DescentBB

Well just when you thought we learned our lesson about handing out loans to people who can't afford them (and the repercussions there-in), along come the head honcho wanting to do more of the same:

"The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place."

Yup, you're reading right, the head liberal in charge once again wants to open the doors to another major recession just because it ain't fair that people with poor credit can't get a loan to buy a house. Speak about not learning your lessons.

I agree with your general premise here, Woodchip.....that said, the whole risk involved will be in whether anyone, at this point, can sell bundled securities solely based on risky loans, at low interest. If not, then you won't see the same issue. Still, the idea of folks who cannot afford a home being encouraged to buy them is flawed.

Why not, that logic is being applied to health insurance.

huh, Spidey? Equating health insurance and home ownership seems, at best, a stretch.

Ok well it's not quite how woodchip described it:

[A]dministration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama hinted at a push during his State of the Union address in January.

"Even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected," Obama said. "Too many families who have never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no. That’s holding our entire economy back, and we need to fix it."

From : http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ho ... use-2013-4

I disagree that the high risk loans are what caused the crash. It wasn't the people who took the loans fault, they were paying those loans until the market crashed and in the subsequent panic people lost their jobs and investments. What caused the crash was people who bundled those high risk loans and misrepresented with them with low risk AAA ratings. When the truth came out, investors paniced and the economy crashed. People lost their jobs, couldnt pay and the banks started foreclosing wholesale to recoup as much money as possible. It pisses me off that people buy into this load of crap and misplace the blame.

agreed flip.

in woodchip's mind the scenario must be that some crackhead walked into a bank and demanded a 500k loan for a house on a minimum wage salary. The bank, because of Democratic legislators, had no choice but to lend the money. This same scenario repeated itself across the country to the tune of a trillion dollars in loans, somehow all the fault of the people that were told they COULD afford that house (even though they should have known better).

Yep, the fox robs the henhouse and everyone blames the loyal and faithful dog.

flip wrote:I disagree that the high risk loans are what caused the crash. It wasn't the people who took the loans fault, they were paying those loans until the market crashed and in the subsequent panic people lost their jobs and investments. What caused the crash was people who bundled those high risk loans and misrepresented with them with low risk AAA ratings. When the truth came out, investors paniced and the economy crashed. People lost their jobs, couldnt pay and the banks started foreclosing wholesale to recoup as much money as possible. It pisses me off that people buy into this load of crap and misplace the blame.

very good, flip!

There is no 'single thing' that caused it and certainly the banks behavior deserves our outrage but at the same time we are angry at them there are some other components that led to the problem that never should have been in play.

The politicians forced qualifications below the line the lending qualifications were established to hold. Those levels were built on solid risk assessment not a desire to keep black and brown people in apartments! There is another load of crap that you should be pissed off at....
The politicians bribed the banks to accept higher risk than their model allowed by guaranteeing loans that didn't meet established minimum qualifications. And threatened them if they were still reluctant to go through with the plan!
More fuel for righteous anger...

If the politicians hadn't sought to errode the qualification threshold (for their own political benefit) the ratio of bad paper wouldn't have reached such an unmanageable level. And if they hadn't created the situation by mandate and not ignored their own regulators warnings they could have instead spent their time and effort ensuring the banks didn't package the bad bundles in the first place! Instead the politicians decided to make the mess and protect the banks at our expense!

From a politicians perspective who cares if the taxpayers have to cough up some more money to pay for your efforts as long as your efforts can be touted as an attempt to provide 'equality' for the poor and you don't hurt the big money sources(banks). It's all just paper that you print anyway.

The real problem is the perspective of politicians.

There is enough blame to go around, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with this country…we are a nation of finger pointers, instead of simply looking for solutions.

I had this customer once, whenever something went wrong with a job, he would stomp his foot, and demand to see the PO, so he could determine who made the mistake (99% of the time it was him).

Looking for blame…look at the person pointing the finger.

credit score of 500 and 3.5% down to qualify, those are the governments standards. UHM why even have any????

Exactly Will, but for some reason it gets nicely summed up to those "idiots that couldn't afford a house anyways." My assertion is that a good percentage of those people would have paid for those houses, if not for the firesale.

