Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-09-24 21:14:46
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command

lowing wrote:

The consumer

But do not try and tell the liberals that, they have someone to blame for every act and every decision that does not result in total success for them.

Blame the banks, blame the govt., blame Bush, blame the rich, hell now you can even blame history,  take your pick, but do not for one second blame the idiot who put HIMSELF in a debt and can not/will not pay.
Median home price verses median income.


See a problem?

If not, you are either a blind fool or a partisan shcill.
2008-09-24 21:51:20
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

It makes you wonder why only a small percentage of homes are in foreclosure. Prices have to come down. It's very hard to compete against a short sale if you are selling your home. Of course now the banks will be more willing to take a loss... and adding insult to injury it will be our taxes that will make up the difference. It will be this way until the massive inventory dries up. There is a lot of banked owned property that needs to be sold before anyone takes a real interest in your house.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-09-24 22:09:50
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

It makes you wonder why only a small percentage of homes are in foreclosure.
IDK.

I heard the other day that 70% of American families living in poverty have no adult working.

In  other words, if a coupla can both work, you can live the dream.



My and the wife are starting ( it's her baby ) a catering business. I am an ace cook and she is artistic and has experience.


I don't give a rats ass about Bear and Stearns ruin, or my own temporary one.

I thank God almost every day that I am an American. I live in the land of the most freedom and prosperity.

I know that as long as the soulless politicians and cyborg news casters keep telling us things are bad things will be hard.

But I have 100% confidence that if left unfettered from government and press interference I would DO JUST  FINE.
2008-09-24 22:13:48
Schwarzelungen
drunklenglungen
+133|6602|Bloomington Indiana
i dont care who's fault it is.....

just fix it
2008-09-25 02:53:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Consumers for overextending themselves.

Financial institutions for 1) lending to people they shouldn't; and 2) packaging bad debt as securities and selling them to fund more bad lending.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-25 03:35:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861
Too complicated to comment on without a doctorate in economics. And US congressmen have to vote on plans 'immediately'....

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-25 03:36:08)

2008-09-25 03:42:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861
The answer is actually this: the consumer, the banks and the government.

The consumer for not realising that growth isn't perpetual and that cheap credit can become expensive very quickly.
The banks for inventing all manner of 'financial instruments' to hide dodgy debt - leading to false confidence and bank massively overstepping the point of no return.
The government for not regulating the markets properly.

Edit: FEOS beat me to it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-25 03:42:30)

2008-09-25 03:59:52
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7115|Nårvei

Think that usmarine,Kmarion, FEOS and Cam pretty much nailed it ... it's not one simple answer to this, it's a combination of several factors ... that the US debt is so big is also in the equation somewhere ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-09-25 04:19:06
PureFodder
Member
+225|6591

Varegg wrote:

Think that usmarine,Kmarion, FEOS and Cam pretty much nailed it ... it's not one simple answer to this, it's a combination of several factors ... that the US debt is so big is also in the equation somewhere ...
The US debt as a percentage of GDP is actually nothing remarkable. It just looks big because of the size of the growing economy and inflation.
2008-09-25 04:31:08
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7115|Nårvei

PureFodder wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Think that usmarine,Kmarion, FEOS and Cam pretty much nailed it ... it's not one simple answer to this, it's a combination of several factors ... that the US debt is so big is also in the equation somewhere ...
The US debt as a percentage of GDP is actually nothing remarkable. It just looks big because of the size of the growing economy and inflation.
To the below average American it looks and gives a signal that they also can have debt ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-09-25 10:50:20
dANNN
Member
+3|6011|Leeds Uk
The fault was the american banks who loaned americans money when it was obvious they could not pay it back. Hence the debt.
2008-09-25 11:05:48
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6796|Northern California
Poor family values, broken homes, habitually learned failure and unethical behavior...all because the decay of the family.

When the marketing guys at Visa touted their speedy checkout commercials which sang the song of "have now, pay later...if ever!" they were supported by Visa's governing board....both groups of people would not behave like that if they learned honesty, fair dealings, and responsibility in the home.

