Company won't hire anyone

[fjl2nd]

You're right. So, I'll also blame the Democrat party of 2003 for their cries of racism whenever Fanny and Freddie were brought up for more regulation. Then there is Chuck of 2008 and his loose lips that sank the banking industry.

 

I feel better now. Thank's for pointing out the error of my narrow minded thinking.

 

George Bush was also a big proponent of everyone owning a home. He pushed it just as hard as the Democrats.

 

I know you like to blame Chuck for everything, but one guy can't bring an entire sector of the country down.

 

Hmmm, sure seems like I hit the nail on the head.

 

How do you figure? I said Bush is one of many to blame. These problems with economy can be traced a long ways back before Bush. But, he didn't do much to curb any of the lurking problems. To be fair, Obama hasn't done much either to fix the deep-rooted problems within the financial sector.

[Oxrock]

George Bush was also a big proponent of everyone owning a home. He pushed it just as hard as the Democrats.

 

I know you like to blame Chuck for everything, but one guy can't bring an entire sector of the country down.

 

I guess you missed the YouTube videos the Barney Frank thread.

 

Go ahead... google it! Cut in past this: Chuck Schumer caused run on banks.

 

If you're in Chrome, just hi-lite those words, right click, and "search google for...".

 

 

Ahh heck... Here ya go: Click here Frank!

[Chef Jim]

 

 

 

How do you figure? I said Bush is one of many to blame. These problems with economy can be traced a long ways back before Bush. But, he didn't do much to curb any of the lurking problems. To be fair, Obama hasn't done much either to fix the deep-rooted problems within the financial sector.

 

 

Because you brought him up when there was no need to. "Oh yeah....well under Bush...."

 

Yeah....gots the new guy figured out pretty quickly.

[fjl2nd]

Because you brought him up when there was no need to. "Oh yeah....well under Bush...."

 

Yeah....gots the new guy figured out pretty quickly.

 

I quoted a post talking about Bush's term...

 

Are you sane?

[3rdnlng]

George Bush was also a big proponent of everyone owning a home. He pushed it just as hard as the Democrats.

 

I know you like to blame Chuck for everything, but one guy can't bring an entire sector of the country down.

 

 

 

How do you figure? I said Bush is one of many to blame. These problems with economy can be traced a long ways back before Bush. But, he didn't do much to curb any of the lurking problems. To be fair, Obama hasn't done much either to fix the deep-rooted problems within the financial sector.

 

 

If you have one ounce of integrity you will take the time to google Bush, McCain, Republicans along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and listen to their comments regarding the same. Then google congressional democrats and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and listen to them. Learn something. Find out the root cause of this mess we are in. While you are at it google CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and see what good that did.

[fjl2nd]

If you have one ounce of integrity you will take the time to google Bush, McCain, Republicans along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and listen to their comments regarding the same. Then google congressional democrats and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and listen to them. Learn something. Find out the root cause of this mess we are in. While you are at it google CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and see what good that did.

 

Something like this? President Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership

 

Or....

 

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

 

Fact of the matter is many in Congress and Bush in the White House wanted to push home ownership to everyone.

[3rdnlng]

Something like this? President Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership

 

Or....

 

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

 

Fact of the matter is many in Congress and Bush in the White House wanted to push home ownership to everyone.

 

If you have one ounce of integrity you will look into it like I said. You can cherry pick what you want to try to refute this but if you make yourself knowledgeable you will understand what I am saying. Right now you are acting like lyrbob, and trust me, you don't want to do that to yourself.

[Chef Jim]

I quoted a post talking about Bush's term...

 

Are you sane?

 

I was until you showed up.

[Buftex]

You and Adam should hang out.

 

No offense, but this kind of thinking is precisely why we have a POS govt. Because in the name of simplicity we look at who is in charge rather than what is done.

 

With the financial meltdown we've got Democrats blaming Bush for generic "deregulation" which occurred under Clinton (and whose impact is greatly overstated), Republicans being blamed for the Democrat pet project that was/is Freddie and Fannie which was instrumental in the creation of the secondary mortgage market, because Bush was in charge when the **** hit the fan.

 

Of course Bush was out there encouraging morons to buy more houses when any lay person with a lick of sense knew the numbers were artificially inflated and unsustainable, but that's not really the point. Nor is the way so many of us, for lack of a coherent thought or even a vague grasp of the greater forces at play, just chalk it up to "corporate greed", as though there's some type of greed inherrently present and unique to financial institutions. But I digress.

