I've been saying "I miss Bush" for a while. Here, I said it in a post at the end of the year. And at least one commenter said it a year ago:
Patm said...Ha! What a funny context. Patm was responding to this, from me:
I miss Bush. He never said the time for talk was over.
2/10/09 4:26 PM
Barack Obama says:That goes so deliciously well with the top story of the last couple days: Obama wanting to hold a summit with the Republicans over exactly the subject about which — a year ago — the time for talk was over.
We’ve had a good debate, but the time for talking is over.You hear that? Shut up!
Sometimes it's too late, and then, after that, it's morning again....
Posts
281 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 281 of 281Over 200 -- thread's over. Bye.
One of the things that I miss about George W. Bush as President is that he really was modest, in comparison to Obama. He always came off to me as feeling honored to be President and felt great responsibility as a result.
President Obama on the other hand comes across, at least to me (someone who did not vote for him), as someone who feels entitled to being President. It is now automatic that the number of "I"s are counted in every speech he gives any more. And there are invariably a lot of them, arguably indicating that his Presidency is about him, and not us.
It will be interesting when the memoirs, etc. come out from those working at lower levels in the WH, such as the permanent staff, Secret Service, etc., about how they were treated by the Obamas. We know now that the Clintons, and esp. Hillary, were extraordinarily condescending. These people were "help", and were treated that way. Invisible unless needed. The Bushes (all 4 of them) treated them much better, and, indeed, the senior Bushes treated them like extended family. My guess right now is that the Obamas are going to be as bad as the Clintons were. We shall see.
I think that George W. Bush was a good person doing a very hard job. I can't say that about Bill Clinton, and right now, I am betting that when everything is in, Barack Obama won't be that much better. Too much "I", and not enough "us" and "you". But, again, we shall see.
It doesn't look good though, with the amount that Obama blames everything on his predecessor. Does he not understand that his time will come, and his successor will have to start paying off the Obama Administration's profligate ways.
That suddenly in 2001 a bunch of poor people decided to buy houses and forced banks into lending to them, and brought down our entire financial system as a result? That some good shit you're smoking.
Not as good as the shit your smoking if you think it all started suddenly in 2001.
garage, should borrowers be required to put down 10% of the mortgage price to qualify for the loan. Yes or no.
I mean that would have put an end to all that Florida condo flipping that the poor people weren't doing.
The banks that gave bad loans are bad... but the government policies (CRA) that encouraged the bad loans are blameless?
Where are you getting this? The CRA never encouraged bad loans! What in the fuck.
"That suddenly in 2001 a bunch of poor people decided to buy houses and forced banks into lending to them, and brought down our entire financial system as a result?"
That is stupid. Maybe that's why nobody said it but you.
"Those condos that were being flipped in FL weren't being flipped by poor people. That I can assure you."
No they were being bought by people who could not afford them. = Bad loans.
Why did the banks do that? Did bankers suddenly get greedier or stupider than they always were before? Was it the boomers?
Unfortunately, by the time Obama took office, the trail to hunt down bin Laden had been cold for years. Our best shot was Tora Bora, and the people in charge at the time let our nation (and the world) down. (They also let us down when they incompetently planned the Iraq invasion -- the big endeavor that had divered us from the hunt for bin Laden.)
Actually, the best shots were under Clinton. And OBL had already attacked us on multiple occasions. But the Clinton Administration, and in particular, its DoJ, were too invested with treating terrorist attacks against us as law enforcement issues, and repeatedly passed on those golden opportunities.
Yes, there was a possibility at Tora Bora. Maybe. Maybe he was there.
Where are you getting this? The CRA never encouraged bad loans!
Lets see if we can illustrate it.
Guvmit Man: Mr. Banker, we would like you to provide loans to low income and poor people although not to jeapordize your solvency.
Banker: And if we don't?
Guvmit Man: No new charters or branches for you.
Banker: Ok...well... what are the parameters for loans or how is it evaluated?
Guvmit Man: Well there isn't any real specific criteria for it but we'll let you know if you're not complying.
Banker: Oh fuck.
Yikes, what a tired list of Democratic talking points. The troops that are going to Afghanistan are not there to "hunt down Bin Laden", they're there to protect the population, control the terrain and stabilize the government. They won't be kicking down doors in tribal Pakistan asking for a 6'6" Arab with a limp.
As far as the trail being cold, we have just as much of fix on him as we ever did. He's somewhere in the border region of Pakistan or Afghanistan. If it was really important to our national security, "The Hunt for OBL" could be restarted again. In any case, there's about a 99.5% chance he's dead and the audio tapes are bogus so it would just be a big waste of time.
Finally, enough of the Tora Bora second-guessing. Even if your criticism was valid (which it's not), that was 8 years ago! Move on, man, there's a new President if office. He's accountable now, not George W. Bush.
By the way, President Obama and AG Holder would absolutely shit their pants if we somehow captured OBL alive. It would be their worst nightmare.
Hoosier
Instead of conversations in your head, how bout citing some examples? Again, there should thousands and thousands of them right? Can you name just one bank that was fined or denied the freedom to expand due to the CRA heavy handedness?
Can you name just one bank that was fined or denied the freedom to expand due to the CRA heavy handedness?
Garage, can you answer my question? Do you think that borrowers should be required by Federal law to put down at least 10% of the mortgage?
It's a simple question.
In fact I quit being a lender and began my current career for the very reason that I was being told to make BAD loans...
