$14B auto bailout dies in Senate

[Versa-Tech]

Well, he may still be evil incarnate, but he IS still the president and perhaps the last hope here. When we see some of the other winners the GOP can pull out of the woodwork (i.e., Sarah Palin, Bob Corker, Richard "Shelby"), it becomes apparent that Bush ISN'T actually the worst.

Oh come on. Palin hasn't done anything to deserve such comparison. You can't blame the woman for being smoking hot

 

Shelby and Corker get twin fingers from me

 

Come to think of it, I might give Palin a couple fingers if I had the chance....

[RichardJensen]

Know why so many mortgages are defaulting? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT saying "lend to people without credit if they have the right skin color etc." "Affordable Housing."

Right.

 

It's like this:

 

The government imposed a two drink minimum. But AIG, Countrywide, et al., went on a bender.

 

Is it, therefore, the government's fault? Not hardly.

 

The government NEVER MANDATED nor did they ENCOURAGE the IRRESPONSIBLE lending that went on.

 

Sure, it's popular among a certain set to blame the mortgage woes on the Fed's interest in having banks engage in a CERTAIN AMOUNT of high risk lending.....

 

It's popular, and it makes about as much sense as blaming the barkeep because the place had a two drink minimum and so you had 5 beers, three glasses of wine and two shots before you wrapped your car around a tree on the way home.

 

Face it: this mess is the industry's own doing.

[Versa-Tech]

Right.

 

It's like this:

 

The government imposed a two drink minimum. But AIG, Countrywide, et al., went on a bender.

 

Is it, therefore, the government's fault? Not hardly.

 

The government NEVER MANDATED nor did they ENCOURAGE the IRRESPONSIBLE lending that went on.

 

Sure, it's popular among a certain set to blame the mortgage woes on the Fed's interest in having banks engage in a CERTAIN AMOUNT of high risk lending.....

 

It's popular, and it makes about as much sense as blaming the barkeep because the place had a two drink minimum and so you had 5 beers, three glasses of wine and two shots before you wrapped your car around a tree on the way home.

 

Face it: this mess is the industry's own doing.

It is the industries fault, but the fact remains that it would have never happened in the first place if it were not for the big push by Uncle Sam.

[LSFan00]

Richard, you can't fool people into thinking that it was just greedy lenders who foolishly wanted to give money to people who couldn't pay it back. This isn't 1996.

 

It can be clearly traced to the policies advocated by the left and the Clinton Admin. Just more UAW-sponsored politicians.

 

Video.

 

Link.

 

Packaging the American Dream

 

A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.

 

For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).

 

But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?

 

That was the question that led to

 

“The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

 

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.

 

The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

 

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

 

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.

 

$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.

 

But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”

[Versa-Tech]

Richard, you can't fool people into thinking that it was just greedy lenders who foolishly wanted to give money to people who couldn't pay it back. This isn't 1996.

 

It can be clearly traced to the policies advocated by the left and the Clinton Admin. Just more UAW-sponsored politicians.

 

Video.

 

Link.

Traced yes, but not blamed.

[Deanh]

whole thing reeks of vendettas...funny, you guys, no mention of certain import supporting states ( where Mercedes, toyota, Hyundai etc have set up shop ) such as Alabma also voted no....smells of a conspiracy there no? is someone perhaps looking after their constituants???????i

[Versa-Tech]

is someone perhaps looking after their constituants???????i

I can't stand these southern republican show-boaters any more than the rest of you. But isn't that their job?

[NickF1011]

I can't stand these southern republican show-boaters any more than the rest of you. But isn't that their job?

 

Isn't it also their job, first and foremost, to look after the good of the nation as a whole?

[Deanh]

I can't stand these southern republican show-boaters any more than the rest of you. But isn't that their job?

which makes it wrong...his vote comes in pre-determined.....

[Versa-Tech]

Isn't it also their job, first and foremost, to look after the good of the nation as a whole?

Actually no. That's the job of congress as a whole. I don't agree with it. But the truth is the truth.

