• And the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates (again) in an “emergency move”:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEgwdDHD5Fbs&refer=home

    Gee, must be 'cause the Federal Reserve are such nice guys and decided to make less money… surely not to stave off impending economic doom. /sarcasm


  • More homes foreclosing means . . .

    MORE STRIPPERS IN VEGAS!!!

    Come on people, think about what’s important here!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That’s just it.

    The NUMBER of mortgages went up to INSANE levels when the Fed was slashing interest rates to recover from the 2000 recession under the President in 2000.

    They made BAD choices.

    They are having issues getting people to repay now.

    This is NOT an indicator of the economy.  Why?  Because there is a HUGE percentage of people who ARE paying their mortgages down.

    Yea, it sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 who loses his home.  Oh well.  It sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 that mortgages his house in Vegas and loses everything too.  Bad choices have bad consequences.


  • Yeah, bummer what happened to people in 2000 under that particular presidents watch.

    So… that means this one can be blamed on the current president’s watch since you are so inclined of pinning someone’s name to it.
    Can’t have your cake and eat too, Jen.

    This situation cannot be back dated to anyone before Bush. It’s near the end of his second term. Just short of a decade. Remember that.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yup.  The current president should have made government warnings more forceful to the citizens warning them of the predatory practices of disreputable financial institutions.

    Many of the more intelligent people in this nation KNEW that ARMs only go up and Interest Only Payments make no sense because you have no financial stack in your home.  If the property DEPRECIATES, then you are upside down in your mortgage and it’s easier for the bank to foreclose.

    Currently it’s a lack of public knowledge.  Previously it was a lack of governmental over sight.


  • We are up to 1 in 100 based on the media reports I am hearing, not 1 in 1000.

    And as much as my libertarian mind hates to admit it, there are factors that relate to MY wealth and wellbeing as a result of this… if a bunch of my neighbor’s homes go into foreclosure, MY home value declines.

    But hey, we removed the standards from lending… mortgages, credit cards, personal loans, 0% APR car loans… you name it, the standards disappeared over the past several years.  And we ended up with “false” economic growth since 2000.  We robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul has shown up with a civil lawsuit to get his money back…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If your home’s value is declining, then perhaps your home is not worth as much as the papers say?

    However, if you look at the long run, what is going to make your home worth more?  Government bail outs of people who make poor decisions and bankruptcies in the banking industry, or a brief period of time (say 5 years for argument’s sake, I honestly think 2009 will see a booming housing market again) of correction in the housing market?


  • I did not say I was in favor of a government bail-out (point of fact I think this check scheme is as much of a joke now as it was in 2001).

    What I AM saying is that perhaps some formal standards need to be put in place regarding lending to get rid of the problem children in the system (those that survive this debacle)… the pay day lenders (that are already banned from peddling their wares with service men and women), the loan shark credit cards, the title loans, the no-equity home loans, the no-document home loans, etc.

    I mean, if we are going to allow Loan Sharking, then lets be honest and above board about it and let the Mob legally get back in the business… broken knee caps are less of a detriment to the national economy the sub-prime backed loan investment vehicles :-D

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But we do have standards for lending.  If you are a prime candidate you get a reduced interest rate.  If you are a sub-prime candidate (high debt, poor payment history, etc) you get a much higher rate.  Also, sub-prime loans are not backed up by Sallie Mae but are instead backed by the bank and/or high risk investors.

    If you don’t want to take the risk of losing it all, DO NOT LEND THE MONEY.  Do I get a bail out for my CompUSA stock? (In case you are unaware, CompUSA is out of business.)  No.  Why?  There are at least as many share holders of the now worthless CompUSA stock as there are people losing their homes!  Maybe more!

    Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks or the stocks.  If you want the government to back your high risk loan, then enlist for a couple of years and get your VA Home Loan certificate.  Give something to the country before you ask something from the country for a change.

    Screw em.  It’s harsh, but common.  These are people who allegedly hold a high school diploma (or GED) so they should be expected to be able to handle basic arithmetic.  They should be able to take their income and subtract their bills from it to determine if they can make the payments, right?  We have such a thing as bankruptcy which will secure your house at an interest rate set by the government, right?

    These people have options.  They just don’t like them.  Well, guess what.  If I eat nothing but doritos, oreos, ice cream and sugared soda I’ll have options too, deal with obesity, change my diet and/or go to the gym.  I may not like the options, but then they are the consequence of poor life choices. (BTW, that is NOT my diet.  I live on almost nothing but vegetables and fruits now.  Though, I do eat a lot of fish for the protein. And no, I will not come begging you to pay for my medical expenses if I get heavy metal poisoning from the fish either!)


  • @Cmdr:

    Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks

    Actually, this IS one of the defined powers of our Government and goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No.  It is the government’s job to print the money.  I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Constitution that states, specifically, that the US Government will run the banks and make sure they play nice.

    Unless you can point to one specifically.  In which case, I’ll admit I was wrong and no longer view President Jackson as a hero for crippling the Bank of America or United States Bank or whatever the one bank was in his day.


  • Originally it was derived from the melding of the Commerce and Treasury clauses, and dates from 1791 (with the Constitution being ratified only 2 years earlier)  That of course is at a Federal level.

    State level regulation of banking pre-dates the Constitution by many, many years.
    New York since 1782 as an example.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But it’s not actually in the Constitution.  So it’s a job they kinda adopted, but not a duty that they were assigned.  So let’s get them out of it.  If the people want the Feds to run the banks, let them pass an amendment to the constitution!


  • You make it seem so simple Jen. Remember that most of our nation doesn’t even know what is needed for an amendment to the Constitution, their too busy playing their Nintendo wii and watching American idol to care.


  • @Cmdr:

    No.  It is the government’s job to print the money.

    Not after 1913. ~ZP


  • I do not recall ever saying that the FEDS need to establish banking standards to prevent the type of fiasco in the banking industry that has occurred since late 2000, I think I said “government” (and truth be told, I personally think it was pressure from Washington to open up the floodgates of lending in order to spur the economy that CAUSED our current problem.

    Amendment 10 gives the power to regulate banking to the states… if it is not indeed an implied power of the Feds as a result of the Commerce and Treasury clauses (which has been the consistent ruling since 1791…)

    Either way, banking standards CAN indeed be government imposed.  Many are, but apparently lending standards need to be added to the list since the banks can no longer be trusted to even engage in practices for their own elf interest, beyond their SHORT TERM self interest anyway…

    And again that is part of the problem with the current economy… very few businesses are looking at the long term anymore, only the next fiscal quarter or the next stock dividend or next option they can cash in.  Short term thinking is what destroyed Enron, what bankrupted WorldCom, what put Safety Kleen into Chapter 11 (and threatens to do to them again only 4 years after emerging the first time), ad infinitum ad nauseum; with the banks being no exception to the rule.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I agree, it was the GOVERNMENT encouraging banks to make bad loans that caused this mess.  So why should we let GOVERNMENT attempt to clean it up?

    As for Amendment 10, I agree.  It’s the state’s job.  Not Bush, not Clinton, not Congress, not the Senate.  For me, that’s Blago’s job.  Or Mayor Daley, whoever.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Illinois was the state with the ninth most home foreclosures for last year.

    We had a total of 91 homes foreclosed on.  Yea, that’s right, 91.  Not even 100.  91 out of millions of homes.  Sounds like we have an epidemic alright!


  • @Cmdr:

    Illinois was the state with the ninth most home foreclosures for last year.

    We had a total of 91 homes foreclosed on.  Yea, that’s right, 91.  Not even 100.  91 out of millions of homes.  Sounds like we have an epidemic alright!

    What?!? I think you missed the 3 zeros on the end of that.

    91 foreclosures? Does that even sound remotely plausible?

    Illinois actually had 90,782 foreclosures in 2007.

    Here are the total 2007 foreclosure figures for the country listed by state:

    http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/celebrity/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0922/20080129/0501275434.htm


  • Whatever happened to personal respbsility? did these people have guns to their heads when they signed their mortgage papers? The rest of us shouldnt be punished by higher taxes for the stupidity of others.

    thats not to minimize the crisis (which is very much real). a drop in equity directly correlates to decreased consumer spending, and the credit/insurance crisis is still inthe opening act.

    but thats not to say we should print money and hand it to people (which is essentiuallu what the “Stimulus package” is). if the people i work with are any indication of the public, the money from those rebate checks in june will go straight to china and Japan. Hello Sony Flatscreen!

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 6
  • 4
  • 57
  • 1
  • 14
  • 10
  • 16
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts