Not to forget Obama said USA has 57 states. Duh. He needs to appear on that Are you smarter than 5 grader show? A man who doesn't even know how many states we have wants to run the country.

quote:

I have an MBA in Finance with Honors in Economics. Let me explain something to you. Taxpayers are very often mortgage holders. All mortgage holders are taxpayers. The statement is correct as is. Palin did NOT say they were funded with taxpayer money. If these organizations expenses were too high for mortgage holders, they were too high for taxpayers since all mortgage holders are taxpayers.

Democrats will attack every word out of Palin's mouth for the sake of doing it. OK I accept that; but no double standard. Obama admitted he is a Muslim should never be disputed. Should we allow a man who is a Muslim and lied about it for 6 months every day be elected President? NO !

What is it with your obsession of Muslims. They way you put it, it sounds like Muslims have horns and split hoofs. You are discriminating against people and there faith. Fascist!

The consititution separates State and Religion.

Hudson, yes I know the differences. I also know that A paper for one may not be for another. Depends on the purpose of the credit being applied for and several other factors.

In your example of course he/she is an at risk borrower. What to do depends on a few other items. What is the loan for? Is it secured or unsecured. Will it be personally guaranteed? Under a corp name? How long has the income
been established?

In the end there is still the issue of the finite number of dollars the banks can get from the fed and the amounts wasted on bad debt due to several factors. It wasn't just the country wide style lenders either. I primarily blame the borrower. It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out that if you make 20.00 an hour you can't afford a 500,000 loan.

When Mr. Subprime goes house hunting they are competing against Mr. A paper for the same house. More competition drives prices up. The winner isn't prejudiced on credit worthiness to a large extent. If Mr sub and Mr A are both 'qualified' for 500,000 loans they chase the same property equally. Is it fair?, No. This is just half the equation. Mr Sub and Mr A both compete for the same money to borrow. Guess what. That competition drives interest rates up to.

If Mr Sub gets the house and later defaults, many did, what happens next? A few things. Mr 'A' probably had to pay more for his house because of the number Mr/mrs Subprimes out there. With the default the property values in the immediate area are depressed. So much for the Mr/Mrs responsible 'A' paper people in the neighborhood. They loose again in property value. The subprime house will probably be trashed by the subprime people before being thrown out. The lender may have to short sell and the difference is forever lost.

I know you lean towards holding harmless all immigrant misdeeds but this is going too far. They new better than anyone what their paying power is. Don't blame the lender for believing the rubbish being put to paper by the immigrant borrowers. Or anyone for that matter who wanted more house than they can afford.

The federal funds rate is based on what? And that is the only gauge for mortgage rates? Really! If that were true there would not be such a thing as a secondary market since everyone would get the same loan rate. Not a bad idea since it would stabilize the market and remove the need for periodic corrections due to fiascos like this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Kollerkrot:What is it with your obsession of Muslims. They way you put it, it sounds like Muslims have horns and split hoofs. You are discriminating against people and there faith. Fascist!
The consititution separates State and Religion.

The issue is why did Obama lie about his "Muslim beliefs" for the past 6 months? He was hiding this fact until he accidently leaked it 2 days ago. Muslim is not a religion in any sense of the word.

quote:

The biggest problem in the sub prime market was predatory lending practices, not because people could not "afford to buy the home" per se. Generally minorities and immigrants who were lookng for a home were given bad loans that appeared to be good one. This is what has caused the problem Davdah, not your pseudo analysis.

Hudson, What is your opinion on the Gov. taking over the 2 Giant mortgage company.

Is that a good news ...

A lot of people are hoping it is.
Some say they don't know, just wait and see.

Banks were pressured by government and "community organizers" to give out loans to minorities. We need to get government and "community organizers" out of our lives. Let businesses make the decisions, and not be pressured and bullied by government and community organizers. The people hurt by this the most were the minorities that were supposed to be helped !

RETURN TO THE FREE MARKET !!!

...and because the preditors new that these mortgages were guaranteed by the government. So, what did they care?

They are already are more or less government controlled. That is why they got into trouble. By applying liberal democrat ideas to lending practices. Watch the interest rates climb as the government funnels more money into these bankrupt institutions.


They hold $5 trillion (with a T) in debt. The bailout will dwarf the S & L debacle from the 80's by several times over. Even if the low end prediction of a 20 billion infusion is correct that will only keep the wolves at bay for so long. The debts still exist and many of those are junk bond quality. In the end we're looking a lot closer to a couple trillion for the full tab. Nice job Roosevelt. Another fine tax increase brought to you by the democrat party. But hey, they know better than you. You're just a dumb hick.

Hi 4N,

I do agree with you that we should not be driven to the underground with trolls who do their best to destroy our board. I have since then ignored this poster since I read what he said to Speedie weeks ago. I still joined IP's discussion group and it's so nice to see an intelligent exchange of opinions sans the resident bacteria's presence.

quote:

Originally posted by olalala:

quote:

The biggest problem in the sub prime market was predatory lending practices, not because people could not "afford to buy the home" per se. Generally minorities and immigrants who were lookng for a home were given bad loans that appeared to be good one. This is what has caused the problem Davdah, not your pseudo analysis.

Hudson, What is your opinion on the Gov. taking over the 2 Giant mortgage company.

Is that a good news ...

A lot of people are hoping it is.
Some say they don't know, just wait and see.

Hi Hudson and Davdah,

I'm curious too as to how this affects homeowners. Will this be relevant only to the current homebuyers?