[RichardJensen]

Richard, you can't fool people into thinking that it was just greedy lenders who foolishly wanted to give money to people who couldn't pay it back. This isn't 1996.

 

It can be clearly traced to the policies advocated by the left and the Clinton Admin. Just more UAW-sponsored politicians.

 

Video.

 

Link.

Uh. Nice job citing a couple of op-ed pieces instead of researched articles. You might as well have said, "And my buddy Bob agrees with me, so there!"

 

Here's a thought: Find a well researched article from a website that doesn't have a bathrobe for a favicon, which states its case using facts and references. The one article of ANY substance linked as a reference does, in fact, make mention of significant differences in underwriting standards among CRA participants and provides this telling description of the attitude many banks had toward their CRA obligations:

 

"The problem with CRA," says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating." From the banks' point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off. The growth in very large banks—ones most likely to sign major CRA agreements—also means that those advancing the funds for CRA loans are less likely to have to worry about the effects of those loans going bad: such loans will be a small portion of their lending portfolios.

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain why treating CRA mortgages as 'simply a price of doing business' is the government's fault.

 

And then, while you're at it, could you be so good as to explain what the CRA has to do with extending a $300k home equity line of credit on a home that was purchased for $300k, with an 'appraised' value of $600k two years later?

 

Exactly.

Edited December 12, 2008 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

And then, while you're at it, could you be so good as to explain what the CRA has to do with extending a $300k home equity line of credit on a home that was purchased for $300k, with an 'appraised' value of $600k two years later?

 

They really are vultures though. I get calls and junk mail all the time for home equity offers. I don't want one and I don't need one, but the offers are a-flowin in.

[Versa-Tech]

They really are vultures though. I get calls and junk mail all the time for home equity offers. I don't want one and I don't need one, but the offers are a-flowin in.

I love the calls I get every week that say that my car's warranty has run out...

[RichardJensen]

They really are vultures though. I get calls and junk mail all the time for home equity offers. I don't want one and I don't need one, but the offers are a-flowin in.

It's a little known fact, there, uh, Normie, but uh, you can go to a website and take your name off those uh pre-qualified thingies.

 

Seriously:

 

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t

[NickF1011]

It's a little known fact, there, uh, Normie, but uh, you can go to a website and take your name off those uh pre-qualified thingies.

 

Seriously:

 

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t

 

Thank you very much sir. Filling it out now. I don't think this will get rid of the monthly attempts by my own mortgage company to ask me to take out more loans though.

 

And one thing I REALLY hate: When my credit card and mortgage company send me those damned cash-advance checks in the mail. Why on God's green earth would anyone ever use those things?

[RichardJensen]

I don't think this will get rid of the monthly attempts by my own mortgage company to ask me to take out more loans though.

Probably not. Of course, if you stop making payments, they'll stop inviting you to take out more loans.

 

But they'll still call you and send you letters, so it's probably not a good solution, all things considered.

[one2gamble]

Know what AIG's problem was? Mortgages.

 

Know why so many mortgages are defaulting? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT saying "lend to people without credit if they have the right skin color etc." "Affordable Housing."

 

 

No, AIG's problem is mortgages, bad mortgages because they got greedy. It has nothing to do with the housing acts that were passed by the government. The government allowed them to do something, they still chose to abuse those provisions.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Right.

 

It's like this:

 

The government imposed a two drink minimum. But AIG, Countrywide, et al., went on a bender.

 

Is it, therefore, the government's fault? Not hardly.

 

The government NEVER MANDATED nor did they ENCOURAGE the IRRESPONSIBLE lending that went on.

 

Sure, it's popular among a certain set to blame the mortgage woes on the Fed's interest in having banks engage in a CERTAIN AMOUNT of high risk lending.....

 

It's popular, and it makes about as much sense as blaming the barkeep because the place had a two drink minimum and so you had 5 beers, three glasses of wine and two shots before you wrapped your car around a tree on the way home.

 

Face it: this mess is the industry's own doing.

 

I love the way you explain it in laman's terms Richard I'm off up the pub.

