| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
Look, a goldfish if given enough food will eat itself to death. It's up to the fish's owner to see that it's not fed too much. Those people who blame the banks for lending them too much money are goldfish. Is that what you want, for some outside force, whether it be the govt or some corp, to decide for you how much is too much? Or can you do that for yourself? When did we decide to trade rugged individualism for paternalism? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Buellifer, I don't think anyone should loose those rights for defaulting on a loan. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparently) was that if somebody thinks they were so helpless in the face of manipulation by some greedy bank, the kid up the street, big government, or space aliens... you name it... then those people are arguably not equipped to vote, take out future loans, have kids, etc. If they were helpless in the face of manipulation from a big bank suckering them into buying a house, think how they will be helpless in the face of manipulation under other circumstances? So if they really were helpless, then let society at large pay off the loan, wrap them in bubble wrap, limit them to only absolutely safe circumstances and environments (which will inevitably be extremely limiting). In short, I am describing institutionalization. I didn't propose it to advocate it, I proposed it as something awful to be avoided. | ||
| Blake |
It is a huge misrepresentation of history and the root cause of the mortgage "crisis" to conveniently exclude discussion of the community reinvestment act, its major expansion under Clinton, the push by inner city community organizers (yes, directly by Obama himself) and their Dem political cohorts to coerce banks to grant loans to those who would otherwise never qualify. And it is beyond the pale to neglect to mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FM&FM), gov't backed guarantors of all the sub-prime loans, were the most in need of strengthened regulation where rather than a few percent of capital backing the mortgages, they should have been required to maintain around 5%. If they had, the crisis would have stood a chance to be averted. But outraged Dems in congress would have none of it, telling us that no such problem existed. They promised to filibuster any such strengthening of regulations for FM&FM. The people in charge of FM&FM abandoned ship and took MILLION with them. Franklin Rains, the enabler of 9/11 herself, Jamie Gorlick, and friends. Then you have the committee chairs in congress responsible for oversight of FM&FM, Barney Frank in the house, and Dodd in the senate, both Dems, Frank with a homo boyfriend working for FM, and Dodd a recipient of sweetheart loans from a major beneficiary of the FM&FM sub-prime scheme. Corruption and incompetence off the charts. Just another perfect example of the endlessly proved facts that whenever big brother gov't attempts to manipulate the fair free market, catastrophe happens and recovery is impeded. (Message edited by blake on August 31, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
If anyone cannot afford to pay their loan, which they promised to do, then they need to go bankrupt. Period. No @#$%ing free money from others. | ||
| Blake |
>>> People over extended themselves, but the banks let them. The federal gov't both coerced and enabled that behavior. Obama himself was on the front lines teaching good little ACORNers how to coerce banks into granting sub-prime loans. Yeah, then the folks making money off of loan origination fees got into the act. That was only enabled by the ludicrously lax regulation of FM&FM who were largely excused from actually backing their bundles of loan guarantees with actual capital. | ||
| Dennis_c |
@#$%ing free money from others. How do I get it???? I want some. I will even take a free dinner. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Dont worry AMERICA ! President Obama will have his new job plan out next week . This will all go away !  | ||
| Kenm123t |
Blake you left out Elizabeth Warren our watchdog on banks etc. She is the creature that invented the bundled subprime mortgaged backed security. They hung more bad paper on Europe than Herr Hitler did when he was a paper hanger | ||
| Two_seasons |
Blake: That would be "Franklin" Raines, not Harold. "Earned" over 100M in the short time he ran Fannie Mae. This may help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If anyone cannot afford to pay their loan, which they promised to do, then they need to go bankrupt. Period. No @#$%ing free money from others. Agreed completely. Why should the financial hardship of one person be visited upon and create a financial hardship on another? Bankruptcy isn't the worst thing that can happen. For many, it's the best option. Unfortunately, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or damage their self image, so we'll go to great and unreasonable lengths to keep someone from having to file. | ||
| Slaughter |
The above discussion is EXACTLY what is needed AND SHOULD BE REQUIRED in Home Economics classes at the JUNIOR HIGH level. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Blake, don't forget the cabal created between the banks and FM & FM regarding the CRA loans. The banks were required to issue so many CRA loans. Once the percentage was fulfilled, the well dried up. Banks couldn't sell the high risk loans, and once originated, had to hold them until they were retired or defaulted. Think of them as forced "tote the note" loans. In order to free up the market, FM & FM agreed to back the paper so that they could be bundled and sold on the open market. This allowed originating banks to originate and sell CRA loans over and over. Those who bought these bundled notes were depending on the full faith and credit of the Federal government to back them. The house of cards began to fall apart when FM & FM started defaulting. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Slaughter, they haven't taught Home Economics for decades. There is virtually NO economics or US Government classes taught in public school. | ||
| Kenm123t |
how old is slaughter ? he is to logical to be under 60 ahhhha 30 lol | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
He's old enough to remember when Home Economics was still a course in school. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Government and economics where required when I graduated in 1994. Couldn't graduate if you didn't pass. When did they stop teaching these subjects? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Home Economics was abolished before I graduated HS in 1990. Government was a two week session within Social Studies. | ||
| Buellitup |
If anyone cannot afford to pay their loan, which they promised to do, then they need to go bankrupt Legally not true. You never promised to do anything. You signed a contract, and a contract can be broken. It's an agreement between consenting adults, and there are repercussions for breaking that agreement. deal = agreement = contract, in this context. That being said, think of anytime you broke a deal that you made with someone, no matter how small. Legally, you had a contract, and you broke it. Businesses do this all the time when they determine that keeping the contract in place is no longer economically viable. You MORALLY have a right to fulfill EVERY deal that you make, but you have PROMISED to do nothing. Do not equate the two. The banks equate them to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about your future if you break the "promise" you made. | ||
| Guell |
I took economics and American govt, had to here to graduate | ||
| Hootowl |
They're at it again. What's the definition of insanity? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119041 99404576538283776006582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADT op | ||
| Sifo |
Hootowl, That piece is chilling, especially considering what the economy has just been through in the past few years. This really is insanity.