DBQ,
You can't win. Don't even try to explain.
If you don't want to give out the bad loans, you're a racist who obviously hates the poor. You will be punished.
If you do give out the loans, you're a greedy, irresponsible, private sector capitalist pig who helped to bring down the financial system. (oh yeah, and you hate the poor.)
How people can act like the CRA was a meaningless or optional little suggestion is beyond me. I've heard many stories like yours from people in the financial sector.
Incidentally, recent analysis I've read indicates the the majority of the loan failures are not actually subprime ones, but rather prime loans with adjustable rates. The fall in values makes these homes not available for the refinancing that the borrowers were counting on to avoid the higher payments at adjustment time. This is the majority of the loans defaulting and they are continuing to default as the adjustment dates come due.
Big spikes in the dates occur around Sept. 2010 and 2011. We have more bad weather ahead.
@garage, DBQ already tried to explain it to you. She was there. She knows.
@DBQ, please try again, but this time use words no longer than five letters, so poor garage can understand what you're saying.
Sheesh.
Althouse sometimes you really are not too bright. Seriously. The idea that Bush never said the time for talk was over is laughable at best.
Obama is actually having meetings with the GOP often. Bush did not. They did so much more behind closed doors. Do some research sometime.
Bye?!?!?
No response to my 3:19 post?
Chickens**t
In answer to your question garage, here is a fairly decent summary of the problem.
Funny how it kind of mirrors the conversations in my head.
Obama is actually having meetings with the GOP often. Bush did not.
Bush had many meetings with the GOP.
@garage, DBQ already tried to explain it to you. She was there. She knows.
Then she should be able to provide some hard evidence or examples. Anything.
indicates the the majority of the loan failures are not actually subprime ones, but rather prime loans with adjustable rates.
Yes because those also allowed people with less then stellar credit or very little to put down on a home to purchase one.
That's why I keep hammering the question as to whether a requirement of at least 10% of the mortgage be put down. Buying a home with an interest only loan or no down is pretty much like getting a rental car. You really have no skin in the game.
The reason I think garage doesn't want to answer my question is because a 10% downpayment requirement means not just house flippers but po folk will be out of the house market. Then again they like to bash Bush for his 'homes for everyone' push but don't have either the intellectual honesty or the historical knowledge to know that's why Fannie was created in the first fucking place.
Then she should be able to provide some hard evidence or examples. Anything.
See my 4:00PM with accompayning link.
I'm not sure which is worse preceding Obama or following him as President. Either way it's gonna be your fault. Which is why he will not run for reelection. "I will not seek, nor will I accept..."
Scott M
Yes, you're right. Ha!
Obviously meant Bush had plenty of closed door meetings and didn't meet with Democrats as often. But how quickly we forget. The mantra among Republicans is something like: "Bush was the best president ever! Obama is the worst!" Or something equally absurd.
Doesn't it bother you [or somebody] that every time someone becomes president there is always a segement of the population that says that president is the worst ever and should be impeached? I mean it is so moronic.
Bush was better than most Liberals will ever admit and Obama is better than most Conservatives will ever admit. [Or to the point he isn't a Marxist or some shit like that]. Same goes for Clinton and Reagan et.al.
The mantra among Republicans is something like: "Bush was the best president ever! Obama is the worst!" Or something equally absurd.
What is absurd is any Republicans thinking Bush was the best President ever. I always said that when presented with the shit sandwiches that were Gore and then Kerry, Bush was a shit sandwich with lettuce and tomato.
Hey dolts.
Put some data into your fantasies.
It won't kill you.
BTW, I was a bank executive who ran a home loan and construction department, until I cashed out more than four years ago. So, I can assure you that dopes at the bottom of the banking totem pole like DBQ don't know what their talking about. And, more important than my (or anyone's) anecdotal experience, the data in the link above backs up what I witnessed.
BTW, I was a bank executive who ran a home loan and construction department, until I cashed out more than four years ago.
Heh...don't tell Bambi. He doesn't think fondly of bank execs and their golden parachutes.
Glad to see you made good. Well done pj. well done.
PJ, I read your data and raise you more data.
PJ, that stuff is from Oct 2008. The only info about this then was that presented before analysis and before an election. A lot has been learned since then.
Regardless, the question debated should be: What now? Lets assume that this crisis has more than one simple root, which is most likely, and that both parties share blame.
The debate should be what will fix it while still freeing up credit for those who know how to use it. I have to believe that bailing out these mistakes has much long term downside.
"The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which opened the door for interstate banking and encouraged a new wave of banking M&A, made the ratings under the CRA a test for determining whether acquisitions would be allowed. That same year, the Fed refused to allow a Hartford, Connecticut bank to acquire a New Hampshire bank on fair housing and CRA grounds.
This was the first time the Fed had ever taken this kind of action, and it had profound effects through the banking sector. It sent a strong signal to the banks that the Fed would closely scrutinize lending practice, limiting the ability of banks to grow or make acquisitions if they were found to have insufficient low income or minority lending. Banks immediately responded by lowering down payment requirements and using more flexible income criteria. "
You'll enjoy that area of Minnesota, just about 10-miles north of Forest Lake, about 34-miles north of Minneapolis, on I35. Wyoming has at least 7-restaurants, one of which has a pub, and it's a small Minnesota city; Minnesota has either cities or townships, no towns per se; it's the LAW! So, no, Minnesota is far from perfect; darn!
So, go to Wyoming and pay homage to a good man, even though his fiscal policies were terrible, which led to el Presidente Obama, but who also how tried his best to protect this country.
HD,
Your link is a narrative, it is not supported by data. Your link makes claims that such and such resulted in this or that, but there are zero statistics that evaluate the entire sub-prime mortgage market to measure the relative positions and influences of CRA and non-CRA institutions.
My link contained data that 100% showed that it was the private, non-CRA, non-GSE, Wall Street companies that were the folks pushing the loans that blew up.
And, as a side note that link's seeming praise of the OTS as a regulator is hilarious. You should look at how well the companies (including those that switched over to it, e.g. Countrywide) that were regulated by OTS did. Everybody knew that they were where you go to avoid regulation. What do you think happened to many of the OTS companies?
RE
"...doesn't think fondly of..."
And, now I'm using cash to buy foreclosures at auction. I'm shoot for 65 cents on the dollar (sometimes I'll go a bit higher) so I can turn the properties and sell at 90 cents on the dollar (sometimes I'll go a bit lower, I always make sure that I'm be best value in the area (which can be tough if there's a short or REO) so I can move these houses and avoid the risk of holding in a so-called buyer's market where prices could be going down (and if prices do start going up I'll still catch that on my newer purchases, since I'm constantly buying and selling I move w/ the market).
So, it's true that I'm continuing to profit from the foreclosure mess. This is just capitalism, nothing wrong w/ that. But, I do think it's bad when I get caught up in the "game" such that I sometimes lose the context of the extreme suffering of the families in the houses I buy. It's impossible for me to understand what that suffering is like.
b20,
The way to see what caused the housing market to explode requires looking at what caused the market to explode. This is why the data during the market explosion is vital. Post the explosion the gov institutions came in and took over because all the private companies which had DOMINATED the sub-prime market prior to and during the explosion went bust--that was the problem.
JD, this is not hard. The loan market opened up in a way it should not have because the market restraints that would keep it in check, as always, were overridden by government interference on both sides; reducing regulation enforcement and creating non-market incentives. We simply need to keep the congress out of a market that has natural restraints and plenty of regulation already. Fixing it now is just gonna be painful, regardless. But it simply must not be repeated or replaced with something worse, which is where we might be heading.
To my embarrassment, my missing him three times has been recorded here. Apologies for sweary words, but that's how I sound when I keep missing.
@garage.
You need to get a longer time frame than condo flipping in 2003 to make your arguments about CRA.
I was a lender from 1985 to 1995 and in the early 90's is when the CRA really began impacting banks negatively
The original purpose of CRA was to force banks to lend to people and areas that were otherwise under served, and for good reason.....mainly because the people were poor credit risks and the properties were substandard.
"The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.).
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions
In the late 80's the law was changed to allow advocacy groups...read this as strong arm groups like ACORN, Jessie Jackson to blackmail and otherwise coerce banks to lend in ghetto areas.
In the early 90's Fannie and Freddie were REQUIRED to include a portion of these crap loans in their portfolios. Whether they wanted to or not and whether it enhanced the credit of the debt instruments on the secondary market.
The CRA rating was used as a club against banks that wanted to expand, merge, build new branches. If your bank didn't make its required quota of SHIT loans you didn't get to expand.
SO......the pressure was on the loan officers to make that loan so the company could build a new branch, aquire another bank.
The result, considered acceptable losses, was that we made crap loans and then if they weren't commercial loans, were then sold to Fannie and Freddie to be repackaged and sold to unsuspecting investors....like your grandmother and pension funds.
The entire program was an extortion from Government and Special Interests Groups to force banks to make loans that any sensible person could see were SHIT, CRAP and would not be repaid.
Smart people who didn't have their head up their asses or sucking the dicks of the special interest groups figured it out and shouted out the warning.
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[56]"
Of course they were ignored because it wasn't (and still isn't ) politically correct to state the plain fact that some people are NOT credit worthy and that some people and some neighborhoods are NOT going to make good lending.
The fact that you don't like this truth is just too fucking bad. You and your ILK are the ones who put our country at risk and into this current recession and soon to probably be a depression because you are blind ideologues.
STFU.
In the late 80's the law was changed to allow advocacy groups...read this as strong arm groups like ACORN, Jessie Jackson to blackmail and otherwise coerce banks to lend in ghetto areas.
Finally! I thought we would never get to the real reason why you and conservatives hate the CRA. No actual data of course showing loans to poor and minorities were defaulted on more than middle or upper middle income loans, just an easy scapegoat and pleasing way to explain how the Masters of the Universe completely fucked everything up.
Banks can't expand (wow) and the ghettos took America down. Good one. Refreshingly honest though.
BTW, I was a bank executive who ran a home loan and construction department, until I cashed out more than four years ago. So, I can assure you that dopes at the bottom of the banking totem pole like DBQ don't know what their talking about. And, more important than my (or anyone's) anecdotal experience, the data in the link above backs up what I witnessed.
Listen up child.
First of all. The problem was more than 5 years ago. More like decades ago when you were probably still playing Mario Brothers on Ninetendo and picking your nose. The CRA snake pit became worse and worse and began its slow decay of the banking system beginning in the early 80's.
Second, little boy, you have no idea what my level was in the bank structure.
Third. At least I can spell and know the difference between their and they're. Some bank executive you were. I hope you had your secretary spell check and proof read for you or else you had your clients snickering behind your back.
