• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food Stamp Rolls to Grow Through 2014, CBO Says

j-mac said:
That is the lenders fault? In what world do lenders of mortgages control what the rate of equity is in the housing market?
Click to expand...
More bs, it was not a point about either parties fault, it is a description of the market condition and the borrowers asset value. It was a a counter to your "well the borrower is gonna get equity", as if a borrower has ANY equity in the first ten years of a 30 year mortgage and will see any when he short-sells.

FFS


Now, if the borrower is not able to meet payments on the house, then maybe they weren't qualified to buy the damned thing in the first place.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but then who is at bigger fault then, the borrower who was offered a NINA loan or the lender who offered the NINA loan? You do know what NINA means...yes?

It could also be that you, like the harry one, is unaware of the magnitude of the job losses we have seen

The pressure for lenders to take these unqualified borrowers and get them into these houses was brought about directly by the CRA. It was government turning the blind eye as to what banks did with these sketchy mortgages in mitigating their loss when they inevitably went belly up, and that is on the banks. But, don't feed us that these people out there buying 3,4,$500K homes that knew full well that they could never afford them are not to blame at all either.
Click to expand...
I knew this one was coming, the old CRA myth. You shouldn't have played it. CRA loans had HIGHER standards than sub-prime, had LOWER levels of defaults than sub-prime, and were very SMALL portion of the new loan market from 2002 thru 2007.

They created NO pressure on the sub-prime lenders as the major lenders stated so in front of Congress, since they were not in competition with that program. There was plenty of funds available for lending, no supply issues at all. There were no supply issues with homes or buyers, either. CRA was created to fill the need for lending in "red lined" areas, places where LENDERS WERE NOT SERVICING IN THE FIRST PLACE.



I am familiar with what a short sale is. And if the borrower can't afford what THEY borrowed then that is an option for them to mitigate THE CONTRACT THEY SIGNED!
Click to expand...
Again, as above, this was a counter argument to your claim that the borrower would see some gain from equity. There is no equity, yours is a false point.



As they should be, they are a business, not a charity.
Click to expand...
More red herrings, I never said mortgage insurance for the LENDER was a "charity".



Ok. Those are the terms of buying that house. If you don't like the terms that are spelled out at closing, then don't sign the contract. Once you sign that, YOU AGREE to those terms.
Click to expand...
It is how most mortgages are structured, it was a statement simply spelling out that the borrower pays for the lenders mortgage insurance directly, so again, the lender can cry me a river when a default occurs, the borrower had him covered.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Oh, ok. So when I, or other conservatives make statements about what their observations in life are in relation to their political beliefs then it is, ahem, in your own words, 'overgeneralization'....But when someone you agree with does the same thing, then it is just a "rather common judgement...." Yeah, get off it man.
Click to expand...

Not if you did something similar. But when you go off on lefties, and run off on the communist/socialist/fascist/emotional rant, that's entirely different.

However, you didn't call him on overgeneralizing. You called him emotional. Can you not see the difference?


Actually it is more a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. But, I'll humor you......The answer is no!


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. If it wasn't to frame the debate so you didn't have to address it, where did the emotional comment come in at and why?
 
j-mac said:
Blaming the people that offered you the money YOU wanted, at substantial risk of loss to themselves, then later couldn't afford, because of your lack of prior planning, or care to even budget is NOT THEIR PROBLEM.
Click to expand...
What a crock of crap this statement is!

"Blaming the people that offered you the money YOU wanted"
- like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts and made no profit from it! :lamo


"at substantial risk of loss to themselves"
- well, that's a big part of the problem. Most of THEM, those that approved and originated those bad loans, DIDN'T take any risk. They sold them off to someone else. :roll:

"is NOT THEIR PROBLEM"
No, it wasn't their problem at all! They sold off their problems to someone else!
And even those who bought the mortgages aren't out the money, they got a house in return. That's what the mortgage contract demanded and that's what they got. They knew this when they bought the contract. I would say it's not my problem that one banker duped another banker but the fact is they made it everyone's problem.