 

On other fronts we've got Bush passing a behemouth entitlement in the medicare drug benefit, and Obama's massive entitlement in Obamacare. But instead of looking at these as two massive expansions of government into health care, we treat these similar actions as entirely distinct because under one a Republican is in charge and under the other a Democrat is in charge.

 

Until we as a society stop being too intellectually lazy to look a little deeper than whose on TV when something happens and attributing everything to that person, this crappy pseudo-Santa Clause government is what we need to get used to, because quite frankly, it's what we deserve.

 

My god, what has happened to you?

[B-Large]

The reason Obama was elected in 2008 was because the economy was in the toilet. Its true that Obama has done nothing to improve it but it started long before he was elected, and yes Boooosh was at the helm when the economy went downhill, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

I think Obama was elected for the very fact that most of America believes that Government provides solutions to all problems..... I think that very assumption is the issue at hand.... people thought a new guy would change the fundamental issue in most bubble siutations: Government Meddling

 

Does anyone honestly believe the Housing boom of 2002- 2007ish would have been possible without Government distortion of the real estate market? Would the boom have happened if:

 

1. Interest rates were not dropped to historic lows for way, way, way to long?

2. the US government did not back home financing?

3. If banks were required to keep their notes on their books, exclusively?

 

The egregious expansion of cheap credit and backing of loan by the Federal Government fueled the issues we are seeing today, hands down. Is it Bush fault? some of it. Is it Greenspans fault? some of it. Is the Government Agencies fault? some of it. Was a it a greedy public/ financial sector's fault? Some of it.

 

Government, in my opinion, obscured the fundamental relationship of risk with relation to asset value and most people were more than glad to look the other way as the banged out HELOCS and Refi's sp fast they're head spun.

 

I will say it again... why is the Federal Government involved in residential property financing? It is not their job....

[DC Tom]

I think Obama was elected for the very fact that most of America believes that Government provides solutions to all problems..... I think that very assumption is the issue at hand.... people thought a new guy would change the fundamental issue in most bubble siutations: Government Meddling

 

Does anyone honestly believe the Housing boom of 2002- 2007ish would have been possible without Government distortion of the real estate market? Would the boom have happened if:

 

1. Interest rates were not dropped to historic lows for way, way, way to long?

2. the US government did not back home financing?

3. If banks were required to keep their notes on their books, exclusively?

 

The egregious expansion of cheap credit and backing of loan by the Federal Government fueled the issues we are seeing today, hands down. Is it Bush fault? some of it. Is it Greenspans fault? some of it. Is the Government Agencies fault? some of it. Was a it a greedy public/ financial sector's fault? Some of it.

 

Government, in my opinion, obscured the fundamental relationship of risk with relation to asset value and most people were more than glad to look the other way as the banged out HELOCS and Refi's sp fast they're head spun.

 

I will say it again... why is the Federal Government involved in residential property financing? It is not their job....

 

 

The egregious expansion of cheap credit...yes. The backing of loans by the Federal government was substantially less responsible. The bubble was financed far more by the subprime markets that even Fannie and Freddie for the most part wouldn't touch, that were insured privately. And the subprime markets are what drove the cheap credit: by way of example, when Countrywide can sell a $500k mortgage for $550k, and turn around and lend that $550k knowing it can sell that mortgage too, because there's a trillion dollars itching to buy any trash available on the market...well, it becomes really cheap to write mortgages, regardless of what the government's doing.

 

Not that the government's blameless...the constant weakening of Fannie and Freddie's standards definitely contributed to the general belief of "It's okay to be stupid, the government's doing it!", and a decades-long philosophy of home ownership being a right and not a responsibility led to a lot of home ownership by people who qualified for loans only because they were "discriminated against" otherwise (which is one of the main reasons the government's involved in mortgages today). But it's not as direct as you imply.

 

 

And point of fact regarding (3): many banks do maintain exposure to the loans they write. The Countrywide example again: Countrywide more often than not sold bonds backed by their loans than the loans themselves. The notes go into a trust, from which the bond payments are made, and if there's a shortfall Countrywide's on the hook for the difference. One could argue that they have worse exposure than just keeping the mortgage themselves: if the mortgage defaults and they hold it direct, it impacts their bottom line. But if they have it in trust to pay a bond, now a default impacts not just their bottom line but an obligation to another party. Missing an earnings estimate is not quite as serious as missing a bond payment.

