1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The White House Circus Continues

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Pastor Larry, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Obama has shown no leadership. He has only done what Pelosi has told himto.
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    If you want to get into a pi**ing contest about leadership, IMHO Obama has shown no more leadership than Bush did in his last two years in office. And I voted for the man- Bush, that is.
     
  3. chuck2336

    chuck2336 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2

    When? Where? HOW?

    :BangHead:
     
  4. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    On the dance floors the night of the inaugural balls. He led, Michelle followed doing the box step.
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Where did I say I approved of this? I said it's seems to be what's happening. If both sides would tell the truth then the American people would be clear where they stood. Instead, all the facts are an attempt at spin proof information wich sounds deceptive from the start.

    Lets stick to the facts, 5 million people lost their jobs since this crises started yet around 7% of all mortgages are bad. Loosing your job wasn't lying or the consumers fault. Some of these bad loans were from sub prime tricks like balloon loans, stated income, 125% to property value etc... There was also predatory lending practices. I hold the banks equally guilty for those loans but the banks already got and spent their money. So when you say people lied, that is another twisting of facts by the right. You make it sound like everyone of these loans came about because someone who knew they couldn't pay this money back lied on their application. That is a gross distortion of reality.

    I can't say there wasn't a few people who lied on their application or not but I do know it was the underwriters job to check all the facts presented. So why would we penalize or not help all the honest folks trying to get by like you and I because a few people slipped a lie past the bankers whose underwriter was paid to assure didn't happen? That is like not feeding any of the hungry because a couple MIGHT have food at the house.

    I have no proof or concern about that. That seems to be the beef of the right. My God maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Since I am here to serve God and not be god, who am I to decide who gets blessed or not? I am saying these things are not purely focused at them like the right would like us to believe.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    sigh...........what logic leads one to think that balloon loans are tricks?:rolleyes:
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because of how they were presented. They took people with bad credit who otherwise wouldn't get a loan or afford the house and said I will give you 1.5% or 3% interest the first three years so you can make your payments. Then by the time your payments begin to rise, your credit will be better so you can refinance into a better fixed rate loan.

    That was a blatant lie and deception by the lender. If your credit is so bad today that you don't qualify for a loan, how can they say I can qualify 3 years from now? IOW, if the person wasn't paying their bills before, what makes them so sure they will pay them over the next three years? That is how they were a trick.
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have any proof of this statement?
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First, it cannot be classified as a trick if they are aware of the terms. This is just a very poor attempt to redirect attention from the fact that government regulated loans to those who would other wise have not qualified. And Democrats such as Frank and his ilk screamed and cried and threw a temper tantrum when Repubs suggested this was going to cause a problem.

    BY the way it is entirely possible to bring your credit up to a refinance level within the time frame given by lenders which typically is 5 years before balloons kick in.
     
  10. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many borrowers opted for a ARM or balloon mortgage so that they could maximze the amount that they could borrow because they wanted a bigger-better house than they could afford with a conventional mortgage. They believed that the value of the house would increase and at the end of the ARM they could refinance into a conventional mortgage or simply refinance into another ARM.

    IMO if one is old enough/mature enough/ savy enough to buy a house and take a mortgage on it they should be old enough/mature enough/savy enough to live with the eventualities of it. Why are the lenders now responsible for a decline in housing values?

    Many borrowers went with a stated income mortgage. Lenders do not verify income with these types of mortgages - that's what stated means. But that does not excuse borrowers from not telling the truth.

    Many borrowers were new at their job when they took out their non-conventional mortgages because they were on the job for less than a year they would not qualify for a conventional mortgage.

    Laying fault at the feet of the lenders in these circumstances is unjust.

    Why do you insist on doing this in your effort to defend the lack of personal responsibility of many of the borrowers?
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    </sigh> That is why it was called predatory lending. Not everyone (or anyone in my view) who took these loans clearly understood the terms. Also, the government regulation is not what invented ARM and Stated Income etc... That was greedy bankers running away with the concept due to lack of regulation. You know regulation don't you? That things the republican's never want when wall street might get rich but was tons of when it might benefit the less fortunate.

