http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo
Printable View
The second part is true, the first is not really. Most rich people's mortgages are unaffected by this. As they were able to get mortgages the old-fashioned way, like actually having a good income and money down, they have traditional fixed-rate mortgages. Not those ARM crap the people who bought well outside of their means signed up for.
The same liberal Democrats who caused this housing mess want to run the healthcare system as well!!! :eek:
Using hindsight like that then anyone who defaults should not have been approved.
From what I understand the problem lies in the so-called regular borrower who is so upside down in his/her loan that they simply walk away from it.
In any case what I find the most distrubing about this whole mess is that up until about two week ago the adminstration (and even McCain)was claiming the economy was in good shape.
This is extreme incompetance. If this totally blindsided the admin (as is claimed) then that's as much of a reason for impeachment then anything I know of.
I can't wait to see in tonight's debate how McCain explains away his comments about the "Growing economy"!:D
Quote:
For example, the model indicates that a couple with two children earning $100,000 with $20,000 in itemized deductions would have a net tax bill for 2009 of $9,555 under McCain and $9,002 under Obama. That compares with a $9,505 tax bill for this couple under current law, the electiontaxes.com site says. In another example, a single taxpayer making $50,000 and using the standard deduction would pay $6,867 under McCain and $6,325 under Obama, compared with $6,827 under current law.
Calculate your own taxes based on their plans:
http://www.electiontaxes.com/
Your a lost cause. You were either born ignorant or you choose to be this ignorant.
AGAIN, in 2003 Bush proposed MORE oversight into the loans being made for high-risk people. He was OPPOSED by people like Barney Frank, who said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing fine. Now the house of cards has collapsed because huge numbers of these high-risk loans are being defaulted on, and you say it's Bush's fault?!?!
"Instead, voices inside the administration for tougher policing of Wall Street found themselves with few supporters. William H. Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Mr. Bush, quit after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the agency, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds."
"The administration’s push to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was stymied by Congress. But the administration’s intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not include an effort to curb the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey S. Rosen, an economist who served on Mr. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as chairman."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/bu...0prexy.html?hp
And here I thought it was the fault of the Community Reinvestment Act.
"What is the root cause of the current crisis? Over the 2003-2006 time period unusually low interest rates and buyers expectations of double-digit home-price increases facilitated a record $3.2 trillion in home mortgages being written by U.S. lenders, with about 20% of this amount considered subprime. The subprime mortgage sector serves borrowers with poor credit histories at higher interest rates. The fast pace of mortgage originations was greater than long-term mortgage demand levels. As a result there will be much lower housing demand in the coming few years.
One of the major developments leading to the large increase in subprime lending over the last few years was the adoption of new credit scoring techniques. This allowed lenders to sort applicants by creditworthiness and set risk-based loan interest rates. A large percentage of these loans were originated by mortgage brokers who then sold the loans to Wall Street investment banks. The investment banks, in turn, packaged the loans into collateralized debt obligations and sold these to investors around the world.
As with any new credit product, investors had difficulty evaluating the subprime debt default risk. Historical data suggested that if the unemployment rate remained low, so too would default risk. But the quantitative models ignored two factors keeping defaults low over the 2002-2005 periods. Rising home prices allowed subprime borrowers the opportunity to refinance the loan or sell the property whenever they where unable to make their monthly payments. Second, falling interest rates from 2001 to 2004 reduced ARM indexes which limited the teaser interest rate increases."
http://advice.cuna.org/download/credit_crisis_08.pdf
"Who, then, in Washington, is to blame? As it happens, it’s many of the same people who were behind Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Clinton administration and Congressional Republicans failed to create a strong framework in place of Glass-Steagall. Democrats pushed for riskier mortgage lending, in an effort to expand home ownership. But surely the bulk of the blame lies with the policy makers and regulators who were on duty while the housing bubble inflated and Wall Street went wild — the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. Their near-religious belief in the powers of the market led them to conclude that the mere fact that a company was willing to make an investment made that investment O.K."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/ma...l?ref=business
This guy is close. That's an improvement.
Notice he admits Bush tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie.
The banks buying and selling the 'mortgage-backed securities' who lost money deserve to fail. PERIOD. They f'd up, big time. Now some responsibility lies with the Federal Government, who did mandate that banks HAD to make a certain percentage of high-risk loans.
For a quick and funny explanation of this mess, click my link.
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/mortgagemess.pdf