Members lug Posted March 6, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 6, 2009 For the most part, bundling mortgages and loosening requirements isn't illegal and government oversite wouldn't have stopped any of this. This current situation is not because of illegal actions, but mainly from a combination of too much investment capital going into a market that was traditionally very safe combined with the honest desire to put more people into homes. That desire inadvertently made the housing market more unstable. The government never sat over private lender's shoulder's and approved loans (with the possible exception of VA loans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 6, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 6, 2009 Can you show where while BO was in office as a Senator, what exactly he did to help avoid all this? I mean, you act as though the guy just up and out of the ground appeared ex nihilo or something. I know my legislation and representation didn't do {censored} either... just sayin'. It's not like he held a governor's seat or any other position of authority to actually have a history of making effective policy, either. Inexperience in a time like this? Hey, thanks America. According to some of the posters here, I'm just supposed to give 'em a break. Frak. Training wheels, I tells ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted March 6, 2009 Members Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's not like he held a governor's seat or any other position of authority to actually have a history of making effective policy, either. Inexperience in a time like this? Hey, thanks America. According to some of the posters here, I'm just supposed to give 'em a break. Frak. Training wheels, I tells ya. Of course not. His cabinet posts (or attempts, thereof) are just a first sign at his complete and utter ignorance as to what a person in his position is to have knowledge of. My ex gf at least made this point- if he's elected now, it's kind of like a band-aid. It'll only hurt for a little while... At least my kids won't have to live through him, just his policies that will have railroaded the American economic scene into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted March 6, 2009 Members Share Posted March 6, 2009 For the most part, bundling mortgages and loosening requirements isn't illegal and government oversite wouldn't have stopped any of this. This current situation is not because of illegal actions, but mainly from a combination of too much investment capital going into a market that was traditionally very safe combined with the honest desire to put more people into homes. That desire inadvertently made the housing market more unstable. The government never sat over private lender's shoulder's and approved loans (with the possible exception of VA loans). No argument with the gist of this, with the exception of the oversight. The splitting of the derivatives made it extremely difficult to accurately audit the degree of risk and the leveraging went far beyond the normally accepted safe levels. I can remember not very long ago when people applied for equity lines, the home values routinely came in 10%-20% above the actual value. I know this because when I'd go to list a house and give an opinion of value, the homeowner would invariably pull out an equity line appraisal and "look, this is what my home is worth." I would gently have to explain to them that my market data was a more accurate indicator. There was massive book cooking and shell gaming going on, but as long as nobody got hurt, it went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 6, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 6, 2009 I can remember not very long ago when people applied for equity lines, the home values routinely came in 10%-20% above the actual value. I know this because when I'd go to list a house and give an opinion of value, the homeowner would invariably pull out an equity line appraisal and "look, this is what my home is worth." I would gently have to explain to them that my market data was a more accurate indicator. There was massive book cooking and shell gaming going on, but as long as nobody got hurt, it went on. Yep. Massive book cooking for sure with the home equity lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted March 6, 2009 Members Share Posted March 6, 2009 I'm just confused, I guess. I don't understand why taking on a mortgage that requires you to be fully employed at your current salary or higher for THIRTY YEARS is "living within your means." It is if you're employed and the economy is good. It isn't if you're taking on a house and property and the economy is in a downturn. Let's face it, many don't pay any attention to what's going on in this country and the markets much less the world. That said, many people bought too much mortgage and in the long run had no intentions of paying it back. I have known people in my travels who have this mind set. No one can last very long if you become unemployed. It happened to me back in '96 and I was unemployed for nearly two years. We ate up all our savings and took a hit on the first cashing in of my IRA. Just when we thought we were going to have to give up the house I landed another job. It was tough and it was painful but I certainly didn't look to the government like so many are now to bail them out. You may argue this but sometimes bad things happen to good people. You suck it up and you move on. That's life. But now, our messiah is even re-defining life as we know it but I guess messiahs do that. No failures here if your not rich but if you are he's coming at you in a big way to give it to those who willingly have their hands out. So, now I pay my mortgage and healthcare and others too. Woo hoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 7, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 7, 2009 No argument with the gist of this, with the exception of the oversight. The splitting of the derivatives made it extremely difficult to accurately audit the degree of risk and the leveraging went far beyond the normally accepted safe levels. I can remember not very long ago when people applied for equity lines, the home values routinely came in 10%-20% above the actual value. I know this because when I'd go to list a house and give an opinion of value, the homeowner would invariably pull out an equity line appraisal and "look, this is what my home is worth." I would gently have to explain to them that my market data was a more accurate indicator. There was massive book cooking and shell gaming going on, but as long as nobody got hurt, it went on. But my point was that the Feds never did set "risk levels" for private industry that I know of. If the bank was dumb enough to give out bad loans...too bad. The Fed was concerned with things like equal opportunity lending to minorities, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted March 7, 2009 Members Share Posted March 7, 2009 I'm just confused, I guess. I don't understand why taking on a mortgage that requires you to be fully employed at