Clinton Corruption....

[DenverSooner]

I dont see there being any definitive answer about TARP being a success or a failure.

It UNDOUBTEDLY stopped bank failures and prevented job losses. Period. Even Romney admitted that in public. But it didn't stop the foreclosures as predicted and the growth hasn't been what was desired - obviously.

I see it as a push.

I don't think it was a failure. I think it was bipartisan and pretty much did what it was supposed to do. However I don't think it cost the large corporations enough. So I suspect all they learned is the government will bail us out.

My comments were simply about the nonsense from Sybarite that it was corruption by republicans. The guy is truly one of the least intelligent people that participates in this forum. He also lies on a regular basis.

 

[coolm]

oh I dont think it cost large corps enough either. I wanted a much more stringent repayment etc... and had to be convinced that we couldnt afford for the banks to dump.

I was also incensed that so little has been done about the whole derivatives issue. People were requesting loans they couldnt afford and lenders were doing it under dubious acceptance conditions. OK, thats obviously a problem. But then to take the risk of the loans, initially backed under the old "property is a sound, appreciating investment" premise, and bundle it altogether for a sale ... and then bundle THAT risk for a sale ... that's just pure lunacy. And to take all this precarious, noone-can-tell-what-the-actual-property-interest-is crap and invest people's PENSIONS into it??

To this day it still makes me mad. More reverence needs to be given to retirement earnings no matter what fund they are thrown into. It should be a financial institutions' sacred cow and these guys treated it like a craps table. I dont hold the individual completely blameless - but the bankers are in a position of trust and they know better.

 

[sybarite]

More lies. Bush went to congress and warned of the coming problem. Barney Frank insisted there was no problem.

Additionally it was the community investment act which pressured banks to make. Ad loans combined with Fannie and Freddie guarantys of those loans. The government encouraged high risk loans with one program and then took away the risk associated with those high risk loans with other programs. These were liberal policy decisions.

Now it would be wrong to blame it entirely on democrats because Bush should have done more. Republicans shoukd have done more. But to blame it on Bush unilaterally is ridiculous.

By the way the. Anks are doing the same thing again. Zero or. Wry little down and no doc loans are back.

Ah-yes. Always accuse the opposition of your guilt. Deregulation was a "liberal" idea, and the idea of enhancing income statements on applications were due to Fanny Mae. See, the Democrats need to learn how to do that, to make that kind of accusation with a straight face. The Democrats just don't know how to tell that big lie, and the Republicans on Wall Street have been so good at it since the days of J P Morgan. The Democrats will learn if they can just be born rich and have no conscience.

 

[DenverSooner]

It wasn't deregulation that caused the problem. It was regulation/legislation that caused the problem. The banks were regulated to make bad loans to unqualified people. The banks didn't really care because they turned around and sold the loans. People purchased the loans because they were guaranteed by the government. It was the exact opposite of deregulation.

There is plenty of blame for all sides. However, it is ridiculous to blame President Bush unilaterally.

Each of the laws was likely well intentioned. Encouraging investment in low income areas is not a bad goal. However, when you mandate it and fail to consider what impact other laws will have on these loans, you then have a problem. That is what happened.

Why not just be honest and recognize that our problems are not caused by Democrats or Republicans but are caused by Democrats and Republicans.

 

[coolm]

there was most definitely the legislative component to encouraging those horrid mortgages. I dont deny that at all. But you can't say that's the only "risk-absolver" present in that whole fiasco. Derivatives played a major part as well.

 

[coolm]

I would still call dereg A problem if not THE problem. I grant it was a bipartisan commission to get rid of glass-steagall ... but the darn thing was thrown on an omnibus budget bill at the last second for Clinton to sign or suffer - all so Citibank could merge. I think it's a horrid idea and the wall between investment and banking should have been maintained. We have just as much reason NOW to keep that wall as they did in '29 or '33 or whenever it was to make it. Of course I also dont think ex-wall streeters should comprise all of the SEC.

 

[DenverSooner]

oh I dont think it cost large corps enough either. I wanted a much more stringent repayment etc... and had to be convinced that we couldnt afford for the banks to dump.

I was also incensed that so little has been done about the whole derivatives issue. People were requesting loans they couldnt afford and lenders were doing it under dubious acceptance conditions. OK, thats obviously a problem. But then to take the risk of the loans, initially backed under the old "property is a sound, appreciating investment" premise, and bundle it altogether for a sale ... and then bundle THAT risk for a sale ... that's just pure lunacy. And to take all this precarious, noone-can-tell-what-the-actual-property-interest-is crap and invest people's PENSIONS into it??

To this day it still makes me mad. More reverence needs to be given to retirement earnings no matter what fund they are thrown into. It should be a financial institutions' sacred cow and these guys treated it like a craps table. I dont hold the individual completely blameless - but the bankers are in a position of trust and they know better.

What is even more shocking is we are allowing the same thing today. I have participated in many real estate seminars where lenders are offering zero down loans and no doc loans again. That should be against the law, at least if you want to qualify for a Freddie or Fannie guaranty. If the bank wants to assume all of the risk, I really don't care if they make a loan on these terms. I care very much if I indirectly assume some of the risk.

20 or so years ago people put down 10-20% to purchase a house. This kept people from over extending themselves and allowed them (or forced them) to ride out a dip in the real estate market. Over the long run, real estate generally goes up. But there will be dips. If you can just bail on your loans because you have nothing at risk in the property, far too many people will do it. However, if you lost 10% or more due to your initial down payment, you would be more likely figure out how to make that payment. Certainly a down payment will not assure 100% of loans to perform but it will substantially increase the percentage of performing loans and/or the decrease the percentage of non-performing loans.

 

[coolm]

yep. had a friend doing real estate work (after leaving Chesapeake) who was talking about the same thing last week.

agreed about more down. you're strengthening the loan much like speculation of property values has done historically. plus, like you said, more at-risk means more incentive to fight for it.

i dont know why anyone is still stressing the ownership model. i understand it's an issue of growth but I thought leasing urban property was the fad. I guess I am just out of the loop.

To ME it makes more sense to save some cash ... buy (cash) 3 acres way out in the boonies ... drop a few shipping containers on them as you get them (cash) .... make those into a home ... stay off the grid with some solar cells and well water and septic ... and not have a 30-yr mortgage. But then again I have no desire for material crap.

 

[DenverSooner]

To ME it makes more sense to save some cash ... buy (cash) 3 acres way out in the boonies ... drop a few shipping containers on them as you get them (cash) .... make those into a home ... stay off the grid with some solar cells and well water and septic ... and not have a 30-yr mortgage. But then again I have no desire for material crap.

That is truly the description of a person that does not care about material things.

How do you get a women to live in a container?

 

[coolm]

That is truly the description of a person that does not care about material things.

How do you get a women to live in a container?

I got rid of her 20 years ago

It's not that bad. This is what my layout looks like w/o the stilts. Mine will be on a slab.

 

[DenverSooner]

That is actually not bad. So what does something like that cost?

How will that do in a tornado? It looks a lot like a trailer and those don't do very well.

 

[coolm]

Costs? property costs + $2k+ per shipping container (8.5' x 45') + $4k for concrete base + whatever you do for finishing whether it be subcontractor or DIY + $1,800 - $2k for water drilling + $5k for total solar cells (2500 W system) + $1k for battery bank + $300 materials for rocket heat system + $3,500 for propane backup system (tank & generator) ... you can put all of it together for $25k -$30k for an entirely up to date, off the grid, mostly self-sustaining property.

tornado? properly bound it is better than a trailer but worse than a brick home with a basement. most homes don't do well against direct damage and this wouldnt either. it wouldnt suffer trailer issues though. MUCH sturdier construction. The container construction is actually more sturdy than a home. It's the damages to the additions that would be an issue. the foundation and containers could be secure. In Oklahoma I wouldnt do it like they did above. But this is a fad in quite a few places because of ease and cost and versatility.

 

[DenverSooner]

The one in the picture appears to have a reasonable finish level.

 

[DenverSooner]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clintons-charity-empire-hid-162600226.html

More on the foundation hiding donations. I cannot believe no Democrat wants to challenger her. She seems ripe to lose a primary. The average person isn't going to like this stuff in my opinion. She also has a wing of the democratic party that wants it to be more liberal.

 

[sybarite]

Outside of right wing talk shows, I don't know that anyone cares about the "clinton corruption," or believes it. This has been used for every candidate that I can remember, going back to 52. It is often used by Democrats against Republicans, but never seems to have had any effect there either. Corruption charges fire up the base, but not the voters.

A lot of liberals would prefer Warren, or possibly Sanders, but we went down that road with McGovern. We'll let the Republicans use their wingers to assure that they get a non-electable candidate, not that they have an electable candidate, and Hillary will swamp him. We also remember that Hillary was blamed for the failure of the health program under Bill, and that she is more liberal than Bill.

 

[DenverSooner]

Main stream media is discussing this in detail. The article references the Boston Globe as its source. A simple Google search will show articles from Politicao, Bloomberg, Fox News, the Denver Post, New York Post, New York Times (they broke the original story), ABC News, Forbes and many others. I think plenty of people are going to have some concerns over this.