@ Garage
I'm a financial advisor and was a lender. I'm a numbers person. I don't care what color you are. If you can't qualify for the loan....you don't get it. If you don't have money to invest with me...you can't buy investments. If you are terminally stupid, hit the bricks: you can't invest with me no matter how much money you have.
Them's the rules.
It has nothing to do with your color and all about your qualifications. I would lend to a striped assed ape if he could come up with the collateral, can make the payements and had a good credit rating.
Banking...and investing... are not charitable occupations. If you want to subsidize shit loans for unqualified borrowers, why don't you start a foundation and leave the banks to do what they do best, make money for their shareholders and depositors.
Miss George Bush? Nope. Bad President. By all rights, he should have been a one-termer like Jimmy Carter, but no one counted on the genius of the American political system in giving us John Kerry as the alternative.
And then John McCain as the excretable choice showing both Parties can nominate some awful choices.
Original Mike said...
"I miss a Commander-in-Chief who loved the troops."
You mean the corpsmen
A lot of military words and titles are not pronounced like they are spelled. I don't expect outsiders to know the "nuance". No more than I expect each military person to pronounce legal world words right when reading them. Subpeona?
But perhaps it is fun for those that assume everyone should know their in-house language - to snicker away.
3 years in, I was still finding military words and titles I butchered. I remember one was a Navy guy in the Gulf War that was doing some assist role for our Navy counterparts and he was a "Boatswains Mate" which as I found out, was properly pronounced quite different than the written word would indicate.
DBQ,
You've previously admitted that you were just a loan officer. So don't try and BS us by claiming otherwise.
And, your blather and Cato quote from the nineties is completely idiotic and nobody is fooled by it. Folks can look at my earlier link which identifies how the housing disaster was preceeded by the minimizing of subprime market participation by GSEs and CRA institutions while the non-GSE and non-CRA institutions were running wild and taking over where the CRA and GSEs couldn't go, i.e. over the cliff. Exactly the opposite of your claims.
WWPD? Would Palin see this as an appropriate satirical opportunity to call DBQ a retard?
P.S.
In general I suck at spelling and grammar. And, when I'm commenting here and simultaneously doing other things it gets really scary. Can the Palin satirical rule be applied to one's self?
You've previously admitted that you were just a loan officer.
True: I wasn't in charge of the entire commercial division for the entire Bank. As a Bank Officer who did loans, I was in charge of a portfolio of loans, given a territory that consisted of 5 outlying branches and a individual lending limit with a mid 7 figure range. Loan requests over that loan amount were reviewed by the next level up. My loans were mostly commercial ventures, real estate and revolving collateralized operating lines for midsized businesses and for corporate ranches.
I was responsible for bringing in new business loans, prospecting for new relationships (loans, investments and banking). In my analysis of the loan packages in my portfolio of existing loans and new requests, I would consider all aspects of the business (taxes, cash flows, industry trends, collateral analysis, management capabilities etc etc etc) and then approved or denied within my limit or if above my limit...sending for co-approval. I never had a denial overturned until the Bank needed to get a 'good' CRA score to acquire another regional bank and wanted to expand branches into other geographic areas.
My promotions and bonuses were dependant on meeting revenue goals and maintaining a good quality portfolio, so I was careful to make 'good' loans. I liked bonuses. So when forced to make some loans that I knew would go sour and they did...I quit and changed career course. That was about 18 years ago.
I think you are confusing me with a loan processor.
Then again, I think things probably have changed since you were playing Nintendo.
It is nice to take the short term view of things, but you need to realize that his fiasco has been a long time in the making and has been caused by stupid regulations that run counter to good business practices.
You were just a loan officer, as I wrote. In the future please don't imply that you were more important than you really were; doing so makes you look pitiful.
But, your blather about the "long term" doesn't change the fact that it was the minimization of relative participation by CRA institutions and the GSEs that caused the housing melt down. LOOK AT THE DATA!!!! It was when the non-GSE and non-CRA institutions took over market share in subprime (because the GSEs and CRA folks couldn't do equally scary loans) that the market spun out of control.
This is precisely the opposite of your baseless, nonsensical, non-data supported claims.
You say that your* a numbers person? In fact, you are incapable of abandoning talking points even when they are completely disproved by numbers (data). Lameness.
*this typo was on purpose ;)
"BTW, I was a bank executive who ran a home loan and construction department...So, I can assure you that dopes at the bottom of the banking totem pole like DBQ don't know what their talking about."
I have a hard time believing an executive doesn't know the difference between their and they're.
Just sayin..
HD,
Your link is a narrative, it is not supported by data.
Actually it is, you simply chose not to look at the supporting links within the article.
Fine. Since garage doesn't want to answer the question, how about you as a former bank executive. Should there be legislation requiring the borrower to put down at least 10% when obtaining a mortgage.
The reason for the question is obvious; it means the borrower is demonstrating his/her willingness to have some risk; its easy to walk away from a no-interest loan (as we have seen).
First of all, I apologize to you, DBQ, for suggesting that you try once again to get garage to understand reality.
We all have to be very, very careful when replying to garage and others of his ilk -- they are always on the look out for anything they can twist into support for their semi-religious belief that all Republicans are racists and hate Black people and poor people in equal measure.
The possibility that poor people are poor in large part because they make unbelievably bad decisions, that no more computes to him than, say, Schrödinger’s equation.
Which also describes the real world.