your current salary or higher for THIRTY YEARS is "living within your means."I have a six-figure income in a good year (it'll be quite a bit less than that this year, because the economy is so slow, but I'll probably still be around 70-80k if things pick up at all). I live in a trailer I paid around six grand for. I drive a truck that's eight years old. My bills every month consist of cable and utilities, and I could cut the cable if I really wanted to. I keep enough money tucked away that I could live for about a year without a job if I needed to, without dipping into my long-term savings. If I emptied my savings I could probably go for two to three years. Longer if I backed off of some expenses, adjusted the thermostat, etc.Now, what did I do to make that possible? I actually live within my means, instead of living within what I thought my means would be for the next thirty years.That said, I know I'm not the standard person. I'm single, I don't have any kids, etc. But I also don't have thirty years of my life promised to a bank. And I just don't understand it, I guess. I understand getting a mortgage instead of trying to come up with six figures of cash to buy a house; I don't understand not making sure that you have enough tucked away to cover all of your expenses for quite a while before taking on any new expenses, or keeping your mortgage reasonable enough that you could pay it off a LOT faster than thirty years. What are you gonna do after that three years? I think we are living in interesting times. Oh, and your money is only worth 10% of what it is right now. hmmm, that means your three years just turned into 4 months.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 7, 2009 Members Share Posted March 7, 2009 You may argue this but sometimes bad things happen to good people. You suck it up and you move on. That's life. True...but what happens when it happens to millions of people? 10's of millions of people. What then? Tens of millions of people out of a job and a home. Oh well, that's life. What happens when people who've never been hungry start to go hungry? Like your situation where you were unemployed for 2 years. What happens if that were to happen again...and to your neighbor....and the guy across the street....and that nice family down the lane? Where is the next job going to come from if everything is ether going bankrupt, closing down, downsizing and doing a hiring freeze? I suggest you give your boss a big kiss when you to into work Monday...and perhaps a couple of Omaha Steaks. Oh and if your job all of a sudden decides to cut your pay in half, just be thankful you still have a job. Oh, and if they want you working twice as hard for that half of what you made, be thankful you have a job. There's thousands of people out there that would work for even less than half, I'm sure they could fill your position in no time. Great time to be a company with a little cash-flow...you could probably open a fricken sweat-shop and get away with it now. I see good times ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted March 7, 2009 Members Share Posted March 7, 2009 10's of millions of people. What then? Tens of millions of people out of a job and a home. Oh well, that's life. On a global scale this too is occurring, isnt it? I am not being flippant or cavalier about this I am saying people need to do whatever they can to survive despite the government. What happens when people who've never been hungry start to go hungry? Like your situation where you were unemployed for 2 years. What happens if that were to happen again...and to your neighbor....and the guy across the street....and that nice family down the lane? Where is the next job going to come from if everything is ether going bankrupt, closing down, downsizing and doing a hiring freeze? Again, thanks to our 'government' this is happening as we speak. When too many are out of work and the government is standing in the way, what do you think will be the outcome? There are a lot of angry people out there and the numbers are growing. We look to history for this answer; when too many people are hungry and there is an inept and out of touch ruling class trouble usually ensues. I suggest you give your boss a big kiss when you to into work Monday...and perhaps a couple of Omaha Steaks. I see good times ahead. If I gave my boss a kiss she would probably kick my ass. The good times are here, sir. And we have at least 3.75 years more of it to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreaserMatt Posted March 8, 2009 Members Share Posted March 8, 2009 Lug, I love you for posting this; Lug for prez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 8, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 8, 2009 Lug, I love you for posting this; Lug for prez... What the .....Why in the name of tarnation should I take a demotion just for posting common sense, thought provoking, awe inspiring, world changing posts? Prez can only go for 8 years...King is for life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted March 8, 2009 Members Share Posted March 8, 2009 You have part of it right...but the credit market is also in the fix it's due to the bundling of derivitives in the secondary market as I explained earlier. That was due to a LACK OF GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. The government just is. It's not the source of all evil nor the source of all solutions. You may agree or disagree with Obama's economic measures, but it's a sincere attempt stabilize the whipsawing of the stock market and, by limiting foreclosures, to bring some sense back to the housing market. Obama inherited a godawful situation and is doing what his experts are advising. If there's someone here with a degree in macroeconomics it would be nice if they'd speak up. It's real easy to monday morning quarterback the economy, and spout cynical crap, but other than a very few folks here who know what they're talking about (they know who they are), parroting Limbaugh doesn't get it. I state something you don't like and automatically I am parroting Limbaugh. Why do you see the need to insult me? I can say the same about you and your parroting of some on the extreme left who believe that government is always the answer and always has the answer and if there is a problem it is because we don't have enough government? People were being warned (in and out of government) about fannie and freddie, the subprime markets and there were those who were sounding the alarms about the credit crisis. Yeah, OK show me where Obama is making any attempts at stabilizing the markets when he makes the comments he did on Friday concerning the markets. What is it in his budget, do you think, that has caused the market to drop over 3,000 points just since he stepped into the doors of the WH? And the loss of more than a million jobs with more to come? His individual tax increases? His increase in captial gains? His elimination of charitable and mortgage contributions? His carbon taxes? Someone is parroting a side here but it isn't me, bubba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.