The Majority of The Troubled Borrowers Will Not Be Assisted by The $700B Bailout »
Posted By altnrg 1 year, 2 months ago in NewsWith the government pulling all strings to save the financial industry, many distressed homeowners are wondering if they would receive real help.
Read Full Story at realestateproarticles.com »
2391 Views Share Story 26 Comments Report
Submitted By:
altnrg
Thank you for visiting my profile.
I run two topic-focused article publishing sites:
Alternative Energy Base - For renewable energy related articles.
Real Estate Pro Articles ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 53 (view all)
-
stalemateComment removed: Retracted by user12 Replies
-
-
-
80%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
everybody KNEW that it wasn't going to help borrowers, or citizens, for that matter.>>>>
Reply
But that's the point. It SHOULD have helped borrowers. If banks/lending institutions knew they would be bailed out, they should have lifted the credit freeze. They didn't. And because they didn't, & are continuing the decline of our economy, they shouldn't be given one flipping dime of that money! -
-
-
88%
PainGoddess1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where were all of the psychics in all of this??...
Reply
Or was it just the ordinary people who saw it coming???
Not to get off the subject. There really needs to be a better way to have the checks and balances monitored by neutral entities.
The mainstream rich need to get a reality check before it comes tumbling down on them too. -
-
100%
reallypsst1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This all started with bush, we all know politicians are the scum of the earth if a president doesn't have the balls to do whats right and just for the country this is what we get, and we all know our ceo is a idiot. And his vp is a thug and a crook remember the kgb well this guy is on the wrong side. this country's inner circle makes money on wars even if we are losing [Vietnam]. everything from munitions to medicine ect.. Who are the people with these contracts which are in the billions.so this is one part of the scam the other is wall street and Washington. AND THE LOSERS US AGAIN!
Reply-
100%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This all started with bush>>>>
Reply
No, it started with the Reagan era and an ideology of unfettered capitalism. FDR began oversight of business practices through regulation. The new Republican CONS spent 26 years deregulating FDR's safeguards. And this is where it brought us. Of course george is one of those CONS, but he didn't think it up. He just went along for the ride & of course used his power to help it along.
But in all fairness, the real blame lies at the feet of the people who put these clowns in power. Too bad they can't be sent the bill.
-
-
43%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everybody yelling, but most of you are making little sense. Dodd and Franks, as well as a major part of the democratic caucus blocked all efforts at regulating or even just enforcing reasonable oversight of Fannie and Freddie. People claim that Obama was in on that deal, too, but I don't really see how -- he hasn't really been around long enough.
Reply
Bush and McCain have been asking for tighter regulations for several years. That is ignored. In the debate last night, it was McCAIN NOT OBAMA who called for buying down the failing mortgages to prevent the little guy from facing foreclosure.
Obama's strategy? Spend more money (sounds a lot like Bush, don't it?)
Obama can pledge that he is not going to raise taxes on anybody but the "rich", but if you look at all his grandiose plans, either he's going to have a "read my lips" moment not too long after his inauguration, or he's going to end up with deficits that would make Bush blush.
McCain claims to want to cut spending. In fact, I think he said he wanted to cut it across the board. Obama says he wants to "use a hatchet to correct a problem that requires a scalpel". A hatchet is what the federal budget needs. Using a scalpel to cut the budget would be like bailing a yacht with teaspoon.-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Amazed:
Reply
I thought we just spent $700 billion bucks on those mortgages.
Does that mean that the Treasury Dept. owns the title to those homes?
I could not figure out what McCain was saying during the debate, he did say it would be expensive.
I have no doubt there will be a "read my lips" scenario. The only way the dollar can maintain its value is if our government reigns in deficit spending.
I have not really checked but I think our deficit spending this year is darn close to our receipts for 2002.
I was trying to figure out how one could freeze mandatory spending. For instance folks pay into unemployment insurance and the amount being paid out has been rising dramatically. How do you freeze it? not pay the new folks or pay everybody less? I think Food Stamps have gone from $14 billion to $37 billion. How would a president be able to get congress to lower those thresholds? Can a "Maverick" persuade a finicky congress?
There is discretionary spending, and that can be hacked away at with an axe. But more than half of discretionary spending is military. And that is the thing he say's he will not freeze.
I am sorry: but when I heard him say that he could do it all, with no need to priorities, and cut taxes more.....I don't think he was being realistic. -
-
-
100%
ErinMotz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we need to stop trying to think of this plan as a resolution or a bailout intended to repair the economy. Many economists would tell you this is just a plan to halt the financial hemoraging.
Reply
Erin
TheNakedHippie.com
Organic Tshirts -
100%
reallypsst1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So long as we keep spending ten billion a month on a war that nobody agrees on we will suffer, lets face it Iraq doesn't pay us we don't get oil from them Iran cant be stopped without military action we never found any WMDs . Here is a thought if bush sr would have let saddam move in on the saudis we could have saved them and be the savours of whole region and got oil at a dollar a barrel ,the saudis are the problem,the hidden enemy~
Reply -
-
100%
mmrhe1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is apparently what it takes to get America's attention...I blame anone who voted for Mr. Bush and Cheney in the first place.
Reply
There are too many of our fellow citizens swayed by who wears their flag pin or not!
Any fool who watched the debates between Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry should have seen what an idiot he was.
The Right wing thugs lead by Cheney used Bush's "Awe Shucks" charm to rape the country while some Dems joined in for the fun! -
100%
frctm51 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans like to blame this crisis on Democrats lowering the lending standards so minorities can buy homes. This is in keeping with their narrative that liberals are the root of all evil and minorities are not as good as white people. That second part they won't say overtly but they imply it in many not so subtle ways. What Republicans ignore is the fact that such fairness in lending regulations were in place for a long time and the crisis only began to unfold in the last two years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received cheap credit from the government with the understanding that these savings would be made available to lower income borrowers. Instead they were made at high rates and with huge loan fees. Now why would all the sub prime loans begin to go bad just in the last two years if the so called lower mortgage standards were in place since the Clinton years? Why were people making their payments successfully on sub prime loans for the last two decades and suddenly defaulting in droves in the last two years? Most of these sub prime loans that went bad were made in the last two years and by predatory lenders who did not care whether the person purchasing the loan could pay it back or not. This was not about helping the poor but taking advantage of them to get rich. They were reselling the loans and collecting the fees and passing on the risk to a pool of investors. Another factor was speculators cashing in on the rising housing values driven by easy credit. Greed has a role in this crisis. There is plenty of blame to go around, but its not something you can pin on politically correct lending. That's the ditto head explanation.
Reply
We can also credit the rise in home values for insulating a majority of Americans from their own declining incomes. As long as their home values were increasing, they could believe they were well off. Republican tax policies and trickle down economics did little or nothing to help real wage earners. Rising home values were the only thing that kept us from feeling our true declining status in America. Huge government debt has limited the flexibility of the response to solve this crisis. There are no easy roads ahead. -
0%
leftylemn1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It looks to me like socialisim is what the u.s. wants. be careful
Reply
what you wish for. i've already stopped paying my mortgage and quit my
job...i am screwed if mccain wins...but i am living on happy street
if obama wins. i will no longer need to strive to be successful. just
kick back and wait for the obama entitlements to roll in. hell, i will
even get free health care. i will qualify for everything obama has to
offer as i live under the poverty line. how long will it take for
america to go bankrupt??? i will guess not long. as many others will
follow suit. thanks in advance to the few tax payers who will be
footing the bill. sorry, but this is what you are telling me you want
by electing obama as president. i will think of you all from time to
time while i kick back and live in the house and eat the food that
you buy for me. i gotta go put my hammock up now, it's going to get a
lot of use. -
50%
lloydm651 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only a few deserve help,If you bought a home on an ARM loan,speculating on refinancing before the dead line of the arm came due.You rolled the dice and lost,been there done that do the right thing,vacate the property so it can be sold to someone who can afford it.I lost a home one time,and nice car later on.I never expected help from tax payers.Today how could look at a young person serving meals a a fast food restaurant, knowing their taxes are keeping you in a nice home you can't afford.
Reply -
-
100%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, Cons. I'm sick and tired of all this ACORN/CRA BS you cannot stop yammering about. So I dug through the archives.
Reply
Enjoy.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_li...
But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
---
How'd that taste going down, Cons?
That beat down is on the house.
Now have a coke, a smile, and close your cake holes.
Facts, they are the water to Cons' Wicked Witch of the West in the Con Culture of Lies and Incompetence.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.