In 15 to 20 years when this melts down again (I hope it takes that long) they will deny having any part in causing the melt down again. | ||
| Oldog |
Wow, just how can these thieves get away with this? obama and his hench men must go! I hope that Holder will fall for fast and furious, | ||
| Strokizator |
What, you guys not a fan of redistributive justice? We now live in a country where you do not have a right to that which you create or own while others have a right to that which they neither created or own. | ||
| Blake |
Beating people over the head with false charges of racism to achieve a left wing political agenda. Welcome to the fundamental transformation of America. This is yet another example of the type of fascism that will lead to violent revolution. Hopefully it won't come to that. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Still want that "living document" Constitution? | ||
| Buellifer |
Sorry to bring the debate back, but I just read this article on Yahoo... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The agency that oversees mortgage markets is preparing to file suit against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages they packaged and sold during the housing bubble, The New York Times reported on Thursday. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is expected to file suit against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among other banks, the Times reported, citing three unidentified individuals briefed on the matter. The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks last year. They could be filed as early as Friday, the Times said, but if not filed Friday it said the suits would come on Tuesday. The government will argue the banks, which pooled the mortgages and sold them as securities to investors, failed to perform due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers' incomes were falsified or inflated, the Times reported. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost more than $30 billion, due partly to their purchases of mortgage-backed securities, when the housing bubble burst in late 2008. Those losses were covered mostly with taxpayers' money. The agency filed suit against UBS in July, seeking to recover at least $900 million for taxpayers, and the individuals told the Times the new suits would be similar in scope. A spokesman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency was not immediately available for comment. The Times said Bank of America, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs all declined comment. A Deutsche Bank spokesman told the Times, "We can't comment on a suit that we haven't seen and hasn't been filed yet." The practice of subprime lending, wherein mortgage brokers lowered their standards to entice homebuyers to take out large mortgages to buy more expensive homes than they could afford, was a root cause of the mortgage market implosion. News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange. S&P 500 stocks index futures were trading down 0.6 percent in Asia. U.S. Treasury futures also ticked higher.. The Times report said investors fear that if banks are forced to pay out billions for mortgages that defaulted, the suit could sap earnings for years and contribute to further losses across the financial services industry. | ||
| Blake |
Really shady reporting designed to malign the banks and deflect from the truth of the federal government's key role in pushing the sub-prime mortgages then failing to properly regulate FM&FM. | ||
| Sifo |
I have to agree with Blake that this is pretty poor reporting. All from unnamed sources with no comment from any of the involved parties about an event that hasn't happened yet. All that aside, let's assume for a moment that everything is reported accurately. The FHFA is alleging mortgage fraud. Not just on a couple of mortgages either. Bernie Madoff was considered to be a huge financial fraud at a fraction of the size. Bernie Madoff was demonized and sent to jail for the rest of his life. Correctly so IMO also. So now we have a Federal agency alleging a much larger fraud, but there's not talk of criminal charges? Seriously! If the claims are accurate they should certainly be brought up on criminal charges and sent to jail just like Bernie Madoff. Once you get a conviction in criminal court the civil case becomes easy. This is why it's common practice to do a criminal prosecution then follow up with civil action when it's warranted. This raises a serious question of why would the Feds skip the criminal prosecution. The only reasonable answer is that they just don't have a strong case and are hoping to just get a jury that will buy into the demonizing of the banks angle and find in their favor based on emotion, not facts. I have to assume that the loans in question are standard full doc loans, not stated income loans, because a stated income loan doesn't require documentation of income. If this was fraud involving stated income loans the fraud would be on the part of the loan applicant, not the lender. So the question becomes one of, does the lender have documentation of the applicants income for these loans. This would be a very easy thing to prove or disprove in a criminal case as the lender is required to keep these documents in the loan file. The either obtained the documents or they didn't. The Feds are alleging that numerous banks were involved in this sort of fraud too. If you believe what is being alleged, you should be outraged that the Feds are failing to take appropriate criminal action. I can tell you that from my experience, what is being alleged would never have happened in our office. I've seen many loans fall through because the applicant fails to document income. The loan processor just isn't going to put their neck in the noose to make the loan happen. Their position isn't tied to the loan commission, so they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by participating in loan fraud. This whole story just doesn't pass the smell test to me. It sounds more like the FHFA going on the offensive as a defense for their part in making bad loans. Typical bullying behavior from big government when their incompetence is being brought to light. | ||
| Sifo |
Just saw a piece on this on the financial news. The guest they had on seemed to feel that the loans in question actually deal with the "no-income" and "no-doc" loans. He actually called the suit "ludicrous" and said the regulators that allowed Fannie/Freddie to purchase these no-income/no-doc loans "must have been on a bathroom break". Of course loans that don't require documenting income, work history, or assets are going to have higher rates of default. Blaming the banks for following the rules is ridiculous though. | ||
| Buellifer |
Quote... "If this was fraud involving stated income loans the fraud would be on the part of the loan applicant, not the lender." Not true...It is the banks job to verify employment and income. The article read... The government will argue the banks, which pooled the mortgages and sold them as securities to investors, failed to perform due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers' incomes were falsified or inflated If this turns out to be true. Then the banks are screwed. Bottom line the banks saw a easy way to make money and they took short cuts. |