But my deepest contempt is reserved for 1jpd, who gave us all a link to alleged "data" that "proves" his case.
Sorry, sonny, but it does nothing of the kind. There's one small table, that conveys hardly anything and only covers 2006 - 2008. There are no raw numbers that a mathematician can look at and determine whether the analysis was done properly, or whether this is yet another instance of liberals abusing statistics. All there is in the article you linked to is a quantity of "trust us" type statements.
And I don't trust you at all. I lost my gullibility dozens of years ago, and I didn't miss it so I never went looking to get it back.
BTW, congratulations on making money off of other people's misery. About what I'd expect of a liberal.
"I have a hard time believing an executive doesn't know the difference between their and they're."
I'll assume this response is as close as you can get to admitting that your talking points are wrong, and reality and data are correct. Lame.
Since you didn't seem to pick up on it, I'll repeat that I'm acknowledging that in my haste I mistakenly wrote 'their' instead of 'they're' (which btw Althouse (who writes better than most executives I've known) has also done on at least one occasion). I don't have a problem admitting mistakes, I'm eager to do so. This is not a weakness, imho.
HD and B20,
Looking at the market when it exploded, via the link above:
"Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
"
Duh.
That should have been
HD and BM
You all look alike.
I thought I made it clear. I don't take my numbers predigested.
And you haven't answered Hoosier's question at all.
I am an executive, a big-shot super duper CEO, kinda like a superhero. My spelling sucks too , but most real executives (not just a watered down title common in financial organizations) would be careful about degrading the opinion of a long time person employed directly in the field at issue. It does suggest an immature grasp of wisdom and where it comes from. Not from numbers reported, but numbers checked against experience and digested over time. The case is becoming clear what happened and it's government trying to use banks to do what they are not designed to do: charity. That's the root cause which then led to abuse by people doing what they do: power plays and greed.
(But, BTW Hoosier, my first home was bought using a GI Bill no-interest loan. I hope you'll make room for those of us who lost prime earning years due to working for an uncle.)
BTW, congratulations on making money off of other people's misery. About what I'd expect of a liberal.
You mean, people in large part that made unbelievably bad decisions.
A lot of military words and titles are not pronounced like they are spelled. I don't expect outsiders to know the "nuance".
OK, but "corps" is not really one of those words. It would be pretty unusual to hear an educated person pronounce the "p" in Marine Corps.
Face it, Obama sounded kinda dumb there. No big deal, but excusing it by claiming that "corps" is some fancy military lingo nobody outside the service has ever pronounced before is laughable.
@garage, yup. Selling to 1jpb at 65 cents when somebody else is willing to pay 90 cents is 25 cents worth of bad decision. If he can get 90 cents why can't they get at least 89? It's not like he claims to do any fixing up.
Bet he doesn't even allow the buyer to send in an inspector to verify that the property is in livable condition.
Master Cylinder writes "I love this country and I love this president."
The root of the problem is that you and Obama only agree on one half of that sentiment.
BM,
Actually, in theory I take a lot of risk buying at the auctions. Sometimes I can't get into the houses, so I need to poke around and look in windows. Sometimes the folks have left, but other folks are still there and they may not like you poking around, or they (who may be renters, i.e. not the folks getting foreclosed on) may let you through the house (w/ or w/o a few dollars trading hands). Buying an occupied home can be a lot of trouble because of vandalism and the difficulty of getting the folks out (especially renters, if they prepaid a legitimate lease). And, there are potential title issues (obviously you can't get title insurance at an auction, but you can do a title search before the auction, and you know what issues will carry over after the auction). When you buy at the auction you get no warranty.
But, there are other situations where an struggling home owner is trying to sell the home short so they can avoid foreclosure, in these situations I can get in the houses because they are listed for sale like any other home.
If you're wondering why a bank would let a house sell for a lot less than it's worthy, and less than the total owed on it; there are many reasons. But, a simple situation would be when there is a fairly small first mortgage, but a lot of big dollar junior liens.
In this situation, the homeowner can't sell because they owe too much relative to the home's value. And, getting the junior lien holders to agree to taking a hair cut w/ a short sale takes forever and could likely fail. So, the first mortgage holder can take the house to auction so that they get fully paid, and the junior liens simply vanish w/o any repayment necessary. If the auction price exceeds the amount owed to the first (including all the fees and penalties, which the first lien holder would rack up by extending the foreclosure process as long as possible when they know there is a lot of equity above their first mortgage amount that they can eat up) then the junior liens are next in line, but the auction must start at the amount owed on the first (including fees) or less, hence deals can be found.
And, there are plenty of other situations that can lead to a home being a good deal at an auction.
BTW, the reason not everybody can get these houses at auction is because you need to have cash to buy them.
Sheesh, Florida, tell us how you really feel!
Yeah, I still miss Bush.
But at least I got a mention from the great Althouse! So, you know...things are looking up!
@1jpb, I know just a little bit about real estate, but enough so that what you're saying makes sense.
Okay, I take back my snarky comment.
But I don't take back my distrust of the article you linked to.
BM,
So if it turned out that your brilliant math skills could recalculate and confirm the math folks at the Federal Reserve then you'd completely reverse your opinion? What a silly argument. It's like me saying that I don't think there's a deficit because I haven't personally added up all of the government's spending from the medicare prescription of some old lady in North Dakota to the arugula BHO eats at the WH.
