|
ShoreBound149 -> RE: Which America? (4/1/2010 8:54:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:
You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy...Thank God you were born the right skin color or I highly doubt you would have prospered. I share the exact same skin color genetic ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact.
quote:
Anywhoooo, when you lie it is rather unbecoming....who exactly was "forced"? The banks and independent mortgage companies were forced to sell ARMs and collect virtually no money down on properties sold to substandard buyers? Much of the problems are specifically due to the lending practices of independent mortgage companies. Working first hand at a high level in the banking industry, I have first hand knowledge that banks were being threatened with sanction and penalties if they didn't "relax" their standards regarding loan qualifications.
You are correct however, that many did not solicit those direct, but employed brokers and other third parties, to provide them. It is my opinion that they didn't want to see those files. They were traded between financial entities like I traded baseball cards in my youth. Not one looked at the detail, only the bulk product being sold and yield. The theory being, no matter what everyone moves up and/or sells within 3 years. So what if there was a 10% incremental interest increase in 5 years, or a balloon payment in 4? When that's ready to hit, the borrower will move, or re-finance. It actually played out that way for a number of years, and the scheme worked perfectly, and everyone including the borrower/owner loved it, right up until it failed miserably.
quote:
Because you do not possess the ability to get your news from more than one or possibly two sources you believed Ron Paul or whatever talking head you value when they threw the entire blame for the mess at the feet of the CRA...This, again, has been widely proven to not be the case at all. The CRA did not tell anyone to go out and make shitty loans. I listen to sports radio during the day. I read at least 10 papers, starting with the three major New York newspapers, and numerous blogs - the majority of which representing political and philosophical positions opposed to mine. How else can I test, and or confirm, my position. I hate to read something and 'head-bob'. I don't learn anything and feel confirming what I already believe is a waste of time.
I wasn't even aware that Ron Paul held the same belief regarding the CRA, because I determined a long time ago - he was as irrelevant as Ross Perot as a candidate or source of good ideas.
quote:
It was a system that largely went unchecked and developed some fairly bad habits in their pursuit of the all mighty dollar. It is a system that took advantage of the public on both ends. first in the manufacturing of the loans and second in the manner they repackaged them as (AAA). Asked for my position on this opinion I would agree. However, knowing what I do, these risks did qualify as AAA right up to the minute they didn't. It was a scheme built on a house of cards, but the value of the underlying collateral, which was always pointed to as being the reason why this was a good idea by Barney Frank and the CRA, was never challenged until it fell apart. Until then, everyone was happy, the banks, the CRA, and most important the people buying, and selling the houses who 'moved up' every couple of years.
Also, as you may or may not know, it wasn't even the collateral that caused the collapse it was the performance insurance placed (by AIG) on the collateral. Their actuary based the rate on historical occurrence of default which considered the long established banking loan guidelines concerning DP and income requirements. When those were compromised, blame whoever you want it doesn't change the result, claims started to occur at much higher levels than predicted by the actuarial tables. As a consequence, the performance insurance began to dry up, which resulted in the loan availability drying up, which resulted in people not being able to 'upgrade' every few years, which lowered the existing property values. The snowball continued to build upon itself as it went down hill ultimately crashing the economy.
That's history, not a lie, and not revised or skewed to make any complicit party more culpable than any other. If it makes you feel better I'll go further - like most failures - it had 'good intent'.
quote:
The Obama administration bore none of the responsibility...especially when you consider how long they had filled the office...But you feel that they bailed out the financial institutions because they were partly responsible for their demise? How could you have reached such an opinion? You really need to recheck your thought process. I feel it has been irreparably damaged.
As a function of my antiquated mentality, I believe that the person in power and in charge holds responsibility and should be held accountable. I'd point to the Bush Stimulus II package implemented in this Administrations first month in power to substantiate my position regarding Obama. I won't bother to assign 'blame' but if he had taken the time to get more information perhaps he would have come to a different decision on how to use the money and mandate he had coming into the job.
quote:
This is not an opinion...this is widely held as fact. Why the institutions were bailed out was that it was feared that if left to fail the fallout would have been devastating. When getting to this point of debate on this issue, and it's occurred often not only on CM but first hand conversation, I say we'll have to agree to disagree. "Fear" is the most valuable commodity a politician can have to facilitate an agenda. Whether that was the case or not, is again subject to debate. The fact that this Administration followed the example of their predecessor to use that fear is not up for discussion. Whether that fear was misplaced or not - is problematic.
There is no way I can represent 100% accurately what would have occurred if Obama did not support and fund Bush Stimulus II, but I can speculate based on my experience. Those struggling companies, and/or corporations would have been bought and assumed by those who didn't participate, or were not so bad off. Not, as in the case of Bank of America, who was forced, or coerced depending on your political perspective, to buy a mortgage company at par value; but as a distressed entity. The 'market' would have obtained it's actual level and value, whatever it was.
DG - I can't prove a negative, however, if you say we would be "worse off" and I don't see how; that represents opinion and not, as in the case of what happened with the CRA, Barry Frank, and the Financial Industry, a matter of pragmatic fact. We'll have to agree to disagree; while both of us make decisions based upon today's reality instead of speculating on what would have, or could have, been.
I want to drink all night with you two......I'm buying......Steaks too. Merc - you gotta keep your pants on.....all night...... You can bring Beth....if she shows her tits. Domi - you can bring Jeffff.......If he doesn't.
I'll bring the elfish, Jersey broad.
Logistics would be tough I know......but fuck.....sumthin to ponder.....
|
|
|
|
