fed and state.
That's why CA is bankrupt, Diver.
Try 3rd grade math!

The woman herself, admitted what was going on! Testomony to the truth, Diver.
Just the black woman on video after the last election...."Obama gonna make me rich"!

[Midtowner]

The residents, poor and illegals in Cal are gettin' plenty of free stuff from the fed and state.
That's why CA is bankrupt, Diver.
Try 3rd grade math!

The woman herself, admitted what was going on! Testomony to the truth, Diver.
Just the black woman on video after the last election...."Obama gonna make me rich"!

Testonomy?

Have another drink!

[Midtowner]

This is ridiculous. The banks should be forced to uniformly take mortgage writedowns in order to stabilize housing in these states. It was their activity after the removal of Glass Steagall which caused the bubble and crash. Let them pay for it rather than the taxpayers and our bailout money.

[REDREX]

This is ridiculous. The banks should be forced to uniformly take mortgage writedowns in order to stabilize housing in these states. It was their activity after the removal of Glass Steagall which caused the bubble and crash. Let them pay for it rather than the taxpayers and our bailout money.----Bull****---- If Freddie and Fannie had not enabled anyone with a pulse to get a loan much of the mess would never have happened

[Midtowner]

----Bull****---- If Freddie and Fannie had not enabled anyone with a pulse to get a loan much of the mess would never have happened

Would they have had the money if the consumer banks weren't acting as investment banks?

[REDREX]

Would they have had the money if the consumer banks weren't acting as investment banks?-- Would anyone have loaned money to people that could not pay it back if it were not for Freddie and Fannie buying up the notes?--------- Freddie and Fannie were a big part of the over supply of lending and the lowering of standards----What did the bailout of Freedie and Fannie cost $300 Billion and counting ?

[cleller]

Voyager upon life's sea,
To yourself be true,
And whatever your lot may be,
Paddle your own canoe.

[SoonerBread]

These folks were the victims of unregulated financial markets, plain and simple.

Nope. No more victims than armed robbers are who get hurt in the commission of their crime.

If you can't pay the bill, you don't get the goodies. DGAF who authorized the loans, who enabled them, who encouraged these people to make them/take them out. The people to whom the money was given are ultimately responsible for paying it back. End-o-discussion. Gotta get out of this goddam victim mentality for people who can tie their own shoes but are too lazy to do it. Or they like the way others do it so they want them to do it for them. Those aren't victims any more than these loan parasites. It's total bull****, and until smart people like you start realizing it and stop saying stupid *** **** like the quote above, we are never going to fix anything.

[Midtowner]

Nope. No more victims than armed robbers are who get hurt in the commission of their crime.
.

The vast majority of these folks are individuals who bought in at a price, looking at a recent history of double digit price increases on real estate (created by Wall Street's bubble) who suddenly found their $600K homes worth $150K.

Many bigtime investors and politicians didn't see this coming. Considering the state of the securities markets, in retrospect, hindsight is 20/20.

[diverdog]

-- Would anyone have loaned money to people that could not pay it back if it were not for Freddie and Fannie buying up the notes?--------- Freddie and Fannie were a big part of the over supply of lending and the lowering of standards----What did the bailout of Freedie and Fannie cost $300 Billion and counting ?

Freddie and Fannie would not have bought that ****ty paper had the big Wall Street Investment Banks and rating agencies not lied to them.

[diverdog]

Nope. No more victims than armed robbers are who get hurt in the commission of their crime.

If you can't pay the bill, you don't get the goodies. DGAF who authorized the loans, who enabled them, who encouraged these people to make them/take them out. The people to whom the money was given are ultimately responsible for paying it back. End-o-discussion. Gotta get out of this goddam victim mentality for people who can tie their own shoes but are too lazy to do it. Or they like the way others do it so they want them to do it for them. Those aren't victims any more than these loan parasites. It's total bull****, and until smart people like you start realizing it and stop saying stupid *** **** like the quote above, we are never going to fix anything.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Many of these folks were victims of outright fraud.

[SoonerBread]

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Many of these folks were victims of outright fraud.

Fraud? Buying too big a house, with little to no money down, while only qualifying for sub-prime, adjustable rates. They weren't victims of fraud. They were stupid. Who buys a house when they can't afford it? Victims? It's one thing to lose your source of income, it's quite another to compound that with having too much house. Adding stupid on top of unfortunate (which is not near rule in this case) doesn't allow someone to claim or apply the victim card.

My house payment ain't changed. My home is less valuable today than when I bought it, but I've got no intention or reason to sell it. Am I a victim? Or would I only be a victim if my house payment "unexpectedly" went up. You can bitch about the lending situation all you want, but most of these people you're crying for are only victims of their own stupidity.

[Midtowner]

Fraud? Buying too big a house, with little to no money down, while only qualifying for sub-prime, adjustable rates. They weren't victims of fraud. They were stupid. Who buys a house when they can't afford it?

Yeah.. totally! We should bail out the banks who were dumb enough to loan the money to folks they knew were unqualified... but as far as those worthless pricks who borrowed, screw 'em!

--that's fair, right?

[SoonerBread]

Yeah.. totally! We should bail out the banks who were dumb enough to loan the money to folks they knew were unqualified... but as far as those worthless pricks who borrowed, screw 'em!--that's fair, right?

Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Way to mischaracterize my words.

Wait, you're a lawyer. That's what you do. Carry on.

[diverdog]

Fraud? Buying too big a house, with little to no money down, while only qualifying for sub-prime, adjustable rates. They weren't victims of fraud. They were stupid. Who buys a house when they can't afford it? Victims? It's one thing to lose your source of income, it's quite another to compound that with having too much house. Adding stupid on top of unfortunate (which is not near rule in this case) doesn't allow someone to claim or apply the victim card.

My house payment ain't changed. My home is less valuable today than when I bought it, but I've got no intention or reason to sell it. Am I a victim? Or would I only be a victim if my house payment "unexpectedly" went up. You can bitch about the lending situation all you want, but most of these people you're crying for are only victims of their own stupidity.

There were over 1200 mortgage officers arrested nationwide for fraud! A lot of home buyers, especially the ones who dealt with Countrywide had entire parts of their mortgage papers that were either not disclosed or with held from them. I am not saying that there were not greedy dumb asses out there who got in over their heads because they were greedy. What I am saying is that there was huge culpability with the mortgage brokers and Wall Street. The thing that pisses me off is that the number of people arrested was a fraction of the people who needed to be arrested.

[Midtowner]

Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Way to mischaracterize my words.

Wait, you're a lawyer. That's what you do. Carry on.

No, I was pointing out that you're not giving any of the blame to the bad actors who were likely in a much better position to understand that what they were doing wasn't going to work. The banks got bailed out with taxpayer money, no one is going to jail except for small fries. These folks were sold a bill of goods, these banks did it or encouraged an atmosphere of fraud or deception. If we're going to bail the banks out with taxpayer funds, it's only fair to bail out homeowners--further, principal reductions are really the only way to stabilize the markets which have a major role to play in job creation.

[cleller]

So the government is obligated to give money to people who bought into an asset class that was obviously inflating at an unrealistic pace? They also signed complicated mortgages that even rudimentary research would show to be risky, without consulting an attorney. Any book or financial primer at a library would detail very simply what are and are not wise mortgage choices. Heck, that information has been plastered all over the internet for years.
Yet the government does not feel an obligation to people who have lost money thru other bad investments, frauds, ponzi schemes. What about the stock losses due the fraud of these bankers? The money lost thru MF Global and Peregrine? Bernie Madoff? No government money on the table there. The airlines are losing a lot of money owing to circumstances beyond their control, where's their money?

There's just obviously two sides to the fence. One side of the fence believes the government should be responsible for the welfare, housing, etc of its citizens. The other doesn't. This is just another step toward government control of individuals lives. Its more incentive for people to lean on government rather than stand on their own.
The results of our actions are strong learning opportunities. Too bad the government keeps taking them away.

As partners in the strife for gain,
Self-interest will pursue;
And leave you with your debts, perhaps,
To paddle your own canoe.

[REDREX]

Freddie and Fannie would not have bought that ****ty paper had the big Wall Street Investment Banks and rating agencies not lied to them.----Freddie and Fannie bought paper because they were told to----- As you will recall the "everyone should have a house" days---- They did not do the job they should have and they helped to enable stupid investments and poor lending practices.-------You can thank Barney Frank and others for not putting a stop to the poor mgmt of F&F----- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

[badger]

Yeah.. totally! We should bail out the banks who were dumb enough to loan the money to folks they knew were unqualified... but as far as those worthless pricks who borrowed, screw 'em!

--that's fair, right?

There were actually a lot of stories coming out locally that when people fell behind payments for whatever reason (lost job, injury-forced early retirement, unexpected medical bills, etc) the common story was that bank personnel would tell them to stop making payments so that they could be eligible for mortgage relief programs.

Yes, that sounds absurd, but if a bank person tells you that you can do something like that, what would you do?

So, people stopped paying their mortgages outright... and then fell into foreclosure proceedings. Some would turn to the local media, which would get foreclosure proceedings halted, but they would still be waaaay behind on payments without any relief in sight (except for the relief of knowing that they won't get evicted from their home immediately).

There was one uplifting story in the midst of all this mortgage misery, however -- one local woman said that she had prayed about how to save their home, then realized that she had a killer carrot cake recipe. Her church let the family use the kitchen, church members assisted in baking and a few months later, their mortgage was paid off and they were setting aside money for future emergencies instead of worrying that their family was going to be homeless.

So... I guess the lesson is that you can either take matter into your own hands and succeed, or wait for assistance from others and fail. Sad but true.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

When will you folks stop spouting this stuff? If you're talking about the CRA, that's verifiably false and has been debunked plenty of times here.

These folks were the victims of unregulated financial markets, plain and simple. There never would have been that sort of money for banks to lend in the first place if we hadn't allowed commercial banks to act like investment banks.

It's not just about the CRA. It's about these quasi-government agencies that lowered credit standards for government backed mortgages and set up secondary markets that allowed for the decoupling of risk from those actually initiating the loan. This market was well regulated, nay, created by the government.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Freddie and Fannie would not have bought that ****ty paper had the big Wall Street Investment Banks and rating agencies not lied to them.

Bull****. Fannie and Freddie created the market at the behest of government. They, Congress and Wall Street are one in this.

The ratings agencies have a severe conflict of interest. Take their ratings for what they are worth

[Midtowner]

So the government is obligated to give money to people who bought into an asset class that was obviously inflating at an unrealistic pace? They also signed complicated mortgages that even rudimentary research would show to be risky, without consulting an attorney. Any book or financial primer at a library would detail very simply what are and are not wise mortgage choices. Heck, that information has been plastered all over the internet for years.

So someone buys a house which has been appreciating at 10% per year or so for the last few decades at $600,000, and due to market manipulations which only a few well-connected people at hedge funds knew about, that asset is suddenly worth $150,000, and due to the collapse in the economy due to the aforementioned manipulations, this hypothetical person loses her job, then according to you, this person is an idiot who bought into a bad investment and deserves to lose everything.

Let's up the ante... Let's say that person buys a house and the mortgage broker, unbeknownst to the buyer, fraudulently represents the income of the buyer to the underwriter in order to get the loan approved, selling to the buyer at a low introductory payment on that new house which is scheduled to increase or head for a balloon payment they'll never be able to afford. That's the kind of thing which was going on.

The banks were bailed out... they made dumb investments. The banks were in a MUCH better position to do something about the rampant fraud and deceit in the industry. Instead, executives focused on the present term and the present term's bonuses. The government made them whole.

If someone gets a bailout, why on Earth are we giving it to these businesses, whose job it is to understand these markets better than anyone else in the world and whose job it is not to underwrite horrible loans? Why not the victims of fraud and the victims of the housing collapse brought on by these people who were supposed to be the smartest people in the world at what they did?


Yet the government does not feel an obligation to people who have lost money thru other bad investments, frauds, ponzi schemes. What about the stock losses due the fraud of these bankers?

If we had better regulated markets and an SEC which wasn't totally neutered, a lot of these things wouldn't have happened. Also, if Corzine went to prison and all of those in the know at firms like Goldman Sachs and Magnetar were going to prison and having their profits from these debacles confiscated, we would have a much improved system.

What about the losses we bailed out firms like Goldman Sachs and AIG for?


There's just obviously two sides to the fence. One side of the fence believes the government should be responsible for the welfare, housing, etc of its citizens. The other doesn't. This is just another step toward government control of individuals lives. Its more incentive for people to lean on government rather than stand on their own.
The results of our actions are strong learning opportunities. Too bad the government keeps taking them away.

I"m all for personal responsibility, but you can't exercise that without good information and without reasonable safeguards against deceit and unfair business practices. You need to recognize that when your average consumer enters into the financial markets with their life savings or into the housing markets, they don't have any way of knowing about these market forces out there. There are clearly inadequate safeguards to protect consumers against collapses in commodities orchestrated by Wall Streeters looking to make a quick billion bucks.

Let's have free and open markets. To do that, we need to regulate away the rigged game we currently have.

[XingTheRubicon]

^^Everyone of those issues are avoidable if the consumer is/was not a complete dumb*ss.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So someone buys a house which has been appreciating at 10% per year or so for the last few decades at $600,000,

Those houses in CA, AZ, NV and FL hadn't appreciated 10% a decade, they had doubled in value in 5 years. I feel as sorry for those folks that bought at the top of that bubble as I do the folks that bought the NASDAQ at 5,000.

We don't have free and open markets. The government along with Wall Street conspired to create this situation. And look who got bailed out. And look at how guys like Tim Geithner set up sweetheart deals for his buddies at GS during those bailouts.

[cleller]

Just because someone buys a house that had been appreciating in the near term doesn't mean we need to protect them from the downside of a bursting bubble. I didn't call them idiots, I said they undertook risky and unsound investments. Life has alway been tough on some people. The Okies 80 years ago faced worse, when do they get their checks?

The banks were loaned money. The taxpayers had at least been returned a profit on the TARP loans. These people are being handed up to $100,000. Pass a law to make the banks give them the money if it is that necessary.

I don't see it as a "this because of that" game. Just because we got taken to the cleaners by the banks doesn't mean we should give away tax money.

[SCOUT]

So someone buys a house which has been appreciating at 10% per year or so for the last few decades at $600,000, and due to market manipulations which only a few well-connected people at hedge funds knew about, that asset is suddenly worth $150,000, and due to the collapse in the economy due to the aforementioned manipulations, this hypothetical person loses her job, then according to you, this person is an idiot who bought into a bad investment and deserves to lose everything.
Mid, past performance isn't necessarily a predictor of future results. Even non-hedge fund insiders know that.

I would like your take on an alternative view to your scenario. Assuming the same variables, why should some guy in a Dallas suburb who didn't participate in any of that, be the one stuck with even of portion of that bill?

[soonercruiser]

The vast majority of these folks are individuals who bought in at a price, looking at a recent history of double digit price increases on real estate (created by Wall Street's bubble) who suddenly found their $600K homes worth $150K.

Many bigtime investors and politicians didn't see this coming. Considering the state of the securities markets, in retrospect, hindsight is 20/20.

Bush and his administration went to Congress 17 times to warn about the problem!
Who stopped them? Ever heard of Chris Dodd....Barinie's Frank?????
:hopelessness:

[soonercruiser]

There were over 1200 mortgage officers arrested nationwide for fraud! A lot of home buyers, especially the ones who dealt with Countrywide had entire parts of their mortgage papers that were either not disclosed or with held from them. I am not saying that there were not greedy dumb asses out there who got in over their heads because they were greedy. What I am saying is that there was huge culpability with the mortgage brokers and Wall Street. The thing that pisses me off is that the number of people arrested was a fraction of the people who needed to be arrested.

And many of the big investment company execs and bankers responsible were punished with jobs in the Obama administration! What's the term for this??

[diverdog]

And many of the big investment company execs and bankers responsible were punished with jobs in the Obama administration! What's the term for this??

Oh I agree. But a lot of them were left over from Bush as well. Geitner for instance.

[jkjsooner]

-- Would anyone have loaned money to people that could not pay it back if it were not for Freddie and Fannie buying up the notes?--------- Freddie and Fannie were a big part of the over supply of lending and the lowering of standards----What did the bailout of Freedie and Fannie cost $300 Billion and counting ?

This has been countered over and over. The worst of the loans did not qualify for Freddie or Fannie. Wall Street was happy to buy these loans.

Freddie or Fannie played a role but the facts just don't back up your assertions.

[jkjsooner]

----Freddie and Fannie bought paper because they were told to----- As you will recall the "everyone should have a house" days----

Are you talking about that "ownership society" that Bush so often pushed?

[Midtowner]

Bush and his administration went to Congress 17 times to warn about the problem!
Who stopped them? Ever heard of Chris Dodd....Barinie's Frank?????
:hopelessness:

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank at least tried to do something to stop it from happening again. The Republican Congressmen have attempted to thwart them in even naming a director to the agency.

Too bad the last director they poo-pooed is going to end up as a U.S. Senator.

[jkjsooner]

So someone buys a house which has been appreciating at 10% per year or so for the last few decades at $600,000, and due to market manipulations which only a few well-connected people at hedge funds knew about, that asset is suddenly worth $150,000,

All it takes is a little common sense and seventh grade mathematics to determine that this was unsustainable. I wasn't well-connected but I knew there was a problem in California. It was clear that the average Californian couldn't afford $800k houses yet they were buying them. It was clear that something was wrong when a house appreciated by a factor of 4 in just a few years. Common sense tells you that.

How the majority of economists missed this is one of our great mysteries. This isn't 20/20 hindsight. I was telling everyone who would listen back in 2004.

It was funny just how stupid people were. I had a coworker who kept doubling down in real estate use some of the most illogical arguments. He would make claims that people can afford these high prices because they're selling their existing homes at huge profits. He simply couldn't understand that that is exactly a pyramid scheme. People were simply deluded and clueless.

NPR ran a story in the middle of the bubble indicating that the majority of people thought that homes would appreciate at a certain rate for the next few decades. I don't remember exactly what the rate was but I did a little calculation (1+rate)^years which indicated that
house prices would go up by about a factor of 50 over this period. I have to assume that this was a math failure and not a common sense failure.

Then you had the media who would buy the line of the National Association of Realtors chief economist as if if the NAR is an independent and unbiased organization. It just drove me nuts. What's worse is they still listen to their economic forecasts.

Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for the economist profession because the majority of them were either bought off or simply lacked the most basic common sense.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

This has been countered over and over. The worst of the loans did not qualify for Freddie or Fannie. Wall Street was happy to buy these loans.

Freddie or Fannie played a role but the facts just don't back up your assertions.

Then why was Fannie and Freddie setting on hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt? If anybody should have known what was going on, it was these guys. They were enablers of the market place and are just as culpable as Countrywide, Goldman Sachs and the ratings agencies.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank at least tried to do something to stop it from happening again. The Republican Congressmen have attempted to thwart them in even naming a director to the agency.

Too bad the last director they poo-pooed is going to end up as a U.S. Senator.

Chris "countrywide" Dodd and Barney Frank are in the pockets of the big banks. They had the chance to break up the big banks but weren't about to mess with their gravy train. All we got was permanent bailouts codified into law and the party goes on. Well at least they have some shills out there who continue to buy their bull****.

This new bureaucracy will be nothing more than a shill for industry and a make work project for bureaucrats.

[Midtowner]

Chris "countrywide" Dodd and Barney Frank are in the pockets of the big banks. They had the chance to break up the big banks but weren't about to mess with their gravy train. All we got was permanent bailouts codified into law and the party goes on. Well at least they have some shills out there who continue to buy their bull****.

This new bureaucracy will be nothing more than a shill for industry and a make work project for bureaucrats.

What Republican proposals are there to fix Wall Street?

[diverdog]

Then why was Fannie and Freddie setting on hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt? If anybody should have known what was going on, it was these guys. They were enablers of the market place and are just as culpable as Countrywide, Goldman Sachs and the ratings agencies.

HOw were they suppose to know it was bad debt? All they bought was AAA paper.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What Republican proposals are there to fix Wall Street?

None. Do you see me touting Republican proposals?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

HOw were they suppose to know it was bad debt? All they bought was AAA paper.

And they had no idea what was going on in their own industry while Bush and Barney Frank were pressuring them to get more people in their own homes?

