If you can read, it should be clear. There’s scummy behavior and illegal behavior. If you’re a victim of scummy behavior you’re on your own. If you’re a victim of illegal behavior, you an avenue to be made whole again.
This really isn’t so hard as you’re intent on making it out to be. Really.
Oh, I understand cynicism, Mag, I just don’t want none.
You’re factually WRONG. Absolutely, utterly WRONG.
Did you bother to read post #85? Take note of how President Bush prevented every Attorney General in EVERY state from using their state’s laws to prevent Predatory Lending, going so far as to SUE to stop investigations?
Take a wild guess who made the following speech, and when:
That was George W. Bush in October, 2002. He then set about tying the hands of every single one of our 50 states so that he could realize his goal.
What’s disgusting is your inability and unwillingness to accept what even Republicans in Congress know and accept – this was not the fault of homebuyers, but of lack of oversight, lack of regulation, and predatory lending practices that were designed to deceive people into loans that had hidden fees and costs and other deceptive aspects.
The “relaxing” you call “well-intentioned” was started by your buddies as far back as Reagan, and Phil Gramm and George W. Bush have filthy, dirty hands in this nightmare. And don’t think I absolve Bill Clinton of his responsibility for his part in repealing Glass-Steagall, either. But he and the Democrats didn’t spend decades and take hundreds of millions of dollars in Lobbyist money and campaign contributions from the Banking Industry like the Republicans, who controlled Congress for most of that period, and who little by little, piece by piece, gutted any regulation that existed to protect the public from an unscrupulous industry.
Educate yourself to the FACTS.
Try to read what I actually write. Do you deny that democrats pushed to allow lower income people to get mortgages that they weren’t able to get when the normal guidelines were used? Yes or no.
This REALLY isn’t that hard to understand. The FACT is that regardless of a change in rules, each person who took out a mortgage was handed a contract. It falls to them to make sure they are comfortable with that contract. They are completely and utterly free to NOT sign it. Millions of people did NOT sign it. Millions of people saw all the teaser ads and didn’t bite. Many people (of whom I’m one) talked to a lender and decided it was too risky, that although the bank might be willing to finance X for me, that the ultimate decision resided with them. If a law was passed tomorrow stating that I could borrow a million dollars at 1% interest with 10% down and I take that loan and invest it in what I believe to be a safe 5% return investment, but the investment goes south, I am at fault, not the lender. Now some people would take that loan, and some would make money doing so. Good for them. But it is a gamble. Other people would say "wow, that’s tempting, I probably can’t lose. But I could and I don’t want to 1) risk my $100,000 and 2) then be on the hook for the other $900,000. Let’s call that investment the Enron Mutual Fund.
People need to be responsible for the decisions they make. When they make imprudent decisions and then don’t have to suffer the downside of those decisions (and are even rewarded) you encourage more of that behavior in the future.
This applies to the lenders, too. Those of them who broke the law should be prosecuted to it’ fullest extent. Why? 1) they choose to break the law and 2) if we give them a pass we encourage to similarly break the law in the future.
Sales resistance, that is the key. The repubs are selling a high pressure takeover of the economy ,beyond any previous limits. If this board is representative, the people are buying it. There are red flags and lights flashing and blinking, but we are going full speed ahead. We all suffer when these thieves get the power.
This bailout does not bailout the home buyers. It bails out the companies that first made a fortune buying collections of mortgages, then lost when they were revealed to have too many bad ones mixed in. The bill gives Paulson the right to turn over money to any institution ,any amount he sees fit. It does not save the horrible nasty person who got talked into a mortgage he could not afford. They will burn ,so you can sleep better now. He also has the right to bailout foreign banks.
It’s like talking to a brick wall. The words deceptive and hidden and predatory have no meaning to you.
I’m done.
As tickled as I may be with the last line, why don’t you tell me about these words you highlight. Would you call some used car dealers deceptive? But if they act within the law and you get taken in, do you expect to get bailed out? In my book, much advertising, particularly of the financial variety is deceptive. I get solicitations for credit cards with 0% balance transfer rates. But if you look at it closely, that for a limited time, then the rate can shoot up to 8, 10, 12 17%. Deceptive? Yes. Do I expect someone to bail me out if I jump at the offer without reading all the fine print? No.
Hidden? You’ll have to explain that to me. Hidden, as in unfindable? Somehow I think not.
Predatory? Again, I’ll let you define it. My guess is that you’re talking about lenders actively seeking out customers with low incomes. People who would now qualify for loans with the reduced criteria. So, first people scream about low income people not being able to get loans. The the rules are relaxed and those people will now qualify and a lender does that horrible thing of letting those people know they may now qualify for a home loan by advertising that fact. If you have a different take on it, I’d love to hear it.
It is my understanding that it also gives judges the power to reduce loan principle amounts, or interest rates. And why do you characterize these people as being “nasty”? I’m sure you’re being sarcastic, but that is not my opinion of them. Some were dumb, some greedy, some, most I’d say, simply imprudent. And as much as my heart might go out to someone who is about to lose a home, that doesn’t mean I have responsibility to bail them out.
Looks like this is turning into a 2 person fight, but FWIW for the first and last time ever, I agree with Magellan01.
When making decisions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, potential retirements, etc. you need to make sure you understand exactly what is going on. And it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that free money doesn’t come out of the air.
This is the same phenomena as massive credit card debt, just on a larger scale. People want lifestyles they can’t afford, find something that makes that possible, and then are shocked when they learn that you can’t live a lifestyle you can’t afford for that long and the consequences really suck.
Yes, I know, I’ve heard it before. But don’t fight it. Let the warmth of right and righteousness wash over you. Accept truth…
Come…come… Tis a better place.
The OCC responds:
Doesn’t quite sound like what noted self-promoter Eliot Spitzer described, does it?
This is a self-exonerating rebuttal. Whether it is based on fact or not is another question. Did you expect a mea fuckup?
Well, its a simpler place, I’ll grant that much.
Riiiiiiiight. That’s why “. . . all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.” Elliot Spitzer aside, how do you account for the other 49 states’ attorneys general and banking superintendents trying to fight this crap? Were they aaaaaaall “self-promoters”? Or do you think it’s more likely that the OCC is just conveniently covering its ass? Fifty against one. Are you really implying that the one is right and all of the 50 are wrong or liars?
So? It was a self-aggrandising accusation. If you’re going to disqualify people from defending themselves on the grounds that they are, um, defending themselves, then essentially every accusation must be taken at face value. Right? How about addressing the factual assertions of the Comptroller? Say, for example, his point about his office being responsible only for national banks, or how said banks were responsible for just 10% of the subprime loans, or how said 10% were better performing than those issued by state-regulated lenders? I mean, all of those claims should be checkable, right? It’s rather notable that literally nowhere in Eliot Spitzer’s article does he make a distinction between national and state lenders; rather a glaring omission, don’t you think, given that he’s writing an article about national vs. state regulation?
This thread is a misnomer. It is not a mortgage bailout. It is a bailout of huge banks that bought up bad loans. It is mismanagement. It is greed. That is what we are saving. The problem remains. There are a lot of homes yet to be foreclosed. Magellan will be pleased that they will be tossed in the street. We will however save the wealthy. That is good. All is well.
The Chinese government had suspended Chinese banks from lending money to American banks because it is too risky.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you know what pleases me? Let me help you. It doesn’t please me that you misconstrue my position, but knock yourself out. And it doesn’t please me that ANYONE lose their home. But if someone made an unwise decision and bit off more house than they could afford, and then reality descends upon them and they can’t, in fact, afford the home, I prefer they take the hit as opposed to me, or the public at large. What part of people taking responsibility for their decisions do you find so difficult to comprehend?
I imagine it’s the part where Wall Street apparently doesn’t have to take responsibility for their decisions.
The bankers make multi billion dollar errors and we rush in to save them. The bailout saves them. Only them. People losing their houses still will get what they deserve. They and their kids can buy a tent.