If Senators Stevens had learned in his youth from his parents that you don't lie, cheat, and steal from others, he might not be in a courtroom this week.

If the federal reserve bankers who started their system of credit and debt had learned proper patriotic principles of honesty, modesty, and basic morality from their mommies and daddies when they were young, they may not have prostituted their country for money. 


Can people be corrupted who learned properly from their parents, possibly, though it's impossible to tell.  But overwhelming evidence to the contrary is there...that correctly principled children produce much better adults in society, the world over.

And that's my solution to everything...strong, educated, principled families.  Families of failure are to blame for the bad economy, for the wars, for the greed that permeates everything, and for the GTA game sales! lol
2008-09-25 11:08:31
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6977|UK

Pug wrote:

I thought I'd oversimplify this for discussion purposes.


Well, its the consumer.  Load your ass up on debt.  Ask for more debt.  More debt is given to you.

Is it right to blame the government?  They are merely giving the consumer what they want, right?
Why are you lending to people who can't afford debt and then giving them more when they still cant afford it? Just because they ask doesn't mean you have to say yes.

Irresponsible lending started with the banks.  their money, their responsibility, their greed. The govement is going to bail out their ass, who going to bail out the consumer?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-09-25 11:24:47
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6847|Texas - Bigger than France

m3thod wrote:

Why are you lending to people who can't afford debt and then giving them more when they still cant afford it? Just because they ask doesn't mean you have to say yes.

Irresponsible lending started with the banks.  their money, their responsibility, their greed. The govement is going to bail out their ass, who going to bail out the consumer?
Good questions.

My theory is that the consumer wanted the money so they got what they asked for.  But how did it get there?  The consumer pressured the government to ease the requirements of the lenders.  And I would think that even the banks had the demand for the loans as well, so they also wanted it to happen as well.  But ultimately, the public wanted the debt.  And the government let it happen, because after all, the government is about serving the public.

Who's going to bail out the consumer?  Well, the consumer of course.  I would imagine in the future loans are going to be very difficult to get, even with good credit.
2008-09-25 11:27:54
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

Pug wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Why are you lending to people who can't afford debt and then giving them more when they still cant afford it? Just because they ask doesn't mean you have to say yes.

Irresponsible lending started with the banks.  their money, their responsibility, their greed. The govement is going to bail out their ass, who going to bail out the consumer?
Good questions.

My theory is that the consumer wanted the money so they got what they asked for.  But how did it get there?  The consumer pressured the government to ease the requirements of the lenders.  And I would think that even the banks had the demand for the loans as well, so they also wanted it to happen as well.  But ultimately, the public wanted the debt.  And the government let it happen, because after all, the government is about serving the public.

Who's going to bail out the consumer?  Well, the consumer of course.  I would imagine in the future loans are going to be very difficult to get, even with good credit.
The government is about serving the public interest, not serving the public. You neglect the fact that a lot of people on Wall Street made a lot of money off financial instruments disguising this debt. And no bank can be forced to issue loans to uncreditworthy people in a normal free market. No single entity or tranche of society is to blame here.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-25 11:36:15)

2008-09-25 11:28:09
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6796|Northern California

m3thod wrote:

Pug wrote:

I thought I'd oversimplify this for discussion purposes.


Well, its the consumer.  Load your ass up on debt.  Ask for more debt.  More debt is given to you.

Is it right to blame the government?  They are merely giving the consumer what they want, right?
Why are you lending to people who can't afford debt and then giving them more when they still cant afford it? Just because they ask doesn't mean you have to say yes.

Irresponsible lending started with the banks.  their money, their responsibility, their greed. The govement is going to bail out their ass, who going to bail out the consumer?
I agree to a point.  In the end, consumers' lack of responsibility is to blame.  But when a bank lends someone $850k for a home to someone with "unstated income"...who could probably afford $650k but has this great idea to rent out one of the bedrooms to offset the mortgage/income gap...

Or those dirty house flippers who buy up gobs of houses on unstated income, with variable loans, because hey, a late-night info-mercial taught him how to quickly improve and sell those homes making him a millionaire overnight!