The bankers wrote the mortgage contracts. If they didn't like the terms of those contracts then why did they sign them?!? I can answer that question in one word - MONEY.



Ed:
You know, for someone who preaches individual responsibility all the time your defense of the bankers seems a little hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
What, Who said that? Now you are making **** up. Look, when I was in school, we had classes in middle school that taught us how to balance a check book, budget money, and calculate household expenses. Where is that today?

You have generations that are not being taught to be financially self sufficient, instead sending generational message that Sugar Daddy Government will take care of you cradle to grave. That is NOT America.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people have said those things or similar about the poor, some right here on this board. Your subsequent statements, whether worded exactly the same as mine or not, reinforce my belief that you feel that way, as well. Don't you, in fact, lump all poor people into the "they're poor people" category? So when you call a second gen welfare family lazy bastards you label all poor people lazy bastards.

Yes, I had classes like that, too. Education is badly under-funded in America or haven't you been paying attention the past 20 years?

Yes, we have a problem with welfare which we (at least in my State) starting addressing 15 years ago when we re-wrote the welfare laws. It took 30 years to realize the problem and do something about it, how long do you think it's going to take to resolve it?

j-mac said:
Maybe you want to be a slave to the US Government, and have your children be slaves to the Government, not me.
Click to expand...
Outside of a one-month check I took a looong time ago I've never taken anything from the government and I've paid that check back a thousand times over in the years since. But just because I've been lucky in life doesn't mean I can't understand some of the problems others have and want to help. I would think as a civilized society it would be self-evident that some percentage will always be poor and need some kind of help. Ask any economist if they'd really want 100%, or even 97%, employment if it were possible. They'll laugh in your face. No one wants everybody working, it would ruin the economy.
 
MoSurveyor said:
What a crock of crap this statement is!

"Blaming the people that offered you the money YOU wanted"
- like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts and made no profit from it! :lamo
Click to expand...

Emotional pleas as well as irrelevant. Business is not in business to serve a 'higher purpose', it is in business to make a profit. The person that signs the contract has the final decision, and that they signed it, places the responsibility on THEM. Nobody put's a gun to their head and makes them sign.
 
Hmmm...Seems I have tweaked several nerves in here prompting a flood of the usual responses and vitriol aimed at myself and those that are looking at this through more conservative eyes.

Allow me to give general response, because I have things to do, and don't have all day today to respond to every lame liberal talking point that has been rehashed endlessly in here, and elsewhere.

So let me just say a couple of things.

First, on the welfare issue, I do not think that as a general rule that all people are one way or another on that, some do perpetuate fraud, and generational subsistence at taxpayer expense to avoid actual work because the wage involved wouldn't be enough with their skill set to overcome what they get paid by welfare.

This is where education comes in. Our country is woefully lacking in the trades, and there is no incentive for these people to move out of their own circumstance.

On the housing front, you will not convince me that liberals, and groups like ACORN that pressured banks, and members of congress in true Cloward and Piven strategy to overwhelm the system didn't push for this very scenario to take place, after all, you can't rebuild something in your vision unless you collapse the current one.

This country, and the direction we are headed is going to collapse it, and by design I believe.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I did address it. However to humor you Mo said "I'm sure the vast majority would rather have a job..."

Suppose you tell me how he would know that with such absolute conviction? Did he conduct a survey of every welfare recipient?
Click to expand...
Didn't have to - past employment records prove my point. It wasn't THAT many years ago we had a 96% employment rate. In other words, when there were jobs available most of the people not working now WERE working.
 
Arbo said:
Emotional pleas as well as irrelevant. Business is not in business to serve a 'higher purpose', it is in business to make a profit. The person that signs the contract has the final decision, and that they signed it, places the responsibility on THEM. Nobody put's a gun to their head and makes them sign.
Click to expand...
Nobody put a gun to the banker's head to make him originate the loan, either.

