Political Forum



Dear guest,

Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.

This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.

All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)

Old 01-23-2008, 05:33 AM   #11 (permalink)
Earl
 
AzTeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,535
Country:
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fong View Post
I watched the Colbert Report earlier and they had some guy called Sloane on there from Fortune Magazine, and he said the same thing, consumer spending is down, which is bad for the economy. Colbert said. "What I can do to help?" he replied...go out and spend money.
Isn't the government telling people to take up mortgages and spend like there's no tomorrow what got us into this problem in the first place? Spending is good, but as soon as people start to spend more than they can afford (as happened in the past couple of years) it backfires. So now when people appearently have less money than "ever before" they're supposed to spend even more? I see the idea behind it, but anything appart from a recession that puts everyone back on the ground doesn't will not solve the problem.
__________________

Last edited by AzTeK; 01-23-2008 at 05:40 AM.
AzTeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 06:26 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 203
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzTeK View Post
Isn't the government telling people to take up mortgages and spend like there's no tomorrow what got us into this problem in the first place? Spending is good, but as soon as people start to spend more than they can afford (as happened in the past couple of years) it backfires. So now when people appearently have less money than "ever before" they're supposed to spend even more? I see the idea behind it, but anything appart from a recession that puts everyone back on the ground doesn't will not solve the problem.
Well the sub-prime thing that caused soo many problems wasn't really about 'overspending' it was about clever marketing and misinformation that tricked people into believing they could afford something they couldn't.

I know it is easy to blame these people, but honestly, who really reads a 5 page document that is written in legalise, that most people wouldn't understand anyway? Since you need a Law degree to understand the language of lawyers?

So you have to blame the people that sold the mortgages that misled people into believing they could afford something, that given the way it was created, they clearly could not afford.

This was done to bolster the housing market and make a few people very very rich indeed. A few people made a hell of a lot of money from Sub-prime mortgages and in doing so they have plunged the world economy into crisis.

Good old capitalism! Always looking out for the small guy.
Fong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:25 AM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by prrriiide View Post
I had an ARM. I was also fortunate enough to get out from under it 3 months after the first rate adjustment and 6 months before the crisis really hit and I could still get top dollar for my previous house. I thought I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed the papers. But if I hadn't got out when I did, I'd be fucked. But I would have never gotten that loan if I had known a) that the Fed would raise rates as much as they did, b) that housing prices would drop as much as they have, and c) that oil and food prices would rise as sharply as they have. I also wouldn't have done it if the guy at the lender hadn't told me that in his experience, it would be the best deal for me. Live and learn. Not everyone is privvy to your unending wealth of financial acumen.
Again, this is all going back to the person who bought into the loan. Did the guy lie to you? No. Nobody can control rate cuts up or down. But if you are buying into something that is tied into rates regardless, you better understand the consequences if they do go up or down. Again, it all goes back to the risk YOU are willing to take.

People get into ARMs everyday and dont have a problem with them b/c they have done the work necessary to know what the risk is. Are we going to start bailing out every single person who loses money on wall street everyday? I am sure some people lose everything they own day in and day out. Why dont we bail them out to for making bad investment decisions?



Quote:
You seem to believe that everyone has attained the same level of business expertise that you enjoy, but that is far from the case.
I dont have expertise in this. It is just plain common sense if you are going to get a huge loan that you have to pay back, you better look into whether or not you can afford it in the long run and if you can afford rate hikes or drops. It is really not that hard, all it takes is a little discipline to do it. Basically what has happened is the "live now" crowd got in over their collective heads and didnt see the consequences of what could happen down the road.