Banks created the bubble with their greed.  That's indisputable.  Getting bailed out rewards their greed, keeps them well paid, and permeates their practices.  The bankrupted and foreclosed upon average joe learns the lesson (hopefully) through poverty and shame.  And because this cycle continues on and on, there is a clear winner for who is to blame.
2008-09-25 11:45:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Those dirty house flippers have now turned into the "We can save you from foreclosure" people. What they are doing now is much worse. They get people to sign over their deeds, take a few thousand in fee's (if possible), and negotiate a loss so they can sell the home as a short sale. The homeowner is absolutely raped. It's still happening and unsuspecting buyers are still being exploited. These assholes are capitalizing on the panic. They have no code of ethics.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-09-25 11:54:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6847|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

The government is about serving the public interest, not serving the public. You neglect the fact that a lot of people on Wall Street made a lot of money off financial instruments disguising this debt. And no bank can be forced to issue loans to uncreditworthy people in a normal free market. No single entity or tranche of society is to blame here.
I understand that point completely.  I'm illustrating what happens if you don't make the distinction you have stated.

And I know it's the fault of Israel, oh shit sorry multiple parties, but:

Lawrence Taylor once used the excuse it was "too easy" to buy crack.  Do we blame the dealer?
2008-09-25 12:02:32
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6977|UK

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The government is about serving the public interest, not serving the public. You neglect the fact that a lot of people on Wall Street made a lot of money off financial instruments disguising this debt. And no bank can be forced to issue loans to uncreditworthy people in a normal free market. No single entity or tranche of society is to blame here.
I understand that point completely.  I'm illustrating what happens if you don't make the distinction you have stated.

And I know it's the fault of Israel, oh shit sorry multiple parties, but:

Lawrence Taylor once used the excuse it was "too easy" to buy crack.  Do we blame the dealer?
The difference is the crackhead is purchasing crack, once the transaction is complete the relationship ends.  Dealer is happy.  Crackhead is happy.

The banks lend money, their service is on going and therefore a relationship must be developed and maintained.  The intial onus is upon the bank to ensure it is absolutely certain the indivdual they are prepared to lend $ too is trustworthy, credible and can maintain their relationship positively.  Of course the the onus to maintain the relationship also transfers to the borrower once funds have been provided.

Lending money to crackheads only had one conclusion.

Last edited by m3thod (2008-09-25 12:03:32)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-09-25 12:09:19
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

lowing wrote:

The consumer.
Damn straight. Borrowing more than they can afford.

Unscrupulous lenders making this extremely easy doesn't help matters either.
2008-09-25 12:11:59
topal63
. . .
+533|7024

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The consumer.
Damn straight. Borrowing more than they can afford.

Unscrupulous lenders making this extremely easy doesn't help matters either.
LOL
2008-09-25 12:12:08
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6847|Texas - Bigger than France
I would think Lawrence Taylor bought crack more than once...

...I hope you understand the banks were free to meet the demand of the public.  Ultimately the demand for crack is not generated by the dealer.

The onus used to be on the bank...but at some point political pressure was put on the government, so the requirements were dropped. 

Secondly, after the loan is issued: if I've put no money down...I have something I shouldn't be able to afford anyway...what am I exactly risking?  Nothing.  So why do I have to maintain a relationship with the bank when there's no risk?

Last edited by Pug (2008-09-25 12:13:06)

2008-09-25 12:12:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

War Man wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Overspending = loss of dollar value.

Bush' fault.
The democrats are the overspenders
In theory. In actual fact the opposite is true (for the last 30 years in the US at least).
2008-09-25 12:13:05
PureFodder
Member
+225|6591
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet … shington24
The guys at the top may actually have to face some responsability. Go FBI!
2008-09-25 12:13:52
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

@method, That's true so far as servicing the loans. However most loans are bought and sold on the secondary market. This is where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate. Although the loans were risky banks still bought them from Freddie/Fannie because they were backed by the government.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard