Say Anything Blog

The lenders borrowed to people that couldn’t afford it. 

It’s not the borrower’s fault they took the money, it’s human nature to take the easy money.

The lenders made their bed, they should have to sleep in it.

GOVERNMENT CAUSED RECESSION AND INFLATION

The tyrannical Neo-Con and Neo-Lib dominated Bush, Reid, and Pelosi government must start paying for the un-constitutional Iraq War, and the Paulson subprime mortgage lending and stock trading scam, by printing billions of dollars; thereby subjecting the government betrayed American People to systematic ruinous recession and inflation.

The economic stimulus plan is a stimulus scam, cleverly designed to mislead worried voters into believing that the impending recession and inflation is being prevented from occurring.

How the feds stopped the states from averting the lending mess.

Georgia law, explained that imposing liability on downstream owners would “reduce significantly the amount of credit that is available to lenders who are not willing to ensure that the loans they finance are made in accordance with the law.”

the national banks turned to the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

While the banks’ legal arguments were thin, the OCC issued regulations in early 2004 nullifying the state laws as they applied to national banks. In part, the OCC reasoned that the states just got it wrong: As the then-comptroller explained in a speech to the Federalist Society, “We know that it’s possible to deal effectively with predatory lending without putting impediments in the way of those who provide access to legitimate subprime credit.” With the state laws nullified, national banks were free to engage in the sharp practices the states were hoping to stamp out.

If the lenders didn’t lend to slackers, the greedy shysters would have sued for not lending!

Slackers , speculators,
investors, what’s the difference ?

Slackers don’t invest or risk their own assets; they live off of government handouts in exchange for the hope of their slacker vote!

WOOF - Slackers , speculators,
investors, what’s the difference ?

One of these things does not belong here.

Unfortunately dumb people exist, now if a moron went to an optimist for advise, his reply would be “Go for it” but if he went to a wise man he probably would say to this moron “I don’t think it’s a good idea for you”

Now you may call this wise man a pessimist, but is he really the one who is looking out for the best interest of this moron?

But not all of us are morons, the question is what do you do with them? Allow them to continue to make bad choices?

Their bad choices will some how become our problem in the end. We can not allow morons to make bad choices and agree to bail them out if they do not succeed.

The world does not owe anyone a living, not even a moron. But entrapment for morons, that’s just cruel, but then treating morons unequally is so cruel, I mean who is anyone to say they don’t have the right to make their own decision right?

What a joke. Everyone has to pledge to carry a moron on one shoulder while carrying another burden on the other and you walk, while probably thinking to yourself whose the real moron here?

Where’s you heart? Don’t you feel bad for these people?

Are you just going to let them fall of a cliff? Or even gently give them a little nudge while their standing at it’s edge?

Your a moron if you save them, but if you let them fall your cold hearted. But whose job is it to look after morons anyway?

P.S. The wise men have become corrupt.

A slacker who purchased a house with no down payment, and interest only mortgage payments, (such a deal), turned it over,
became a speculator, used the profits to buy a couple of more at the same terms, turned those over walked away from his last few speculations and is now flush with cash.
He’s an investor now.

A slacker who purchased a house with no down payment, and interest only mortgage payments, (such a deal), turned it over,
became a speculator

Yeah. Those people exist.

But speculating and investing is work. Slackers are defined by not liking and not engaging in work. Your example breaks down at that point.

So when you ask, “Slackers , speculators,
investors, what’s the difference ?”, it’s the slacker who doesn’t belong. There is a difference. A very clear black and white meaning difference. Two opposites. The difference is everything.

That is an interesting theory. What was Bush supposed to do? IF he had intervened he would have been accused of being power mad or worse. What I don’t understand is how the Lenders and the Borrowers are not being forced to deal with their mistakes on their own?

The general American public is poorly educated in personal finance. The sub prime loan sharks just taught them a valuable lesson.

As Anna says: “If you think education is hard, try being stupid”

Members of the general public walked away from homes they could not afford or sell.

Giant financial institutions , which should be the definition of sophisticated investors, found themselves holding the bag of worthless notes.

A small article in the newspaper last week including the announcement that a large Wall Street brokerage was underwriting $10,000,000,000 in losses from housing loans used the word bet!!  I thought I would never see this word on the business section of the paper, but there it was.  These people bet on the come and some lost.  Their loss.  Their personal financial responsibility, not mine.

Communism is evil

Zsa Zsa,
To expand on your thought: Bush would have been accused of being a racist and for keeping poor people “down” from acquiring the American Dream. It doesn’t matter if they could have afforded the terms of the loan, or not.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

The Administration made it so nobody had to be able to afford the loans.
The regulatory bodies and all the players (banks , mortgage brokers , realtors, customers, engaged in fraud with a wink and a nod.

They were all making money, nobody wanted to tell the band to go home.

Now we pay the piper.

The Administration made it so nobody had to be able to afford the loans.

The regulatory bodies and all the players (banks , mortgage brokers , realtors, customers, engaged in fraud with a wink and a nod.

WOOF,

Those are two very serious accusation you’ve made here.  I’m willing to bet that you can’t back up either one of them with supporting, documented facts, and that in the end, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about, or care, other than trying to score partisan points.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Woof,
While I’m not sure it was fraud, I absolutely do agree everyone was an accomplice in the little game. But, it’s a lot easier to engage in gamesmanship when you know the government will be there to bail your ass out. If we keep the government out of telling banks who they need to loan to, and government programs set-up to give shitty, ill-prepared applicants means to a home with no buy-in, we’ll all be better off.

I’ve said it before: they like to capitalize the gains, and socialize the losses (obviously, not just limited to this particular example). And the only loser in the mess is the taxpayer who’s left holding the bag.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

My husband and I bought and sold a home in 2006, and we didn’t have any problems. We had banks practically begging us to go with them. Really! Is it the American peoples fault or responsibility to pay for their bad credit and bad decisions? I don’t think so. The lenders and borrowers took the risks! Had the housing market been gung ho and kept going up??? Would they be giving us money for prospering? Heck No! It reminds me a bit, sorta like the Boston tea party.

Last night’s debate should have conservatives shaking in their boots, what I heard was blatant socialism, raising taxes, giving away free goodies. So now I see what we are going to get if we vote one of these socialist in;

1.) Raise Taxes.
2.) Shamesty, Shamesty and more shamesty…
3.) Socialized Medicine.
4.) Confiscation of Income and redistribution of wealth.
5.) big businesses being punished for achievement.

I can see the economy taking a huge dump right now as more american businesses go over seas.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Jeugenen, That supposed “unconstitutional war’ was approved by our wonderful dem Congress too.. It was NOT GW’s war alone. Our troops are there protecting us from the jihadist’s on their turf. I suppose you are one of those who believe 911 is an inside job? AND that it is GW’s fault for the Katrina problems? AND anything else that has gone wrong during his Presidency?

Dustin,

The lenders borrowed to people that couldn’t afford it.

It’s not the borrower’s fault they took the money, it’s human nature to take the easy money.

The lenders made their bed, they should have to sleep in it.

So, when Duke Cunningham took those bribes it wasn’t really his fault.  After all, it’s human nature to take easy money.  He can’t be held responsible.

By the way, I’m not saying the lenders should be bailed out. It’s just that they’re not entirely to blame either.  It took two to set up those crappy loans.  One to make the loan, one to take it.

Both are equally responsible.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s just that they’re not entirely to blame either.  It took two to set up those crappy loans.  One to make the loan, one to take it.

Both are equally responsible.

Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

Bat my link to the actions of the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency seem indicate the feds put pressure on the states to keep the money flowing.

The WSJ, following the money, lobbying the states/feds.
WSJ , Following the Money

FBI director Mueller today

“There is not a state that does not have some investigation,” he told reporters at the FBI office in Honolulu. “It is a substantial problem but we’ve been through problems like this in the past.”

The FBI said Tuesday it was working with the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate 14 companies, from mortgage lenders to investment banks, for possible accounting fraud, insider trading or other issues connected to subprime mortgage lending.

Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

Most of these people probably shouldn’t have been given loans and now the defeatocrats expect us to pay for them. B.S.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

You’re right.  But then, poor consumer decisions are not the fault of the business.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You’re right.  But then, poor consumer decisions are not the fault of the business.