I read an article yesterday, it said that 70% of the people with scores below 600 would default on their loan. YA make total sense to loan to those people O_o

You're right. We have plenty of bridges in this country, anyone with a credit score under 600 should not even get a chance at owning property! No one gets a chance in this country!

ya that makes total sense loan money to a person that cannot pay it back.. that is the Government way after all.

FYI then don't call it a loan. call it a grant, and just GIVE the house to the person. don't lie to me by calling it a "loan" and tell me that they will pay it back

So every person with a credit score under 600 is a liar, a cheat, and just waiting to rip off the system huh?

CobGobbler wrote:So every person with a credit score under 600 is a liar, a cheat, and just waiting to rip off the system huh?

that's just a stupid question. where did ANYONE say that they were Liars and cheats. ONLY YOU said that. it's a shame you feel that way about people that have bad credit

What was said by me was, that 70% of those with a credit score below 600 will default on their loan. THOSE ARE FACTS. try not to play the victim card Z

Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on. To HIDE that little detail from sucker investors, they bundled all those loser loans inside of big investment instruments and gave those instruments a AAA rating to sell at a high, profitable price. So who are the thieves, the homeowners that defaulted when rates skyrocketed or the investment bankers who performed this slight of hand to make big bucks for themselves? I think that is very self evident.

There was no single point of failure in the economy that caused the recession. It was the result of thousands of little things, none of which alone would have caused a problem, all being added on top of each other in a way that would predictably crash the economy. The problem was nobody had the presence or the power to detect all these tiny changes adding up, so the first indicator we had of it happening was when the major players started to crash, and by then it was too late to stop it.

tunnelcat wrote:Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on.

they did it at the Direction and Mandate of the Federal Government

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on.

they did it at the Direction and Mandate of the Federal Government

Shhhh Cuda, in TC's world the blame always starts and ends with republicans and wealthy entities.
To mention that the government had a big greedy hand in it, if there were democrats in control at the time is at odds with her reality.

you would also have to say that Bush made them do it or something like that or she won't listen...

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on.

they did it at the Direction and Mandate of the Federal Government

Shhhh Cuda, in TC's world the blame always starts and ends with republicans and wealthy entities.
To mention that the government had a big greedy hand in it, if there were democrats in control at the time is at odds with her reality.

you would also have to say that Bush made them do it or something like that or she won't listen...

O_o

whoops

tunnelcat wrote:Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on.

they did it at the Direction and Mandate of George Bush


FIXED IT

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.

According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.

I doubt very seriously the banks were forced to do anything. Maybe they are just headed by brilliant people

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federa ... lies/25080

[youtube]qdFLPn30dvQ[/youtube]

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Let's place the blame where it really lies. The banks gave out loans to people THEY KNEW had a bad credit risk and would probably default on.

they did it at the Direction and Mandate of the Federal Government

Uuuuuuuuum, wasn't Bush President when things tanked? Didn't the Wall Street greed ball really get going under Bush? Wasn't Bush a little lax in enforcing what regulations we still had?

http://petercohan.blogspot.com/2011/01/ ... hy-it.html

But yet, I have to concede, you're still technically right that Bill Clinton AND Obama, that which you call "the government", are partially to blame too, since they both hired ol' Larry Summers, one out of a long line of geniuses that came up with that wonderful idea, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Also, that other genius, Phill Gramm, McCain's economic adviser, was one that successfully pushed for deregulating Credit Default Swaps in 2000, so if McCain had gotten elected, outcomes would have still been the same with Wall Street NOW. However, since the epic fail happened while Bush was driving the car, ie., appointing really bad SEC chairmen and basically looking the other way while Wall Street played and he hunted for Saddam under false pretenses, it's still technically Bush's fault.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/bi ... es-my-bad/

By the way CUDA, when someone gambles with money that's not their own, like the big banks did without oversight because of the CFMA, it IS their fault when they lose big, NOT the ones they borrowed the money from in the first place. Those lowly wannabe homeowners that were seduced into getting into this whole mess in the first place with the promise of a home of their own on the cheap were just doing what normal people would do to get a house, get a loan. It wasn't their fault that those loans were not checked over, people's credit wasn't looked at and the mortgage paperwork was conveniently "lost" when things went into the tank. The lure of easy money put blinders on everyone that could have stopped this disaster, the regulators and the bankers. Yes, the government was the enabler.