Let me go buy that Unicorns and Ferries ETF.

[Midtowner]

None. Do you see me touting Republican proposals?

Nope. But while your sniping at the ineffectiveness of Frank-Dodd, keep in mind that the Republicans did a lot to water it down, did block someone who would have been a very activist director and are still aiming to repeal it. While Frank-Dodd is not what we need, it's all we can get. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street and until some well-financed third party option shows up, Frank-Dodd and half measures like it are all we'll see.

[diverdog]

And they had no idea what was going on in their own industry while Bush and Barney Frank were pressuring them to get more people in their own homes?

Let me go buy that Unicorns and Ferries ETF.

The pressure was coming from Wall Street and the shareholders. This was driven mostly by the private sector.

If I sell you a portfolio of bonds rated AAA by all three rating agencies and they were certified by Ernst & Young I bet you would think they were a safe investment. Right? I know of only one person who figured at these portfolios were crap. Just one and he ran a hedge fund that shorted the investment banks.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

One person that was outside the realm of the real estate world. Hell government Sachs shorted their own CFO offerings. Fannie and Freddie didn't have to worry about risk taking. They knew the taxpayers would be on the hook.

You can deny their culpability but it sure doesn't meet the smell test.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

None. Do you see me touting Republican proposals?

Nope. But while your sniping at the ineffectiveness of Frank-Dodd, keep in mind that the Republicans did a lot to water it down, did block someone who would have been a very activist director and are still aiming to repeal it. While Frank-Dodd is not what we need, it's all we can get. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street and until some well-financed third party option shows up, Frank-Dodd and half measures like it are all we'll see.

Frank-Dodd isn't even a half measure. It's an attempt to show Congress 'did something' while the party goes on for Wall Street.

[diverdog]

One person that was outside the realm of the real estate world. Hell government Sachs shorted their own CFO offerings. Fannie and Freddie didn't have to worry about risk taking. They knew the taxpayers would be on the hook.

You can deny their culpability but it sure doesn't meet the smell test.

I am not denying their culpability but it is only a fraction of what happened on Wall Street.

I am guessing you are a broker.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

One person that was outside the realm of the real estate world. Hell government Sachs shorted their own CFO offerings. Fannie and Freddie didn't have to worry about risk taking. They knew the taxpayers would be on the hook.

You can deny their culpability but it sure doesn't meet the smell test.

I am not denying their culpability but it is only a fraction of what happened on Wall Street.

I am guessing you are a broker.

Not even close. Just an interested observer. I'm in the oil industry.

[okie52]

Not even close. Just an interested observer. I'm in the oil industry.

I tried to get this from you in another thread...are you involved with offshore operations?

[Midtowner]

Frank-Dodd isn't even a half measure. It's an attempt to show Congress 'did something' while the party goes on for Wall Street.

Well, Wall Street is still pretty reactive to it in that they say it's a bad thing. Also, the Consumer Protection Agency has slapped a few banks pretty hard already. It was a half measure. It was something.

--of course, I always have a huge problem with those fines. You fine Bank of America, do you think that affects the CEO's bonus? Nope. That money comes from the shareholders--the folks who had less culpability than anyone else involved.

[pphilfran]

I am kinda in the middle of all this discussion...a whole bunch of blame can be placed on all parties...

[soonercruiser]

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank at least tried to do something to stop it from happening again. The Republican Congressmen have attempted to thwart them in even naming a director to the agency.

Too bad the last director they poo-pooed is going to end up as a U.S. Senator.

...."tried tostop it from happening again"???????
You can't be serious????
Barney still goes into a rant to this day defending his position that Fannie & Freddie was a good investment!
Sober up!

[soonercruiser]

Frank-Dodd isn't even a half measure. It's an attempt to show Congress 'did something' while the party goes on for Wall Street.

THIS^^^^^

[diverdog]

THIS^^^^^


Not really. I deal with DF in the banking world. There are a lot of things we do differently that is good for the consumer.

[AlboSooner]

Let's Give $7.6B to some bank. People seem to have an easier time paying for their irresponsible debts.

[XingTheRubicon]

Not really. I deal with DF in the banking world. There are a lot of things we do differently that is good for the helpless, retarded, constant victim.

F