Those with the gold make the rule.  Lenders set their own borrowing rules, the government isn’t involved in that.  The government may unwisely subsidize loans, but it’s up to the lenders to decide who they deal with.  If a lender approves someone for a loan, the lender has decided that person is worth the risk.  If that person cannot pay back the loan, the lender must re-examine their approval process. 

If these lenders go bankrupt it will convince other lenders to tighten up their our process and the market will self-correct. 

The only way the lending market will stabilize is if bad decisions are punished and those lenders lose everything.

Poor business decisions are not the fault of customers.

Conversely, bad consumer decisions aren’t the fault of the taxpayer. And you’re very wrong if you think the government isn’t involved in lending rules. Just one example, look at the history of red-lining and regulatory responses. Because if you don’t think government’s the impetus for people getting loans they don’t merit, you’re terribly misinformed.

But, I see how you play this: business is bad, advantage-takers are always the victim. And believe me, the lending institutions will re-examine their lending practices after getting Uncle Sam’s nose out of the mess...and you better hope those “victims” keep their homes, because they and people like them won’t have a shot in hell of getting any kind of loan after this debacle.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

WOOF,

The “actions of the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency” indicate nothing beyond that agency’s insistence on the primacy of federal law where financial institutions with national charters are concerned.  From money to marijuana, the supremacy of federal law over that of the separate states is a long established legal principle, despite the conspiracy hungry wishful thinking of those of you on the Left.

As a rational observer might expect, I am opposed to too much federal supremacy, even as I personally opposed the liberal Left, AARP-sponsored legislation here in Georgia, which did not address the problems its supporters said it would, but would have made it far more difficult for even those with good credit histories to obtain mortgage financing, while shutting out of the mortgage market those with less than sterling credit.

Finally, I’d point out that Nicholas Bagley, the author of the Slate article to which you’ve referred and a highly regarded mid-life NYU Law graduate, is also a long time advocate for assorted liberal causes such as “justice” in housing… whatever the hell that means.  Bagley is probably well on his way to an illustrious government career, followed by seat on the federal bench compliments of some grateful Liberal Pooh-Bah.  But there is no reason on earth to regard his SLATE article or the conclusions he draws as either rational or objective.

If you are going to suggest fraud and collusion at the federal level, you’re gonna need a lot more substantiation than Bagley to get any sort of serious attention.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

From money to marijuana, the supremacy of federal law over that of the separate states is a long established legal principle, despite the conspiracy hungry wishful thinking of those of you on the Left.

Please cite a case or a law or a journal article when you start speaking out of your ass. 

The reason that “money” is established by federal law is firmly grounded in the Constitution, Article 1 Section 7.

The regulation of marijuana is a police power which the Federal Government attempts to govern through the commerce clause.  Truly it should be a police power and regulated by the states.

Hawk,

First, you accuse me of speaking “out of my ass”, a typically leftwing crude response.  Then you continue on to demonstrate the correctness of what I said.  So what exactly was your point, anyway?

When I wrote the above, I specifically had you in mind, expecting to draw your attention, and you have proved my prescience admirably.

As for that citation you requested, there’s no need in any case, since I’ve got you to do it for me!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk,

Still, I am pleased that you apparently go out of your way to read my comments and posts.

I’ll be the first one to congratulate you if you actually find the something I’ve written is materially in error… but this ain’t it.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One, not to get between you and Hawk here, but how is regulation of marijuana a case where the federal courts should have supremacy when there is no interstate commerce involved?

Isn’t this a dangerous precedent?

Carrick,

The precedent is already set, as I’m sure Hawk will cite for us if we stoke his belligerence enough.

In brief, California has a state law on the books which allows for the personal medicinal/recreational use of marijuana.  The feds have thoroughly rejected the California statute, claiming as Hawk has pointed out, that the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause allows them to arrest, try, and convict an individual for the sale of a bag of pot grown, harvested, packaged, sold, and “consumed” within the confines of the state of California.

If you think about it there is probably no portion of our Constitution that is more abused by the federal government or more regularly cited as justification for the diminuation of our individual freedom than the commerce clause.

It was to this police power abomination that I was referring above.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”