OMG

I knew women had one track minds but your hardon for GW is taking it to extreme. 2 differnt threads, 2 diferent blame Bush posts. Pathetic. Discussing ANYTHING with you is wasted time.

You totally ignored the fact I put some blame Clinton AND Obama along with Bush. Bush just takes the greater share of the blame for a recession that occurred on HIS watch, so he owns it. At least Clinton regrets the part he played. You can bet that if that hadn't happened at the end of Bush's tenure, McCain may have probably won the election. Republicans were persona non grata because of Bush/Cheney. Oh, but wait. There was that problem of Palin the airhead hanging around his neck.

By the way, some people here are just as fixated on Obama and his screwups.

tunnelcat wrote:... The lure of easy money put blinders on everyone that could have stopped this disaster, the regulators and the bankers. Yes, the government was the enabler.

No. The regulators didn't have blinders on. They had democrats playing the race card on them chasing them out of the comittee meeting when they tried to tell the congress things were heading for failure and to stop the madness!!



And a little of Barney lying through his teeth projecting his own party's guilt onto the repubs as if he hadn't been caught on film shooting down the regulators!!
Preceded by Clinton himself exposing Barney's bullcrap...


Meanwhile Franklin Raines and his other democrat hacks paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses for reaching quotas on loans they shouldn't have given out AND they got caught cooking the books to to make it possible to collect those bonuses! Nothing was done about it because Barney and company were in charge of the oversight committees and they say everything is just fine!! They can get away with that blatent line of bullcrap because of people like you who will never vote against them no matter how hard they shove it to you!

So for you to go on a rant, rewriting history to absolve the democrats and only indict the repubs is a disgusting display of partisanship on your part. Thanks for helping the assholes stay in power election after election!!

CUDA wrote:OMG

I knew women had one track minds but your hardon for GW is taking it to extreme.

This one statement answers everything about you Cuda. I understand much more now. Thank you.

CobGobbler wrote:

CUDA wrote:OMG

I knew women had one track minds but your hardon for GW is taking it to extreme.

This one statement answers everything about you Cuda. I understand much more now. Thank you.

Coming from you Zuruck that means absolutely nothing

What the hell is this Zuruck business again?

Playing dumb doesnt work. IP checks are a wonderful thing.

Sorry zuruck, we figured that it was you a loong time ago. We just didn't mention anything abut it til now. so why don't you man up and admit it, instead of hiding behind that little aka of yours. You were doing okay hiding until you shot yourself in the foot one day. ;P

So lets see Zurucks last post here is may 2012 from Greenville SC and also clemson university wifi.
A month later cob makes his first post from? You guessed it. Greenville SC and also clemson university wifi.

What a coincidence

I figured it out just by how he posts.

tunnelcat wrote:

Uuuuuuuuum, wasn't Bush President when things tanked? Didn't the Wall Street greed ball really get going under Bush? Wasn't Bush a little lax in enforcing what regulations we still had?

And wasn't Bush the one who kept warning the house and senate about the banking regulations and people like Barney Frank kept pooh poohing Bush?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Uuuuuuuuum, wasn't Bush President when things tanked? Didn't the Wall Street greed ball really get going under Bush? Wasn't Bush a little lax in enforcing what regulations we still had?

And wasn't Bush the one who kept warning the house and senate about the banking regulations and people like Barney Frank kept pooh poohing Bush?

PLEASE.

Don't say Barney Frank and Pooh Pooh in the same sentence

Pooh Pooh...wasn't that the name of Barney's boy friend...who just so happened to work at Fannie Mae?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Uuuuuuuuum, wasn't Bush President when things tanked? Didn't the Wall Street greed ball really get going under Bush? Wasn't Bush a little lax in enforcing what regulations we still had?

And wasn't Bush the one who kept warning the house and senate about the banking regulations and people like Barney Frank kept pooh poohing Bush?

If you're going to spout right wing FOX News propaganda, I'll give you a lefty counter punch, from the Daily KOS. Personally, I think Barney Frank is part of the whole mess anyway, so I'm not absolving him of some of the blame. By the way, the Republicans controlled the House between 1994 and 2006, so why didn't Bush act on his fears at the time when he could've gotten something done about it, if he was so concerned that is?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/0 ... and-a-poll