 

Note, too, that other lenders that followed the practice didn't have that problem. Wells Fargo's mortgage financing operated largely the same way as Countrywide did. The big difference is that Wells Fargo didn't write nearly as many **** loans (they wrote some, but their entire business model wasn't centered on the principle of "We write **** loans!" like Countrywide's was). Holding your notes does no good if you're stupid - which Countrywide was, in spades.

[Chef Jim]

The egregious expansion of cheap credit...yes. The backing of loans by the Federal government was substantially less responsible. The bubble was financed far more by the subprime markets that even Fannie and Freddie for the most part wouldn't touch, that were insured privately. And the subprime markets are what drove the cheap credit: by way of example, when Countrywide can sell a $500k mortgage for $550k, and turn around and lend that $550k knowing it can sell that mortgage too, because there's a trillion dollars itching to buy any trash available on the market...well, it becomes really cheap to write mortgages, regardless of what the government's doing.

 

Not that the government's blameless...the constant weakening of Fannie and Freddie's standards definitely contributed to the general belief of "It's okay to be stupid, the government's doing it!", and a decades-long philosophy of home ownership being a right and not a responsibility led to a lot of home ownership by people who qualified for loans only because they were "discriminated against" otherwise (which is one of the main reasons the government's involved in mortgages today). But it's not as direct as you imply.

 

 

And point of fact regarding (3): many banks do maintain exposure to the loans they write. The Countrywide example again: Countrywide more often than not sold bonds backed by their loans than the loans themselves. The notes go into a trust, from which the bond payments are made, and if there's a shortfall Countrywide's on the hook for the difference. One could argue that they have worse exposure than just keeping the mortgage themselves: if the mortgage defaults and they hold it direct, it impacts their bottom line. But if they have it in trust to pay a bond, now a default impacts not just their bottom line but an obligation to another party. Missing an earnings estimate is not quite as serious as missing a bond payment.

 

Note, too, that other lenders that followed the practice didn't have that problem. Wells Fargo's mortgage financing operated largely the same way as Countrywide did. The big difference is that Wells Fargo didn't write nearly as many **** loans (they wrote some, but their entire business model wasn't centered on the principle of "We write **** loans!" like Countrywide's was). Holding your notes does no good if you're stupid - which Countrywide was, in spades.

 

Wow and it took the new kid 10 pages to explain it.

 

BTW my firm got out of the mortgage business in the middle of all of this. People were asking us if we were nuts. We told them "no, you're nuts."

Edited December 1, 2011 by Chef Jim

[BillsFanM.D.]

I think Obama was elected for the very fact that most of America believes that Government provides solutions to all problems..... I think that very assumption is the issue at hand.... people thought a new guy would change the fundamental issue in most bubble siutations: Government Meddling

 

Does anyone honestly believe the Housing boom of 2002- 2007ish would have been possible without Government distortion of the real estate market? Would the boom have happened if:

 

1. Interest rates were not dropped to historic lows for way, way, way to long?

2. the US government did not back home financing?

3. If banks were required to keep their notes on their books, exclusively?

 

The egregious expansion of cheap credit and backing of loan by the Federal Government fueled the issues we are seeing today, hands down. Is it Bush fault? some of it. Is it Greenspans fault? some of it. Is the Government Agencies fault? some of it. Was a it a greedy public/ financial sector's fault? Some of it.

 

Government, in my opinion, obscured the fundamental relationship of risk with relation to asset value and most people were more than glad to look the other way as the banged out HELOCS and Refi's sp fast they're head spun.

 

I will say it again... why is the Federal Government involved in residential property financing? It is not their job....

 

Nothing much to add (so I suppose I'm an idiot ) but this is a solid post. Our government is way too overreaching and the housing market is a great example. I suppose 'they' are all involved in the never ending game of seeking the 'next' re-election. Practical motivation for every politician.

Edited December 1, 2011 by BillsFanM.D.

[3rdnlng]

Wow and it took the new kid 10 pages to explain it.

 

BTW my firm got out of the mortgage business in the middle of all of this. People were asking us if we were nuts. We told them "no, you're nuts."

 

Where did he explain it? I suspect he wrote what his Social Studies teacher told him to so he could get a good enough grade to be promoted to 11th grade and not miss the prom.