Re requiring 10% down:
I'm against it. You noted VA loans. I'd also note that there are all sorts of down payment assistance programs offered by municipalities, would these also be banned since this isn't the borrowers' money? What a about a gift or loan from a family member or employer for the down payment?
And, I have no doubt that there are plenty of folks who may not have ten percent (or they may have that and more, but they want to keep really big reserve cash) who still have good cred records and solid, steady, and documented income. Some of these folks may be acceptable borrowers, even w/o ten percent down.
And, can you legislate this down payment requirement for the non-bank, non-GSE entities that caused the mortgage melt down. Of course, these folks have gone bust, but what's to stop the same sort of entities from coming back in a better market?
Are you for strict regulations that cover non-bank entities that aren't currently government regulated financial entities?
Doss anyone else recall the subject of this article? I thought, silly me, that the subject was whether anyone missed George W. Bush as president? Well, I do and not simply because el Presidente The Won is a zero, failure, non-entity, Euro-Lover individual, but he is in fact all of that.
Well, now to wait until 2012 and hope the 2010 elections bring massive change in Congressional leadership in both Houses.
Cheers to everyone except those idiotic trolls like GM, 1jpb, and their ilk.
So if it turned out that your brilliant math skills could recalculate and confirm the math folks at the Federal Reserve then you'd completely reverse your opinion?
Well, thanks for your suggestion that my math skills are "brilliant." If only!
Yes, if I'm a mathematician, and the data -- the raw data, not stuff predigested to reach a political conclusion -- told me that I am wrong, then I am wrong and I would admit that. How not? That's why real scientists and real mathematicians are contemptuous of the CRU guys at East Anglia -- the data told them they were wrong and instead of admitting it they tried to cover it up. That's why real scientists and expose their data and their calculations. That's why real mathematicians expose their proofs to peer review and validate their stochastic models.
Meanwhile, my own experience suggests strongly that something happened in the mortgage industry, and, palpably, that something nearly wrecked it. When I bought my present house in '96 I had to go through all sorts of hoops and provide all sorts of paperwork. That despite making six digits, having an excellent credit rating, having no indebtedness on the family cars, being a national-class expert in my area of technology and living in a high tech hotbed (translation: if I lose my job tomorrow I have a better-paying one the day after), putting down over 30%, and having a mortgage only 3 x my annual salary.
About a year ago I learned of a person who was almost $150K upside down on his house -- he had a no money down mortgage on an $800K house, and his profession was taxi driver. What happened in the intervening 13 years that allowed a person making a taxi driver's salary to buy an $800K house with no money down, when I had to jump through hoop after hoop with my situation? If it wasn't CRA, then what was it?
Surely the bank had to know that it would be foreclosing on the property before 24 months were out. Did they think that a person could live in a house for several months and then they could sell it without fixing it up? When the developer was still building in the development and people could buy brand new? Even if the housing market had continued to climb, they'd still have to take a loss. Nothing other than coercion makes sense.
he just sits on his hands, so to speak.
So to speak.
But he does things, I am sure, without fanfare or press.
Like visiting the wounded from the Fort Hood attack.
Oh yeah, and I do miss President Bush.
"About a year ago I learned of a person who was almost $150K upside down on his house -- he had a no money down mortgage on an $800K house, and his profession was taxi driver."
And, it was probably a negative amortization loan, which means that not only were they not paying down their principle, they were not paying all of their interest, i.e. their loan amount didn't go down or stay flat (by paying only interest); it went up over time.
You wonder why this sort of loan would be allowed. The obvious answer is that it was put together by a mortgage broker who placed it w/ some Wall Street lender.
Or, assuming this wasn't a super sketchy loan (i.e. it was just sketchy) the borrower could have gone to a bank that would then package and sell the loan to Wall Street.
The bank regulators, when they reviewed policies, always focused a lot on the borrower's credit and capacity, and they also focused on the quality of the collateral. But, if you could demonstrate how you'd be quickly paid off (by selling to Wall Street), they were a lot more flexible regarding the credit worthiness of borrowers and properties. In other words, if you could dump your junk on Wall Street, you could make more loans, collect more fees, and not increase risk because you weren't putting the loans in your portfolio for any notable time period.
Even so, there were still limits. To do the really sketchy stuff a borrower needed to go to a mortgage broker. Or they could have gone to a bank (or mortgage banker, which is a glorified mortgage broker) that would broker (just like a mortgage broker) the loan or sell it through a correspondent channel (which means that the loan is underwritten and closed in house before it's sold off as a closed loan, very different from a brokered loan) or they could have developed their own sister corporation w/ enough legal distance from the regulated financial wing so that both sketchy and super sketchy loans could be packaged and sold on Wall Street w/o the bank regulators causing trouble because the sister corporation would be un(or little)regulated.
And, an additional complication was the regulator shopping that occurred because the Office of Thrift Supervision was known to be easy going. This is why Countrywide switched regulators to join WaMu, IndyMac and many other now bust companies that were (supposedly) overseen by OTS.
WV: slesse close enough to sleaze for banker's work.
Another reason why I miss George W Bush is that he didn't waste people's time.
I saw just now that Boehner asked President Obamna why the Republicans would want to meet with him to discuss a bill that isn't going to pass.
Good question.
Obama does not seem to know how to read anyone else's handwriting but his own.
Meaning he's not reading what's on the brick wall.
The time for talk will never be over for Obama. It seems that talking is the only thing he is able to do.
garage mahal said...
The GOP is coming to the rescue. Privatize both Medicare and Social Security. Take *that* libtards!