The terms for default were fairly simple. If the borrower defaults the bank gets the house and the banks get the money from the mortgage insurance as well. The banks got exactly what they asked for in the contract they wrote and signed - and they got their $1000+ origination fee for each loan. What a deal!
 
MoSurveyor said:
Nobody put a gun to the banker's head to make him originate the loan, either.
Click to expand...

No, the individual went to the bank and said they wanted the loan. And the bank happens to be in the BUSINESS of providing loans. Funny how that works out.

If you don't like the terms of a deal, don't sign the contract. But if you do, don't blame everyone else for your bad decision.
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
No, the individual went to the bank and said they wanted the loan. And the bank happens to be in the BUSINESS of providing loans. Funny how that works out.

If you don't like the terms of a deal, don't sign the contract. But if you do, don't blame everyone else for your bad decision.
Click to expand...
I don't think the ex-homeowner is blaming the bank for the ex-homeowner now being bankrupt. Who said they were?
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm...Seems I have tweaked several nerves in here prompting a flood of the usual responses and vitriol aimed at myself and those that are looking at this through more conservative eyes.

Allow me to give general response, because I have things to do, and don't have all day today to respond to every lame liberal talking point that has been rehashed endlessly in here, and elsewhere.

So let me just say a couple of things.

First, on the welfare issue, I do not think that as a general rule that all people are one way or another on that, some do perpetuate fraud, and generational subsistence at taxpayer expense to avoid actual work because the wage involved wouldn't be enough with their skill set to overcome what they get paid by welfare.

This is where education comes in. Our country is woefully lacking in the trades, and there is no incentive for these people to move out of their own circumstance.

On the housing front, you will not convince me that liberals, and groups like ACORN that pressured banks, and members of congress in true Cloward and Piven strategy to overwhelm the system didn't push for this very scenario to take place, after all, you can't rebuild something in your vision unless you collapse the current one.

This country, and the direction we are headed is going to collapse it, and by design I believe.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Whether you can be convinced or not is really irrelevant. The fact is you look for reasons to excuse all but workers. That is what surprises me.
 
Arbo said:
You are blaming the bank.
Click to expand...

I can speak for him, but I most certainly do place some blame on predatory lenders who gave loans and bet on failure, making money while passing off that debt to others. They share responsibility and blame.
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm...Seems I have tweaked several nerves in here prompting a flood of the usual responses and vitriol aimed at myself and those that are looking at this through more conservative eyes.

Allow me to give general response, because I have things to do, and don't have all day today to respond to every lame liberal talking point that has been rehashed endlessly in here, and elsewhere.

So let me just say a couple of things.

First, on the welfare issue, I do not think that as a general rule that all people are one way or another on that, some do perpetuate fraud, and generational subsistence at taxpayer expense to avoid actual work because the wage involved wouldn't be enough with their skill set to overcome what they get paid by welfare.
Click to expand...
Since the discussion has been about the INCREASES in SNAP recipients, little of your lame response applies. People that are being added have by and large been employed but are now not or under employed. Their skill sets were sufficient but now with the huge drop in demand, their labor is excess.

This is where education comes in. Our country is woefully lacking in the trades, and there is no incentive for these people to move out of their own circumstance.
Click to expand...
Trades?, my god man, the biggest job loss sector is HOUSING, there are huge numbers of worker with trade experience OUT OF WORK.

If you want to get into a discussion about vocational training, the jobs have to exist HERE first and stay HERE. That would require a working relationship between corporate and govt entities, but since corporate interests rule our non-existent industrial plan, we are always chasing industrial hiring demands. Good luck with getting conservatives to change ANY viewpoints on "free-market" vs industrial planning.

On the housing front, you will not convince me that liberals, and groups like ACORN that pressured banks, and members of congress in true Cloward and Piven strategy to overwhelm the system didn't push for this very scenario to take place, after all, you can't rebuild something in your vision unless you collapse the current one.
Click to expand...
I'll repeat:
I knew this one was coming, the old CRA myth. You shouldn't have played it. CRA loans had HIGHER standards than sub-prime, had LOWER levels of defaults than sub-prime, and were very SMALL portion of the new loan market from 2002 thru 2007.