Quote:
People were sold these loans by salespeople working on commission, the most trustworthy people in any situation. [/sarc] So before you start pointing fingers and lambasting, stop and realize that we didn't all have access to LessGovMrPrez The Great and his encyclopedic knowledge of all things financial.
Did the salespeople put these people under their magic spell or something? Oh I will point fingers directly at the people who knowingly got in over their heads. Before you walk into an office and sign the dotted line, all yo have to do is talk to people, do just the smallest amount of research, and knwo the basic foundations of what you are getting into and use a CONSERVATIVE GAME PLAN, in the beginning. Good rule of thumb to make sure you are covered is take the current rate and multiply it by 2. If you cant afford that hightened rate, then you dont do it at all. Simple. Best thing to do is not by into anything but a FIXED rate loan. Then you dont have to worry about anything getting hiked on you. This has nothing to do with me b/c I am no expert, but trying to pass this off on a loan company is the coup out people want to use b/c they dont want to take responsibility for their actions.



Quote:
Who is more culpable: the person trying to navigate the unknown minefield of the mortgage industry, or the experienced pro leading them?
The unknown minefield? Please, it doesnt take a physicist to figure out the difference b/w a fixed rate mortgage or an ARM. It takes about 2 seconds to figure it out. Well again, you can ask more then 1 pro about the same things to get the full monty.



Quote:
They are saying nothing of the sort. Like I said, a lot of people are less well-versed in such things and depended on the "experts" at the mortgage companies to guide them. Their mistake was in believing that these sales people had a fiduciary responsibility to them, when they were really only working for their commission on the loan.
Again, if you dont know anything about the things you are getting into, then you dont sign it. I dont know anybody who is mesmorized by a salesman to the point of sheer stupidity.



Quote:
Incorrect. The government can't tell a company who they can loan to and who they can't any more than they can tell you. They can cap rates to prevent usury, but if you are a lender, caveat emptor. It's your risk, not the government's.
Finally!


Quote:
So those people shouldn't have tried to buy their own home?
Huge difference in trying and actually being able to afford it. In the words of Master Yoda,"Do or do not, there is no try." When you deal in business, you dont TRY and do anything. If you are trying, then that probably means you shouldnt be doing it.

Quote:
The sales people were telling them that the risk could be mitigated or avoided. I assume that instead of listening to the paid advice of your attorney, you pore over 500-page contracts yourself?
How can these people afford attorneys, if they cant afford to pay their house notes? Right, and the sales people are right in that risk can be mitigated or avoided if they have the cash on hand to deal with any increases in the rates. Which leads right back to the person getting the loan, do they or do they not have the cash flow to withstand such a thing.


Quote:
Did you read every word of the contract on your home, or did you trust that the people that prepared it were working in your favor and not in self-interest?
Your damn right I read it. And while I was reading it I was asking questions. Then when I was done asking questions I went and talked to my father who owns a house and got a second opinion on it. Then I went back and questioned them some more on the things I still wasnt sure about.

Quote:
People assumed that these sales people had the same responsibility to them that an attorney would have. Those sales people who were depending on these commissions weren't about to tell them any differently.
You do realize that sales people are not bad people dont you? You make it sound like they are out to get you or something. Last I checked you have to walk into their office to get these things. They dont come to you unless, you approach them first.

Quote:
You would rail against universal higher ed, but when someone gets a lesson at the school of hard knocks, you want to blame them when they are taken advantage of?
These people are not being taken advantage of. They choose to walk into the lenders office and get into something they were not prepared to handle. You are doing exactly what the Democrats do, they make it sound like these people were just minding their own business and suddenly were forced into an ARM at gun point.

Quote:
The govenment has to get involved at this point. A weak economy combined with the vast sums of money pouring into a key industry for the country from foreign investors is a matter of national security. And that is most definitely a governmental function.
No it does not. They can let it fall and let people who can actually afford the houses buy them. What is one persons loss is anothers gain.

What is this talk of foreign investors? Do you know how many foriegn investors there are in this nation throughout every industry? They are all over the place.
LessGovMrPrez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 01:27 PM   #14 (permalink)
leo
Mercenary
 
leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 206
Country:
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charleston Patriot View Post
All the dems ever have to offer is class warfare baiting. "The top 1 percent." "Greedy corperations" "Tax the rich" I heard an Edwards commercial (I live in SC, so this is all I've been hearing for the last few days) about "the greedy nuclear energy corperations" Give me a break! Greedy nuclear energy corperations??! Yeah! Shut all those nuclear facilities down! See how prosperous we are then.

I'm sick of the dems trying to devide this nation. It's scare tactics. I heard Hillary say "I'm the one who will go after those Republicans!" Then, 2 days later, she said "I can help unite Americans!" What a contradicting, hypocritical liar. It still blows my mind that people fall for her BS.
Hillary will say anything to get votes - she is paid for and wishy-washy... ? People love Bill, so that is all they are seeing - most think he will be vice President or something... ? After you win the super bowl are you going to play arena football - I don't think so.
I didn't know Edwards stance on Nuclear was that they are greedy - not the oil companies and/or insurance companies... ? That's weird...
I'm going for the most honest ones...
Divided We Fail
leo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 01:39 PM   #15 (permalink)
Marquis
 
Caltex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,042
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fong View Post
Well the sub-prime thing that caused soo many problems wasn't really about 'overspending' it was about clever marketing and misinformation that tricked people into believing they could afford something they couldn't.

I know it is easy to blame these people, but honestly, who really reads a 5 page document that is written in legalise, that most people wouldn't understand anyway? Since you need a Law degree to understand the language of lawyers?

So you have to blame the people that sold the mortgages that misled people into believing they could afford something, that given the way it was created, they clearly could not afford.

This was done to bolster the housing market and make a few people very very rich indeed. A few people made a hell of a lot of money from Sub-prime mortgages and in doing so they have plunged the world economy into crisis.

Good old capitalism! Always looking out for the small guy.
Who buys a house without properly understanding the loan they are getting themselves into? If someone does, they are asking for trouble.

The banks will be punished for their bad loans, the houses will have to be reclaimed and sold for huge losses, in the end costing the banks lots of money. ON the downside, The FED is bailing them out with over $40 billion in practically interest free loans which is despicable.

The people who bought houses they could not afford also deserve their punishment for not being prudent in their investments. If you are not particularly savvy with finances, and you don't feel confident in reading your mortgage contract, hiring a financial adviser to go over the loan is the only intelligent thing to do. Signing a loan because you want the house, and the lender says "you can afford it" is terrible business.

Capitalism is about everyone looking out for themselves. In the end, the buck stops with the individual. In the end, masses of people signed mortgages that they hadn't even bothered to read, and now they're getting fucked over by their poor decision. Blame the banks all you want, but both the lender and the buyer share the fault, and both are punished by the market for it.
__________________
Caltex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 05:07 PM   #16 (permalink)
Governor General
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 810
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fong View Post
Well the sub-prime thing that caused soo many problems wasn't really about 'overspending' it was about clever marketing and misinformation that tricked people into believing they could afford something they couldn't.
The sub-prime thing was because of years of pressure on banks by the left and the Democrats to open up their lending to less credit worthy people claiming they were favoring "the rich" and pure speculation by some and greed on the part of the buyers and sellers.

Why should people like me and my wife, who bought a house we could afford, took the care to make sure we knew what we were doing, have faithfully paid our mortgage year after year, have to turn our money over to people who did not?
VoiceofReason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 05:14 PM   #17 (permalink)
Governor General
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 810
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caltex View Post
The people who bought houses they could not afford also deserve their punishment for not being prudent in their investments. If you are not particularly savvy with finances, and you don't feel confident in reading your mortgage contract, hiring a financial adviser to go over the loan is the only intelligent thing to do. Signing a loan because you want the house, and the lender says "you can afford it" is terrible business.
I had an ARM. In 1985 when rates were 14% and they was now way for them to other than down. And 16 years later when rates bottom out I refinanced, at a shorter term and the same payment. We didn't take our equity out as some did. Those who signed ARM's when rates were at the bottom were just plain stupid. Those who took out interest only loans banking of prices continuing their mad spiral upwards, well you never gamble on your primary residence, you don't treat it as a futures contract.

Why should the responsible people be required to bail out those who were not, taking money we would otherwise be saving in our retirement accounts? I wish some of these politicians would explain their rational on that one.
VoiceofReason is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
A vBSkinworks Design
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=

right