Current homeowners are unaffected. This willmake it easier to get future mortgages. In the short term that is good for new home buyers and sellers, but eventually will create a Social Security type of entitlement program that will slow economic growth.

Thanks SOM.

The affect on current owners will vary depending on your loan, location, and longevity. If you have an adjustable rate, god help you. Get out now while you still can. Other than that the property value may take a short term hit depending on how many defaulted mortgages show up in your neighborhood. If you see a lot of 4 sale signs that is usually a sign of trouble. People trying to sell before foreclosure. If you plan on sticking around the storm will pass and the current dip in your equity will turn around once the market stabilizes.

quote:

Originally posted by olalala:
Hudson, What is your opinion on the Gov. taking over the 2 Giant mortgage company.

Is that a good news ...

A lot of people are hoping it is.
Some say they don't know, just wait and see.

Olalala,
I am in the wait and see crowd. I am hoping ti would be good in the long run with only short term government receivership. But the only way is to get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac holding those jumbo loans. And if the stock market and dollar currency moves are any indication, then it may have been a wise move.

quote:

Originally posted by Mrs. B.:
Hi Hudson and Davdah,

I'm curious too as to how this affects homeowners. Will this be relevant only to the current homebuyers?

If you are a current homeowner, it will not affect you. If you are a homeowner who is in foreclosure or in the beginning stages of foreclosure, it will not help you. But if you are a future homeowner, it may help you.

If you have some money go see Washington Mutual. They have lots of property to unload, cheap.

I am just curious. What will you do, and I am referring this to all the McCain supporters, if Obama wins the elections?
I mean, don't tell me he won't, that McCain is going to win, bla bla bla, just what will you do if Obama wins?

Pray for patriotism and loyalty to the U.S. to overtake his conscience.

This is just dirty politics in my opinion even if the situation was reversed.

Lieberman could lose chairmanship
By GLENN THRUSH

If Dems gain seats in November, Lieberman may lose Homeland Security chairmanship as payback.
Photo: AP

Aides to Senate Democratic leaders say Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman will be ousted as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee as payback for his Obama-bashing GOP convention speech — but only if the Democrats add four or five more seats to their slim Senate majority in November.

The Democrats’ anger with Lieberman has reached the boiling point, but it’s not yet clear whether his Senate colleagues are peeved enough to boot the party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee from the Democratic Caucus entirely.

The 66-year-old Connecticut independent has said he hopes to stay in the Democratic fold, although people close to him say he’s increasingly pessimistic about his prospects of doing so.

Lieberman returned to Capitol Hill Monday — his first day back since speaking at the convention — and was greeted by the resignation of his $120,000-a-year legislative director, Joe Goffman.

In a note to his colleagues, Goffman gave no reason for his departure — but indicated that he has no firm future plans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “had no intention” of disciplining Lieberman for merely backing John McCain, a Democrat close to the Nevadan said. But Reid became incensed, the Democrat said, by Lieberman’s attack on Barack Obama’s fitness to serve as commander in chief.

While Reid has publicly adopted a wait-and-see attitude on his longtime friend from Connecticut, he has told associates that Lieberman will lose his post “if we hit 55 or 56” seats, a gain of four or five freshmen in November, the person added.

Reid’s office had no comment Monday. But on Sept. 4, Reid spokesman Jim Manley accused Lieberman of distorting Obama’s record and warned, “The Democratic Caucus will likely revisit Lieberman’s situation after the November elections.”

Democrats currently hold a 51-to-49 advantage over Republicans, but only because Lieberman and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders caucus with them. Democratic leaders predict that dissatisfaction with the economy and the Iraq war will cost the GOP between three and seven seats this year — on top of the half-dozen seats picked up by Democrats in 2006.

“It just shows you how ticked off the Democratic leadership is with Joe,” said Jennifer Duffy, who monitors the Senate for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “I would have expected the threshold for punishing him to be at around 57 or 58.”

Duffy predicted the threshold for punishing Lieberman “could go as low as 52” if he throws more brickbats at the Democratic ticket while campaigning with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The hawkish Lieberman, who was reelected in 2006 as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to anti-war activist Ned Lamont, has been counseling Palin on foreign affairs ahead of her Oct. 2 vice presidential debate with Joe Biden.

Lieberman had suggested he wouldn’t attack Obama during his prime-time speech last week in St. Paul, Minn. When he mounted the podium, however, he launched into a sharp contrast of the two candidates.

“Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead,” he said. “But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.”

Despite the tough talk, Reid still hopes to keep Lieberman in the caucus. Nonetheless, stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship will set off a major Republican push to woo him, an effort likely to be led by his friends Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Of course, the day of reckoning could be avoided altogether if McCain wins and appoints Lieberman to a senior administration post.

“I think people are putting it aside for now, and they’ll deal with it after the election,” Lieberman told reporters shortly after the speech. “I’m not going to deal with it now because I’m focused on trying to help McCain.”

While their bosses fret the possibility of losing a Democratic seat, aides are baying for revenge at what they believe was a Lieberman betrayal. Mere mention of Lieberman’s name at a staff strategy session last week set off a wave of derisive laughter, according to an aide who was present.

For his part, Lieberman seemed to be fully aware of the impact his St. Paul broadside would have on Democrats.

“He knew he would be gone [from the caucus]. He was aware of that. He knew he was out when he decided to make that speech,” said a person close to Lieberman.

“It’s not imminent. He’s going to see what Harry and [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman] Chuck [Schumer] are going to do. But he’ll soon be out of both” his chairmanship and the caucus, the person added.


Source