It's gotten to the point now that whenever I see you post, I just put my palm on my head, shake it and say to myself, "why does this fucking idiot bother at all."
And I think that in your effort to somehow diminish conservatives and conservatism with your little idiotic quips (as if they actually have value), you just end up looking like a bitter, little man, with a bitter, little message. You just aren't a very bright person. Its clear and obvious that you aren't politically astute, but much more of a tool for your insipid beliefs than anything else. Palm meets forehead.
Nora said...
The time for talk will never be over for Obama. It seems that talking is the only thing he is able to do.
But he can't even do that without his TOTUS.
Bruce Hayden said...
President Obama on the other hand comes across, at least to me (someone who did not vote for him), as someone who feels entitled
You could have stopped right there and the rest of what you said would have held the same weight and meaning. This is the essence of President Barely.
garage mahal said...
Can you name just one bank that was fined or denied the freedom to expand due to the CRA heavy handedness?
To call you a retard would be insulting real retards. Listen and learn moron. You aren't even asking the right question because you don't even understand the problem. It was the loosening of CRA standards that allowed for lenders to relax their standards of lending to people who clearly could not afford the loans to begin with. So, idiot, there were two different and distinct relaxations of standards, the first relaxation of standards came from the CRA, then second was from lenders that took their cue from CRA. It's not about the CRA being heavy handed in any way, but rather the CRA relaxed and how regulators pushed those relaxed standards to lenders as a matter of compliance and law.
Things like no money down, the evaporation of 80% loan-to-value ratio mortgages all went away with a relaxed CRA because that's how regulators pushed it. Want proof? Not a problem.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/cra/excel.htm
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/99-41a.txt
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/Speeches/1998/19980512.htm
You clearly have lenders that marketed to the poor and destitute to secure loans they never could as a function of relaxed, but yet enforced standards from the CRA that was used against these lenders as a matter of compliance so that lenders could discriminate against people for socio-economic reasons even though they clearly should have been discriminated against. Not only was their inability to verify income suspect, but their inability to sustain income was too and you had lenders being directed by regulators and scrupulous brokers who were willing to make a buck on the backs of phony paper thanks to something like CRA being in place to begin with simply to satisfy jack-offs like you have carry around the burden of white, middle-class guilt about the little, lesser people while you maudlinly weep at their plight.
Here you go, garage:
" Aggressively expanding its attack on lending discrimination, the Clinton Administration announced a settlement today with a big Washington-area financial institution that it accused of refusing to do business in nonwhite neighborhoods.
The settlement challenged lending institutions to open new offices in black neighborhoods, a significant shift from previous cases that simply instructed lenders to cease refusing to make loans to minorities.
Under the settlement, the Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank will open new branches and mortgage offices in poor neighborhoods to help redress what the Justice Department called racial bias.
In addition, Chevy Chase, which is also the biggest savings and loan in Maryland, will make $140 million in concessionary loans available to people who might have suffered from what the Justice Department called the bank's redlining, a term whose definition has been significantly broadened by the settlement..."
The force of government was employed to coerce lenders into making loans they otherwise would not. That's not me or some right-wing publication talking. That's your New York Times.
It seems YOURS is the argument that has been "obliterated."
Excellent posts, Methadras, DBQ, and Big Mike. I always learn a lot reading them.
The left will never ever admit any fault for any reason on this (or any other) issue.
It violates their first principles.
(But, BTW Hoosier, my first home was bought using a GI Bill no-interest loan. I hope you'll make room for those of us who lost prime earning years due to working for an uncle.)
If Uncle Sam wants to make the loan guarantee than that's fine with me Big Mike. My point is that there is this expectation on the part of private lenders to make loans to 'less fortunate' folks while at the same time maintaining institutional solvency.
And, it was probably a negative amortization loan, ....You wonder why this sort of loan would be allowed. The obvious answer is that it was put together by a mortgage broker who placed it w/ some Wall Street lender.
Yet you say you're against a requirement to put at least 10% down when applying for a mortgage.
See that's what I like about liberals, they can cheerfully play both sides against the middle and are always in a position to lay blame when it goes to hell without any sense of hypocrisy.
"...while at the same time maintaining institutional solvency."
Marxist economics 101 = the perpetual motion machine
Attn Dems: Al Qaeda was in this country in '94-'95 learning to fly planes into our buildings. It was Clinton, his administration and their lack of a backbone to lead and defend us that gave us Sept 11th. Al Queda just didnt wake up in Jan '01 and attempt to learn to fly 737's into buildings. Have any of you dumbasses been in the cock pit of a 737. Doubt it. If you think those sand N****rs with IQ's of 40 can figure out a 737 cockpit panel you're more retarded than they are (they can’t figure out how to tie shoes for God sake, reason why they wear sandals 24/7). Bush for 8 years cleaned up Clintons mess (not to mention the oval office interior ie: AJAX) as he and the Dems in congress lacked the balls and backbone to defend this great country. Dems will never admit to Clintons balless 8 years that gave us 8 years of hell and protecting ourselves under Bush. Obama is doing the same thing as Carter and Clinton, he will fail and it will take another 8 years after him to clean up his mess. Clinton gave you Sept 11th, admit it, history will prove it along with proving that Bush kept us safe and cleaned up Clintons spineless years previous. And: YES, WE MISS BUSH!!
Memories, light the corners of my mind.
Misty watercolor memories of the way we were.