They created NO pressure on the sub-prime lenders as the major lenders stated so in front of Congress, since they were not in competition with that program. There was plenty of funds available for lending, no supply issues at all. There were no supply issues with homes or buyers, either. CRA was created to fill the need for lending in "red lined" areas, places where LENDERS WERE NOT SERVICING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Further:

Here's some of what Markey had to say about ACORN's efforts:

In fact - according to a string of 1999 and 2000 reports in American Banker, a 173-year-old publication calling itself "the leading information resource serving the banking and financial services community" - ACORN was an outspoken, consistent advocate for exactly the kinds of regulations that experts across the political spectrum now agree could have prevented the global economic crisis.

On August 4, 2000, American Banker reported on ACORN protests at nationwide offices of Lehman Brothers - the investment bank that went bankrupt last month because of its investment in over-valued mortgage-backed securities:

"Acorn members said they want Lehman and other investment banks to sign a code of ethics, pledging to adhere to 'best practices' in the mortgage lending business. Though the banks are not lenders, the group argues that they provide capital and financial support to abusive lenders by buying and securitizing their loans."

That's right. Eight years ago, ACORN was protesting at Lehman Brothers. They weren't protesting because Lehman Brothers wasn't giving away enough money in low income areas - Lehman Brothers made no direct loans at all at that time. They were protesting because Lehman Brothers was buying up subprime loans and bundling them into the now-infamous mortgage-backed securities. Lehman's demand for subprime loans was providing an incentive for more lenders to make more crappy loans in low income areas - essentially loading those areas under unsustainable debt.
Let me say that one more time, just so we're clear: the demand for more subprime loans did not come from low-income borrowers or ACORN. It came from investment houses like Lehman - firms that did not originate loans, and had absolutely no obligations under CRA whatsoever.

ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act : The Questionable Authority



This country, and the direction we are headed is going to collapse it, and by design I believe.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "This is how it is and how it will remain" argument. We are in a TEMPORARY downturn, a time where it IS legitimate to incur debt to keep people fed and stimulate an economy (especially when the cost of borrowing is negative due to interest rates being BELOW rates of inflation) instead of adding debt for unnecessary wars and compounding it by cutting taxes during a time of war (first time in US history).
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
You are blaming the bank.
Click to expand...
I'm blaming the banks (plural) for bringing down the economic house, yes, and there are plenty of court cases and legal settlements as evidence of their culpability.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm blaming the banks (plural) for bringing down the economic house, yes, and there are plenty of court cases and legal settlements as evidence of their culpability.
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate, for society as a whole, that many people have thrown off the reigns of personal responsibility.
 
Arbo said:
It is unfortunate, for society as a whole, that many people have thrown off the reigns of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

I agree. You're part of the effort to remove the responsibility predatory lenders hold. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. You're part of the effort to remove the responsibility predatory lenders hold. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Nice try, but yet again a miss.

Any company that does anything against the law, should have the full force of the law brought upon them.

If they do something that some people just don't like, but it is legal, well boo hoo. You should have either educated yourself as to what you were signing, or not of had bigger eyes than wallet.
 
Arbo said:
Any company that does anything against the law, should have the full force of the law brought upon them.

If they do something that some people just don't like, but it is legal, well boo hoo. You should have either educated yourself as to what you were signing, or not of had bigger eyes than wallet.
Click to expand...
And those people paid for their mistake by loosing their home and going bankrupt. :shrug:
 
I am still trying to figure out what makes a bank whom is in the business of making loans, and showing a profit for capital investment to their shareholders makes them "predatory"....

You want a true predatory lender situation, take a look at these title loan, and payday advance places that charge interest in the hundreds of percent, and typically set up shop in poorer neighborhoods.


Oh, and side note, trying to counter my argument with anything out of Edward Markey's mouth, (arguably the dumbest man to ever hold office) is really laughable.


j-mac
 
Gimmesometruth said:
BS, for the majority of home owners it has been an asset with increasing value which you already admitted can be used as collateral. Have you ever owned real property?
Click to expand...

