I certainly hope you're correct. I'm along the same line of thought as you. I'm hoping that in about a year I'm going to be able to get a nice home for at least the reasonable face value or even better for a nice discount over the market rate.

It really ticked me the hell off that prices shot up so unreasonably right as I graduated and got an income stream (in 2004) and would have normally been able to afford a mortgage.

Now, I'm hoping that in a year I'm not going to be sticking my foot in my own ass since the US Government bailed out the entire industry that is entirely responsible for my mortgage payments. Fuck that. Maybe the really, really fucking smart people saw that bailout coming from a mile away and got their money out into gold (or something safe) and are now laughing their asses of as they get back into the system.

Me? I'm a pissed off voter with no one to vote for

9/22/2008 12:11:57 AM

i'm at 44:00 and it still sounds like a bunch of schmucks ripped off some poor people with no credit and lended them everything but the kitchen sink

now i see 2 people to potentially blame for this mess. the investors/sellers of these shitty mortgages, and the dumb buyers


i hope i learn more here.


edit:

ok things i've learned:

1) you're gonna need some insanely high credit to get loans in the next decades. "low risk" is the worlds banks new motto. guess obama and his "save the poor" theme is gonna get a huge shaft in it. i guess he'll raise taxes EVEN HIGHER for us to pay for these idiots.

2) Don't get a loan from anybody shady whatsoever (do your hw)


thx for the audio piece.

[Edited on September 22, 2008 at 12:27 AM. Reason : a]

9/22/2008 12:15:56 AM

Quote :

"i'm at 44:00 and it still sounds like a bunch of schmucks ripped off some poor people with no credit and lended them everything but the kitchen sink now i see 2 people to potentially blame for this mess. the investors/sellers of these shitty mortgages, and the dumb buyers i hope i learn more here."

The sad thing is that you aren't going to learn more here. Who are the two people you are blaming "for this mess", however? Obviously it isn't individuals, but groups of people.

Yes, I'd say you're right in that these guys who were at the top of their game in 2007 and hanging with "B-list" celebs in DC nightclubs. As is said later, that's eighteen thousand reasons that even though he qualified for a Veterans Administrations loan, they confined this poor fellow (be it stupidity or just 'greed') to take a loan that initially looked even better, but had a higher rate of commission.

"When is the first time someone looked at your finances?" "Today... today." "Sixteen thousand, two hundred fifteen dollars a month -- for a Marine". At 46:00-48:00.

9/22/2008 12:26:37 AM

^bingo

no wonder bush is pouring a shit load of money into the world economy.

he's helping the poor/rich alike by doing that. i can't stand the fact that we're doing it though

and how do you give a loan from the gov't? (the peoples money anyways) to a bank or corp like Lehman brothers? what are the consequences of not paying it back? are there any? the same money is floating around in the economy either way.

9/22/2008 12:30:01 AM

Still, thank you for actually listening to an entire radio show (since it's easy to tell due to the time(s) you stated) based on an TSB posting. I know it doesn't mean much to you (nor should it to me), but that does draw some respect for me.

I think what we are currently doing is incredible bullshit which is just bailing out our own mortgage buyers as well as (of course) our own financial companies that have bought up so many "AAA" bonds from 2003-2004.

9/22/2008 12:32:52 AM

Quote :

"the investors/sellers of these shitty mortgages, and the dumb buyers"

Most banks fall in to both groups here.

9/22/2008 12:33:23 AM

^stfu you are retarded

^^no prob. i'm really just trying to figure out the consequences of making this huge bailout.

i'm not sweating over it, b/c i don't think a crisis will emerge even if the govt doesn't get the money back it is loaning through this. b/c it's going right back into the peoples pockets.

[Edited on September 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM. Reason : a]

9/22/2008 12:35:43 AM

Quote :

"^bingo no wonder bush is pouring a shit load of money into the world economy. he's helping the poor/rich alike by doing that. i can't stand the fact that we're doing it though and how do you give a loan from the gov't? (the peoples money anyways) to a bank or corp like Lehman brothers? what are the consequences of not paying it back? are there any? the same money is floating around in the economy either way."

I'm not a Bush supporter, and I don't know too much about your own views expect what I've seen in TSB recently, which could be very jaded.

However, "pouring money into the system" does appear to the the easiest way to go about alleviating the current crisis and allowing us to move on in both the political (very unimportant) and economic (so important we can not ignore it) views of the Conservative/Libertarian Economic viewpoints. Many people I have heard had discussed "Libertarian" ideas toward this crisis (which, unfortunately, tend towards very broad ideas vs. specific policy) or "Democratic" ideas (I do live within twenty minutes of Washington, D.C.) and I feel the coin fully falls on the Libertarian/Social Economic side of the purse to properly fix this problem.

9/22/2008 12:41:47 AM

Quote :

"^^no prob. i'm really just trying to figure out the consequences of making this huge bailout."

Very true, that's exactly what I'm trying to figure out myself.

9/22/2008 12:45:19 AM

Quote :

"and how do you give a loan from the gov't? (the peoples money anyways) to a bank or corp like Lehman brothers? "

Quote :

"what are the consequences of not paying it back? are there any? the same money is floating around in the economy either way."

The US actually bailed out Chrysler back in the day and made money off the deal (that's not likely this time). Debt is debt though, and the effects on the economy is a point of debate among economists.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/09/lessons-from-1979-chryslyer-bailout.html

9/22/2008 12:47:53 AM

^^^personally i'm a democrat, but there is no way in hell i'm gonna put this current tax-collecting/job destroyer in office. i'm one of the "racist" democrats b/c i don't vote for him, but anyways...

hopefully this money we are putting back in the system is the right amount, and i hope the banks, people get the idea this time.

i'll probably be one of the few people around that will be able to get a loan with a decent interest rate soon. i very much welcome that. let the housing prices correct themselves.

i still feel bad for all the people suffering that really didn't know better and got taken advantage of.

[Edited on September 22, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : s]

9/22/2008 12:48:16 AM

Quote :

"For decades, firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs thrived by taking bold bets with their own money, often using enormous amounts of debt to increase their profits, with little outside oversight. They were the envy of Wall Street, dominating the industry’s most lucrative businesses, landing headline-grabbing deals and advising companies and governments around the world on mergers, stock offerings and restructurings. But that brash model was torn apart over the last several weeks as investors lost confidence in the way they made those bets during the recent credit boom, when investment banks expanded with aplomb into esoteric securities, the risks of which were not easily understood. "

From a NYTimes article.. still it is disconcerting to say the least that these companies are even allowed to redefine themselves at a time like this so that they can appear as regular banking entities to the normal economic public.

I wonder sometimes if I'll be able to get a loan for a house in 1-2 years in the D.C. area (prices are so insane here compared to Raleigh) in a few years. I certainly hope I will be, but with the current bail-out being proposed by bi-partisan legislation I am much less optimistic.

9/22/2008 1:19:16 AM

^^ There is absolutely no way in hell you are a Democrat. Stop spewing your bullshit.

9/22/2008 6:13:20 AM

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ge-gm-amex-amended-short-sale/story.aspx?guid={C450E70E-0D1C-4375-A968-C357298C1725}

Why in the world is GM being put on the no short list? I think this idea is stupid - but what do i know? Check out this article on The Big Picture about the same idea in 1930:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/short-selling-o.html

9/22/2008 1:12:26 PM

^ You'd be amazed what a good lobby can get you in Washington.

9/22/2008 1:37:32 PM

Countdown to see how much pork barrel congress can shove into this world relief package.

Let's see if the ultimate "do nothing" congress can get this shit done.


If they can't, say hello great depression number 2.

9/22/2008 2:25:03 PM

awesome deflection, csharp.
Deregulation and inept politicians (on both sides) have brought us to the brink of a depression. And now it will all be the Democrats fault if we fall in.

9/22/2008 3:23:07 PM

^^is this "relief" package not already considered "pork barrel"?

if they do pass it, its not like we are entirely fixing the problem, silly to try to pass off the problem as the fault of the democrats

and i have a problem with this paulson plan containing such clauses as:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

i know what they are trying to achieve (not being 2nd guessed every step of the way and having everyone sue them) but this seems unconstitutional

[Edited on September 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2008 3:28:45 PM

September 2008. When America became socialist.

Goodbye sweet republic. Goodbye.

9/22/2008 3:33:03 PM

no, if America was socialist, they would at least be pretending to help normal people, not just wall-streeters who have lost their shirts

9/22/2008 4:04:52 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

9/22/2008 4:07:55 PM

Interesting take on Eliot Spitzer's role in the crisis. The disgraced former Governor of New York was an especially vocal critic of the White House on its involvement in the predatory lending that led us to the brink of economic catastrophe.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/25-bushs-real-problem-with-eliot-spitzer/

From a WaPo editorial he authored the day before fucking the infamous prostitute:

Quote :

"Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye. The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers. In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.”"

9/22/2008 7:46:12 PM

Please allow me to bump thee.

10/24/2011 11:45:16 PM

North Carolina State Supreme Court Determines Paperwork Requirements for Foreclosure

Quote :

"Monday, October 24th 2011 So many foreclosure cases have been processed without original paperwork in the last few years that the state of North Carolina has taken the issue all the way to the state supreme court[1]. Last week the court heard testimony from attorneys representing Wells Fargo and homeowner Linda Dobson, who is facing foreclosure. Dobson is arguing that Wells Fargo cannot foreclose on her home unless the produce the original promissory note that proves they are actually due the debt that she owes of about $50,000. The lender has not produced this documentation in three years of legal wrangling[2]. Dobson’s lawyer says that she cannot pay or be foreclosed on because she is “not clear who owned her mortgage.” Wells Fargo, on the other hand, says that although it has not produced original documents yet, it likely will if the court sends the case back to a lower court for trial. The lender is arguing that “photocopied loan documents and sworn statements from employees that it is truly owed the money are sufficient for the case so far.” The problem is that in light of the robo-signing fiasco and other “loose” lending and foreclosure practices that have come to light in the wake of the housing crisis, most homeowners no longer believe that these proofs are enough. Law professors point out that “sometimes a note will be lost or destroyed,” which is the whole point of having multiple copies of the original documentation. A ruling is expected in the next few months. In the interim, Dobson will remain in her home and wait on the mortgage lender to “prove some of what that man [the Wells Fargo attorney] was saying” about her debt. North Carolina is home to the Bank of America headquarters and has traditionally been viewed as sympathetic to lenders. Legal analysts say that the outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for future cases around the country, making it a landmark piece of litigation."

http://realestate.bryanellis.com/5429/north-carolina-state-supreme-court-determines-paperwork-requirements-for-foreclosure/

The short and skinny of this is that if the court sides with the banks then they don't have to show the deed proving they actually own the home. This would be a tremendous win for Giant Monster Mega Banks. Imagine buying a car, you paid the bank for 48 months, pay it off and then the bank says "Ooops, we may not actually have your title because it was sold three or four times through mergers and take overs."

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 12:50:35 PM

Quote :

"The lender is arguing that “photocopied loan documents and sworn statements from employees that it is truly owed the money are sufficient for the case so far.”"

Somehow I don't think that if the ownership of my house were in dispute, that if I came up with a photocopy of the title and sworn statements from my closest friends that it would be enough evidence.

That said, I don't think the home owners are going to win this one either. The argument is seems to be that since no one has the deed, no one can prove she owes any money, so she owns the house free and clear. Obviously though, she does owe someone money, otherwise why would she have been making mortgage payments in the first place. I don't know if the courts can do this, but I could almost see the outcome being that she has to continue making payments into a trust fund until the original deed can be located, or until adverse possession (or some similar law) takes effect and she gets the title (and the trust fund) free and clear.

10/25/2011 6:54:35 PM

It doesn't seem like she has an aversion to making payments outright, just not to a place that has yet to prove they are the deed holders. How could a court even possibly find in favor of the bank on this? It horrifies me to think that reckless behavior from the banks could potentially be given a legal pass. Untold numbers of people could then be foreclosed on, likely by multiple institutions, demanding payment using nothing more than photo copies and bubblegum wrappers as "proof".

Is it not the singular responsibility of government to arbitrate and enforce contracts? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. No deed, no claim to payments owed.

10/25/2011 8:43:38 PM

Freddie Mac CEO Ed Haldeman quitting - received 3.9 million in compensation last year

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66933.html

Let me get this straight. Freddie got over 15 billion from the U.S. treasury...and their CEO got paid 4 million dollars?

10/26/2011 4:43:16 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/from-an-unlikely-source-a-serious-challenge-to-wall-street-20120720

Rather interesting article about a plan that some local governments are thinking about trying to get their residents out from under water

Quote :

"Under the proposal, towns would essentially be seizing and condemning the man-made mess resulting from the housing bubble. Cooked up by a small group of businessmen and ex-venture capitalists, the audacious idea falls under the category of "That’s so crazy, it just might work!" One of the plan’s originators described it to me as a "four-bank pool shot." Here’s how the New York Times described it in an article from earlier this week entitled, "California County Weighs Drastic Plan to Aid Homeowners": Desperate for a way out of a housing collapse that has crippled the region, officials in San Bernardino County … are exploring a drastic option — using eminent domain to buy up mortgages for homes that are underwater. Then, the idea goes, the county could cut the mortgages to the current value of the homes and resell the mortgages to a private investment firm, which would allow homeowners to lower their monthly payments and hang onto their property."

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2012 4:28:52 PM