Scattered pictures of the smiles we left behind - smiles we give to one another for the way we were.
Can it be that it was all so simple then or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again, tell me would we?
Could we?
Memories, may be beautiful and yet
What's too painful to remember
we simply choose to forget.
So it's the laughter we will remember
Whenever we remember
The way we were.
@1jpb, if you are checking back on the thread, thank you for the analysis. It makes sense, the way you explained it. A situation like that should never have been allowed, and I hope we never allow it again.
One reason why this makes sense is that the couple's daughter speculated in real estate, so she probably had a mortgage broker who didn't ask too many questions.
I guess OTS is federal institution? If the easy-goingness you describe began under Bush then we Republicans do bear some responsibility. If it dates back to Clinton, then both sides share blame. If it's still going on, then the Obama administration has a responsibility to fix it.
The housing market crash was only one part of the financial crisis and in all likelihood, not the worst part of it. When Obama speaks of Financial Regulatory Reform I think someone needs to inform him that there were already regulations and rules on the books which, if enforced, would have prevented a large chunk of the financial meltdown.
Investment banks like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch are regulated by the SEC. The SEC has rules in effect that limit the amount of leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets. The original rule was 12-1 but five investment banks were given exemptions to this rule that allowed them to leverage up to 30-1. Guess who the lucky five were? Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Shockingly, only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are still around.
The regulations were in place. They were just ‘waived’ much like how the government waives other regulations like immigration or capital requirements to form a bank. The new Treasury Secretary believes along with Hank Paulson, who, ‘coincidently’ used to run Goldman Sachs (remember them?) thinks the Government, specifically the US Treasury should be given a broader authoritative role in preventing this from happening again.
So rather than go back to the actual net capital rule established by the SEC back in the 1970s, the solution is to expand the government’s role in regulating the marketplace. Brilliant.
Nahhh. Not for a second.
Jim B -
You prove how hard it must be to counter my alleged "ignorance" in your utterly pathetic response which is infused with more attitude than substance.
I'm familiar with the dishonest right wing revisionist history of FDR's economic record which fails to acknowledge that GDP went up 9% during his first term, fell again when he listened to deficit hawks in 1937, and started growing again at 11% annually after big government spending resumed, and fully validated Keynes with massive spending during WWII. In addition I've seen how the revisionists ignore the unemployment series for private non-farm jobs which shows a peak of over 30% in 1932 and was more than cut in half by 1940. The "crowd out" of private investment theory breaks down with such massive unemployment because aggregate demand is nowhere near sufficient to entice money off the sidelines.
Nowhere did I blame the tax cuts for the economic mess - I pointed out they made for ineffective job creation (you can leave off the Q4 2008 numbers and my point still stands for the Bush years) and that if they are continued it will result in almost $3 trillion in lost revenue, a factor curiously ignored by most critics of the "Obama deficits".
I'm well aware of how GDP is calculated, TYVM, as well as how the numbers are subject to revision. I used the most up to date numbers - maybe you'd prefer I make up my own revised Q4 number? Or ignore GDP altogether the way Amity Shlaes does when critiquing the New Deal?
Blaming the length of a recession that started in 2007 on health care reform is quite stupid even by your standards. You do know that the bursting of the housing bubble destroyed quite a bit of wealth, right? Skyrocketing premiums don't really provide much of an incentive to employers to hire more people do they? That a poorly regulated financial system can lead us back to the brink of disaster? These are serious issues but you do not seem remotely capable of understanding them.
fully validated Keynes with massive spending during WWII.
And what was that massive spending during WW2 for? By that measure, we should be in the midst of prosperity with a $600 billion defense budget and all we need to do is mandate draconian measures like rationing and we should be fine in 3-4 years.
Using WW2 as a validation of massive deficit spending has to be one of the most ignorant displays of economics I've seen in years.
What many people forget is that during WWII, civilians had limited opportunities to spend their money, rationing severely restricted critical foods and essential items like petrol, tires, etc. Also, civilian car production went dark in 1942.
So, when the "Boys" came home in 1945-1946, there was massive pent-up demand for goods and services plus all those "Civies" who had scads of cash savings ready to spend.
Buick started up in 1946, housing was scarce and GI Houses, like Levitt Town cropped up. It was really the post WWII economy that got us out of the depression woes; good old Yankee entrepreneurism brought us back.
Keynes must have overlooked that aspect of life, eh? Bush forgot about that in his latter years.
But Obama doesn't have a clue since entrepreneurs interfere with his statist goals to remake our society; recall Michelle's rants this weekend about her husband's goals.
From my perspective Bush was strong on national defense (except he failed to secure the borders against the incursion of law-breaking aliens) but mushy on domestic issues (since when does the Constitution warrant schemes like No Child Left Behind?). But one symbolic event captures the difference between a president who is willing to defend the nation and another like Obama who cannot shake off his infatuation with transnationalism: the occasion was recorded on video (the more diligent can find the link), and it occurred in South American (Chile or Argentina, I believe). The local security personnel tried to prevent one of Bush's guards from entering a building where there was a gathering of heads of state. Bush quite casually walked away from the other 'VIPs' and, shoving the local security persons aside, reached over them and yanked his own security person into the building.
Now, that was a display of initiative! Can anybody here even imagine The One showing even a shadow of that kind of self-determination? Hell, no! That big O had better stand for One Term lest we all become lap dogs to tyrants home and abroad.
Post a Comment