    Possible = yes... Likely with a person who wasn't paying their bills to begin with = not hardly... That's why we have credit ratings.
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So we needed to regulation to handle the regulation? It was repubs that called for regulation on fannie and freddie but ti was dems that cried about doing it. See it doesn't matter who many circles you run in or how many verbal gymnastics you attempt to perform it always comes back to the facts. It was the dems that were against regulation.



    And that is why there never should have been fannie and freddie in the first place. Regulation caused this mess. Period.
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry to rearrange your sentences but it makes it easier to respond, a person goes to a bank, the very bank where you have your money, for more house that they can't afford. Through what ever gimmick, ARM, Balloon etc... the banker lets them walk out with your money. You really find no fault with the banker? Seriously?

    Who invented this concept? Again, this is the bank where you put your money. I walk in off the street and ask for a loan. I fill out the application and your bank does absolutely no checking. IOW they take my word this is how much I make etc... You're ok with your bank doing that? There is nothing but greed from the very invention of the concept.

    Again, this is your bank... I just got a job. Been there less than a year so I can walk in your bank and come out with your money? An you think your banker has no blame in this? Now I would consider work history but new to a job is clearly a flag and not a reason to move to "non-conventional" loans...

    The question is why do you read my statements that way. Here is what I said.

    I said they are both guilty... Why do you think the banks should get none of the blame?
     
  14. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    LeBuick, the banks were doing what Barney Frank and his accomplices (along with ACORN) forced them to do under threat of putting them out of business.

    Based on your equal guilt attitude would you agree that everyone in a mortgage that they can't afford now should be requalified for conventional 30 year fixed 20% down mortgages with a payment not exceeding 32% of their take home after tax pay?

    And that everyone else should loose their homes rather than coming up with an alternative non-conventional mortgage because it would not be fair for the banks to trick them?
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, we needed regulation to regulate how the program was being administered. Look, we just gave AIG billions of dollars to what do they do, they give out $1.2 in bonuses. That is why we need regulation. When we don't regulate these guys, they do things like this. The only difference, their robbery is legal.

    The Repubs had both houses the first 6 years of the Bush administration. Why didn't they force something through like the dems just did with the stimulus instead of whining about how the dems were against it. We had put the Republican's in charge for a reason and what did they do. Exactly what they are doing now, nothing... Talking about the problems and proposing absolutely zero viable solutions.

    I agree, Clinton gets the blame for that bad idea of an institution...

    If man would do right, we wouldn't need regulation. In fact, if man would do right, Jesus would not have had to die. It is because man won't do right that Jesus died and we need regulation.
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Another twisting of the facts from the right. The program made RISKIER loans available to less fortunate Americans but it was no license to do the stupid things they did. That was all greed of both the lenders and consumers... However, the consumers can't consume what the lenders won't lend.

    No... When I say equally guilty I am talking about the small percentage of truly bad loans. My personal belief is that the bulk of these loans are with people who are now unemployed or under employed to the economic conditions. Their loan was good when it was made but their situation changed.

    No, I think Obama has a good plan and would like to see it given a chance. The more I look at his plan the more brilliance I see in it. Yes, his plan means a lot of people who can't afford the home they have will still be foreclosed but a heck of a lot more will keep their house if they are willing to work for it and show they deserve it. Unfortunately, those who are grossly underemployed or still unemployed will still loose their homes but we as tax payers can't save all of them... Don't you agree?
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AIG is irrelevant.



    Nice redirect but it will not work. Libbies are crying about deregulation but refused to regulate fannie and freddie.Once again they accuse others of what they are doing and not the others. And you are making a poor attempt to defend that. But it doesn't work.


    How about people being responsible for themselves and dems stop trying to control everything under the guise of the evil man.
     
Loading...