another meaningful win for Dems last night

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

not possible....we were repeatedly told the tea party terrorists were an irrelevant tiny band of racists and malcontents that could not possibly have had the numbers to matter... let alone cause the historic losses for the O Man

Occupy Wall Street is having just as much influence, right?

Actually Spence, it started over frustration over a homeowner bailout program that Rick Santilli (spelling) railed against, expressing frustration that those who chose to live within their means, should be forced to bail out those who bought more house than they could afford.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Occupy Wall Street is having just as much influence, right?

Actually Spence, it started over frustration over a homeowner bailout program that Rick Santilli (spelling) railed against, expressing frustration that those who chose to live within their means, should be forced to bail out those who bought more house than they could afford.

What a disaster it would have been for every home owner if the bailout didn't happen and the number of foreclosures were 2-3 times as high. One of Bush and Paulson's best decisions, followed my smart additions from Obama. A huge problem is that regulations that help to reduce the chance of another bust are either already chopped or are on the chopping block with Comrade Clementine in the Maralago House.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What a disaster it would have been for every home owner if the bailout didn't happen and the number of foreclosures were 2-3 times as high. One of Bush and Paulson's best decisions, followed my smart additions from Obama. A huge problem is that regulations that help to reduce the chance of another bust are either already chopped or are on the chopping block with Comrade Clementine in the Maralago House.

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification"

It's simple, I agree. But that's what led to the birth of the tea party. If you want to deny the earth is round to serve your agenda, knock yourself out.

"The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing"

I think every foreclosure in history was caused by this. What was unique about the 2008 crash, is how many subprime mortgages were out there, houses that people (even when they were still working) never should have qualified for. It was the abandonment of sound mortgage underwriting, combined with the way these crappy mortgages were bundled into financial instruments that almost no one understands (credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations) that caused the crash.

"The net result was more money for every home owner."

if you ignore the fact that the bailout has to be paid for, you might be right. All ideas look great when, during the cost/benefit analysis, you focus on the benefit and ignore the cost.

I'm not saying I was opposed to the bailout, I have more empathy for people in despair than most folks do. I was pointing out what led to the genesis if the tea party, I was not taking a stance on whether or not the bailouts were a good idea,

"Those people you are referring to weren't punished"

They paid for mistakes that others made.

"We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path"

yes we will. Where would you say we are right now, 15 months into his presidency, from an economic perspective? I notice you didn't comment on that. Stock market, unemployment, GDP, homeownership, are those looking good, or no?

And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals. It would be very convenient for you if that were true, and if it were true, I'd probably be a liberal. It's not remotely close to being true.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"

And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals.

That is a ridiculous leap. I never said it was about caring for people who struggled. It was about the national and international economic disaster it contributed to. It did not affect only the people with a mortgage, it by proxy affected every worker, business owner, the entire fabric of the well being of the country. Yes, that might have motivated Santelli, doesn't mean his ideas weren't short sighted and based on emotion and not a comprehensive evaluation of the potential outcomes. Bailout was a net gain for everyone given the +7 point swing in GDP that followed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

100 percent in agreement with you there and if others do not agree with that, then they live in fantasy land with orange people.

At 57 I am done with freeloaders. Entitlement is O- V - A OVER!!! You have to EARN it. The I want it all and want it now generation can suck it. I realize there are still plenty of young hard working people setting an example but it seems they are far and few between and it is really sad. I am smart enough to realize when I am old enough for my money to be returned to me, that I will have to make other accommodations for income thanks to our special people we call government.

Maybe it's about choices and accountability, you know , responsibility. I made sacrifices and busted butt to get thru 3 down cycles and never got bailed out by anyone. I help out others as I can whether it is financially when able or by donating my time or blood. Everyone can pitch in their way too, it is their choice. We are supposed to be a free country.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

100 percent in agreement with you there and if others do not agree with that, then they live in fantasy land with orange people.

At 57 I am done with freeloaders. Entitlement is O- V - A OVER!!! You have to EARN it. The I want it all and want it now generation can suck it. I realize there are still plenty of young hard working people setting an example but it seems they are far and few between and it is really sad. I am smart enough to realize when I am old enough for my money to be returned to me, that I will have to make other accommodations for income thanks to our special people we call government.

Maybe it's about choices and accountability, you know , responsibility. I made sacrifices and busted butt to get thru 3 down cycles and never got bailed out by anyone. I help out others as I can whether it is financially when able or by donating my time or blood. Everyone can pitch in their way too, it is their choice. We are supposed to be a free country.

So you would have approved more of another depression, rather than a return to economic stability? Taxes weren't raised. They reduced and were at historic lows. The money has come back in multiples. The rate of increase in the deficit dropped. Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with, but you would have let the entire economy completely tank because of the spirit of it? That is an emotional decision, not sound economic policy.

[Slipknot]

"I am not sure where you are getting that"

Originally Posted by zimmy

Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with,

I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

"I am not sure where you are getting that"



I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

Jim, as usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The HARP program wasn't simply giving money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford, it allowed homeowners underwater because of the housing bubble bursting to refi.

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

I really hope we are not approaching phase two of this...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

That was covered under "predatory lending."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That was covered under "predatory lending."

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.