THE BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED!

[packinpatland]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I listened to one of his interviews on NPR a few days ago.........he makes sense.

[cpk1994]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?

Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations!

[hoosier]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?

Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations!

So a bunch of Republican reps decided to screw the country because Nancy Pelosi hu huh hhht their feeeeeewings?

[LL2]

What happened today is the result of having a weak Speaker Of The House and an even weaker President.

I'm wondering where they go from here. I'm thinking the Republicans who voted against it and the Democrats who voted against it probably did so for different reasons. Will they make changes to the bill to try to get more Democrats on board, or more Republicans?

Nancy Pelosi is probably the most responsible for those republicans that voted against it with her insanely idiotc speech right before the vote. Way to go Nancy! Your partisan politics tanked the economy 800 pts. Congratulations!

So a bunch of Republican reps decided to screw the country because Nancy Pelosi hu huh hhht their feeeeeewings?

Well, here is what Pelosi said. From what I was able to find online:

PELOSI: "When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?

It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate.

$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

They claim to be free-market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.

Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.

Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation. "

In a nutshell what she said wasn't entirely bad, but if you want Republican support you do rip on them and puff your chest and say the Republicans created this chaos and the Democrats are the good guys. If she wanted bipartisan support she went the wrong way about it.

[MJZiggy]

It's an election year. Bipartisan support starts in December. If the Repubs could figure out a way to blame this on the Dems, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[bobblehead]

Policies that were built on budget recklessness when Pres. Bush took office, he inherited Pres. Clinton’s surpluses - four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

so she lied?? I defy anyone to show me ONE SINGLE YEAR of clinton where the national debt was reduced?? If not, then no actual surplus ever existed.

[texaspackerbacker]

Would you accept that a Congressional mandate overruling normal qualification standards in order to allow more minority loans to be approved is a highly likely cause of the plethora of bad loans? This program was a liberal Democrat thing from its inception. Predictably, those minority mortgages which were processed without adherence to established standards have resulted in defaults at a geometrically higher rate. The only Dem/lib response to this situation--predictably also--is "let's find a way to keep these mortgagees who have defaulted in their homes". Does that sound like unjustifiably "finding a way to blame the Dems" to you, Ziggy?

[MJZiggy]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

[falco]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

i agree ziggy, predatory lending is bad, but also lets not forget that those loans with special provisions such as prepayment penalties, interest only, etc, contain disclosures informing the borrower of all that... specifically by law these disclosures are required, to protect borrowers

i lean strongly towards blaming lenders (particularly mortgage brokers and also bretsky) but people gotta own up too

[MJZiggy]

I'm with you there. I think they preyed on the people that weren't smart enough to read the fine print and know what they were getting into which is still on them for putting their name on the line without getting the information they needed first.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm with you there. I think they preyed on the people that weren't smart enough to read the fine print and know what they were getting into which is still on them for putting their name on the line without getting the information they needed first.

You just can't get an ARM--or any other type of financing--without numerous repetitious disclaimers and disclosure forms stating that you understand exactly how much the thing can go up, how often, triggered by what, etc. The Truth-in-Lending form that provides a detail dollars and cents--not fine print--explanation of exactly what the effective rate of interest is, exactly how much the total of payments over the term of the mortgage, and how much is owed at any given point of the mortgage has been around for decades.

You'd almost have to be trying to avoid being aware of these facts and figures.

The great majority of buyers or people getting refinancing are completely confident of their ability to repay. If that confidence is unjustified, well, is that the mortgage company's fault? I would say no--as long as the accurate facts and figures are provided. And in my experience--which is fairly vast involving closings of sales, the transaction just doesn't get done without all the signatures on the papers saying the buyers/refinancers are aware and have received copies of all of the disclosures.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

[Bretsky]

If anyone could attempt it, I knew it would be you, Tex. Actually, I blame the mortgage companies that for years hounded me about lowering my payment without mentioning the fact that it was an interest-only loan or an ARM that would have my payment magically go up after a couple years. When I let be known that I was shopping for a new mortgage, the jackals crawled out of the woodwork to offer me this or that. If I hadn't absolutely INSISTED on a fixed rate--even hanging up on some of the pricks who called, e-mailed, direct mailed and practically shoved their mortgages down my throat insisting it wouldn't cost me anything, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage either. I don't see this as a political failing as neither democrats nor republicans forced the companies to advertise the mortgages like that. This was corporate greed once the gloves came off. Not all banks engaged in those practices, and not all of them are failing. Funny it's the ones that made responsible lending choices that are still standing.

i agree ziggy, predatory lending is bad, but also lets not forget that those loans with special provisions such as prepayment penalties, interest only, etc, contain disclosures informing the borrower of all that... specifically by law these disclosures are required, to protect borrowers

i lean strongly towards blaming lenders (particularly mortgage brokers and also bretsky) but people gotta own up too

OUTRAGE OUTRAGE !!!

For the record I am not a mortgage broker but if it's alright to blame lenders at banks to I'm down with that.

One might say all of us use loopholes when they are available to us. In six years I did two of those stated income loans mortgage brokers became famous for and they were both legit and are both performing.

On the other side, I became a no money down expert; realtors sent there clients to me because I was smarter with the more liberal underwriting programs. Some of those are performing and others are not. They should have had higher credit score requirements for those programs.

As far as disclosures go, I'm more honest than I need to be and often lose deals because I'm too d@m honest. Never been one to tell people what they want to hear and fudge things...............just like I treat TT

[falco]

i'll let you off the hook this time bretsky...

[texaspackerbacker]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

What do you see happening--how bad and how soon--if the new bail out package--which somebody in another thread said is now up to 450 pages--doesn't get rammed through with a minimum of discussion and an all or nothing proposition?

And if, in fact, you foresee some sort of gloomy scenario for America, is that not something that appeals to you? Desire for harm to America is what your kind is all about, isn't it?