[RangerM]

Well, he may still be evil incarnate, but he IS still the president and perhaps the last hope here. When we see some of the other winners the GOP can pull out of the woodwork (i.e., Sarah Palin, Bob Corker, Richard "Shelby"), it becomes apparent that Bush ISN'T actually the worst.

 

Let's see.....

 

Biden couldn't be bothered to show up for the Senate session yesterday (Come to think of it, where is he?)

 

Harry Reid voted NO.

 

And Barney Frank considers the autoworkers welfare recipients:

Propping up ailing car companies is not what the government’s bailout for Detroit’s car makers is really about, says the man in the middle of the controversial plan. Barney Frank (D-Ma.), chair of the House Financial Services Committee, insists it is about the individual - saying the government needs to help the people in the car companies and other firms tied to the failing industry.

 

The 14-term congressman from Massachusetts talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in a interview to be broadcast this Sunday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

 

"No. We’re not propping up companies. That’s your mistake," he tells Stahl, who had asked him about taxpayer money going to prop up companies that had made bad decisions. "We’re propping up individuals. The world doesn't consist of companies. The world is people. The country is people."

 

When Stahl points out that Frank is then talking about welfare, he responds, "Yeah, I’m for welfare. You’re not? Are you for letting people starve?"

 

You got some real winners there, GT.

[NickF1011]

Biden couldn't be bothered to show up for the Senate session yesterday (Come to think of it, where is he?)

 

Umm... Biden and Obama have already resigned their Senate seats. They aren't allowed to show up.

[Deanh]

Umm... Biden and Obama have already resigned their Senate seats. They aren't allowed to show up.

I am REALLY curious as what will happen when Obama is sworn in and the lame ducks are either mounted and full of buckshot, or sobbing in the corner....

[klutzys]

They don't manufacture goods, and they are doing what any sane business does when they're losing money; cutting labor costs by firing people.

 

Life isn't fair, and you folks crying on here about "being asked to take a pay cut" are just a tad out of touch with what the federal government's responsibility to you is.

 

Oh no I am not a tad out of touch. I am in full reality here.

 

What is not fucking right is that there are double standards going on here between pencil pushers and laborers. I don't have a problem taking a pay cut but DAMN IT what they ask of the union they should ask from ALL SECTORS, every fat cat and high paying person should be treated the same. Plain and simple if money is loaned out with contengencies for UAW then every loan or bailout should come with the same contengencies. So hmmm, if you get a bailout you get it free and clear and no concessions are required but if you get a loan buy god you better stick your arm out so they can take your blood so if you don't pay it back they can let you die. Hell the government is the worst business of all. They haven't been in the black for so long I can't remember but they can still keep on operating and throwing money to other countries and wars when our government can't even get it right. Don't see ANYONE from the white house taking paycuts because they can't get in the black.

 

Tam

[RangerM]

Umm... Biden and Obama have already resigned their Senate seats. They aren't allowed to show up.

 

Biden is still a senator. He has NOT resigned his seat.

[NickF1011]

Biden is still a senator. He has NOT resigned his seat.

 

Hah. Go figure. Guess he didn't care much about the UAW plants in his state.

[LSFan00]

Uh. Nice job citing a couple of op-ed pieces instead of researched articles. You might as well have said, "And my buddy Bob agrees with me, so there!"

 

Here's a thought: Find a well researched article from a website that doesn't have a bathrobe for a favicon, which states its case using facts and references.

 

Perhaps you could explain how pjm.com is any less reliable than NYT? LA Times? Chicago Tribune? Nah, didn't think so. Print media is dead/dying because it is worthless crap, 90% of the time. Here's a thought: find a flaw in what was said instead of ad hominem attacks. Thinking people don't get their information from your sacred talking points rags anymore.

 

Barney Frank is right about twice a day, just like a stuck clock. Workers, or more specifically their pay structures, are basically fat welfare recipients.

 

You think home equity loans are what has caused this mess, rather than the CRA. Ok, take your own medicine and show ANY proof of that assertion. I don't care if you have to go to NPR for some fabricated bs, show something.