A home has characteristics of both.
Treating a house as an asset can lead you to trouble, when you don't realize that it can also be a liability.

Gimmesometruth said:
Again, an inexperienced comment....of course there are consequences, it creates a huge black mark on your credit rating lasting for at least 5 years.
Click to expand...

Yea yea, it's so horrible that you can purchase another one 2 years after foreclosure, using an FHA mortgage.

Gimmesometruth said:
Red herring, no one said it was the only investment....oh snap, did you imply it was an investment?

Yes, you did.
Click to expand...

Yes, because a house can be both.
Most people use their homes as an investment, that's where the majority of their wealth is foolishly stored.
The problem is that homes are also liabilities.

Learn the differences between the two.

Liability Definition | Investopedia

Asset Definition | Investopedia


Gimmesometruth said:
Yes yes, millions of families in the US, most of them 2 income households, should have anticipated the massive job losses of 07-09 and the subsequent tight job market following the worst drop in the economy since 1929 and should have had enough saved up to pay their mortgages despite the fact that savings in the decades leading up to this were the lowest due to non-existent wage increases.

All of this....is their fault.
Click to expand...

Millions of two income families should have secure their savings, enough to supplement their unemployment insurance, so that they wouldn't lose their homes.
The savings rate in the U.S. is abysmal.
That problem falls on the shoulders of individuals, who choose to spend everything they earn or spend more than they earn.

So yes, for many, it is their fault.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A home has characteristics of both.
Treating a house as an asset can lead you to trouble, when you don't realize that it can also be a liability.
Click to expand...
Neither here nor there.



Yea yea, it's so horrible that you can purchase another one 2 years after foreclosure, using an FHA mortgage.
Click to expand...
Generally, no, 2 years on a short sale. I suppose one MIGHT be able to swing it before 5, but you will pay a hefty interest rate with much higher deposit levels. Again, you ARE penalized...AGAIN, the lender is covered on a short or forclosure.



Yes, because a house can be both.
Most people use their homes as an investment, that's where the majority of their wealth is foolishly stored.
The problem is that homes are also liabilities.

Learn the differences between the two.

Liability Definition | Investopedia

Asset Definition | Investopedia
Click to expand...
Pfft...is that it....that is your experience? LOL.




Millions of two income families should have secure their savings, enough to supplement their unemployment insurance, so that they wouldn't lose their homes.
The savings rate in the U.S. is abysmal.
That problem falls on the shoulders of individuals, who choose to spend everything they earn or spend more than they earn.

So yes, for many, it is their fault.
Click to expand...
Yes yes....again, you expect the individual borrower to have a better view of the economy and the lending market, a better more accurate view than Greenspan. Again, the home is the main investment for most since it is an investment that serves as dwelling. For most, there was no better investment since 401K's and stocks took the big hits previously during the dotcom bubble. AGAIN, this was huge amounts of world investment dollars looking for a safe bet. Mortgages, particularly US mortgages, had been safe since the 89 S&L crash, and everyone thought that the regulators were doing their jobs after that f'up. AGAIN, Brooksley Born saw that the investment banks were gaming the system with derivatives, Greenspan et al rejected her warnings outright. Again, you expected individual home buyers to make "rational" choices, but they can only do that when they have full knowledge of TRANSPARENT markets. The housing market, with all of its opaque lending environment, was in no way open and clear. Further, you still expect the unemployed to have expected/anticipated this massive recession.
Your expectations are unrealistic.
 
j-mac said:
I am still trying to figure out what makes a bank whom is in the business of making loans, and showing a profit for capital investment to their shareholders makes them "predatory"....
Click to expand...

It seems nothing more than they are not liked, thus must be demonized. Even if it is only 1% of those lenders that did anything wrong, paintbrush the whole lot of them.

Of course you have to wonder what the expected outcome is if they got their way and most banks quit lending money. I guess then their complaints would still focus on those they wish to demonize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom