McCain will 'suspend' campaign tomorrow

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last

  1. And the whole issue began with government making it law that banks have to lend to people with bad credit or people with lower income or their ratings would suffer which would int turn cost them more in terms of interest rates when they lend and borrow to other institutions.

    Its basically the government telling you that you either lend to these people, or your rating will go down and your interest rate to borrow/lend will be 10% vs. 5%. The amount of interest you pay is based on your rating.

    That's the part you rarely hear about because the ones who instituted these types of policies are the same ones heading the Democratic Party.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    So basically the US Gov't buys up all the bad mortgages and everything starts fresh?
    Sort of. The major problem is there isn't a real value to many of the mortgage pools. Everyone knows that in their current state the value will continue to drop until there is a floor hit. Once a floor is established you can then resell these packages and make back your money. For the most part, once a floor is established, these things will sell because over the ling run, real estate always goes up. So you are basically buying them back at maybe 50 cents on the dollar, then selling them back over time. In their current form, they are toxic because the value continues to drop...once a price is set (which the gov does when they buy them back) you can auction off these loans ot private investors over time who will make money off them.

    Anyway I can I get them to buy up my mortgage? That way I can buy a new house without taking a $70,000 bath through selling
    Unless it was a risky loan that is resetting or your undergoing foreclosure, no.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    And the whole issue began with government making it law that banks have to lend to people with bad credit or people with lower income or their ratings would suffer which would int turn cost them more in terms of interest rates when they lend and borrow to other institutions.

    Its basically the government telling you that you either lend to these people, or your rating will go down and your interest rate to borrow/lend will be 10% vs. 5%. The amount of interest you pay is based on your rating.

    That's the part you rarely hear about because the ones who instituted these types of policies are the same ones heading the Democratic Party.
    Yeah, I remember reading about the CRA that you posted before. Thanks for the explanation. This situation will not be pretty. Any chance we go into a huge recession even with the bail out?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    That's the part you rarely hear about because the ones who instituted these types of policies are the same ones heading the Democratic Party.
    this is beyond the partisan stuff. As you know the republican congress was in bed with this as well

  5. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Yeah, I remember reading about the CRA that you posted before. Thanks for the explanation. This situation will not be pretty. Any chance we go into a huge recession even with the bail out?

    Nobody knows. The theory is no...but credit is going to be tightened up for a while.

    Bottom line, don't spend more than you have.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    Unless it was a risky loan that is resetting or your undergoing foreclosure, no.
    So you're saying I need to stop paying my mortgage.......

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    this is beyond the partisan stuff. As you know the republican congress was in bed with this as well
    As I stated before, yes they were but many of them aren't around anymore. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are for the most part, Democrat entities and many of those are still in power and the ones trying to fix it now. Its not partisan, its just a fact. Republicans are more tied with oil and energy.

    What happened is not against the law. In fact, it was bad laws that enables this.

    This talk about more regulation is a smoke screen to cover up the laws they enacted. Its basically saying, I know I created a bad law but was too incompetent to foresee what other people would do and the Bush should have seen this coming and regulated the problem I created in the first place.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    Bottom line, don't spend more than you have.
    its comical to say that on one hand, and have the federal goverment about to spend 700 billion it doesnt have to fix it. i wonder if we shouldnt just let the chips fall

  9. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    So you're saying I need to stop paying my mortgage.......
    You could, but then you probably couldn't get a loan for anything in the next 10 years

    Its tough enough with a score above 700...cna't imagine the interst rate you would pay with a FICO score of 500.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  10. people are going to be renting for a while.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    its comical to say that on one hand, and have the federal goverment about to spend 700 billion it doesnt have to fix it. i wonder if we shouldnt just let the chips fall
    As with everything, there are some times when reality trumps ideology.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    You could, but then you probably couldn't get a loan for anything in the next 10 years

    Its tough enough with a score above 700...cna't imagine the interst rate you would pay with a FICO score of 500.
    I know, was just joking. I bought in 2006 right before the market plummeted. Got bought a new town home in a suburb of DC for 400k....which was actually a good deal at the time as most people were paying 440-450k.

    Its depressing that someone is asking for 330k in our neighborhood now and even they're not selling.

    We'd like to move in like a year as we have 2 kids and our house is shrinking, but I just don't see that happening. Oh well, it should go up in value SOMEDAY

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    people are going to be renting for a while.
    Actually, if this goes through you might see a rush to buy a lot of deflated properties.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. I agree, however it will depend upon who does the buying.


    outside of that, losts of rentals will be moving

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I agree, however it will depend upon who does the buying.


    outside of that, losts of rentals will be moving
    There's a lot of people renting out houses in my neighborhood....probably because nothing is selling.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I agree, however it will depend upon who does the buying.
    Investors always drive the market. Once the investors start buying, prices rise and the cycle starts again and average Joe follows along.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Rugger View Post
    You think anyone knows how to right the ship? You think Obama will explicitly spell out a plan to shape things up? Do you think McCain would be able to?? Riiiiight. The brightest minds in the financials sector (smarter than both candidates btw) have no ide what to do.

    If they don't figure out this stupid 'bail out' bill, America could be shoulder deep in **** come election day.

    You act like this will be the only chance the American people EVER get to hear about the candidates' plans. Washington is more important than 1 debate-

    ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WILL BE RESCHEDULED

    They both have planes able to fly them from DC to the debate.

    When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    The debates went forward.

    NOW is the exact time that you want to see the two candidates debate.

    All McCain wants to do is make it all about himself.
    He knows what the polls suggest, and needed something to put the spotlight back on himself. He wants to bring his campaign to capital hill....

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    They both have planes able to fly them from DC to the debate.

    When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    The debates went forward.

    NOW is the exact time that you want to see the two candidates debate.

    All McCain wants to do is make it all about himself.
    He knows what the polls suggest, and needed something to put the spotlight back on himself. He wants to bring his campaign to capital hill....
    I do think both candidates should be on the senate floor helping lead their party to a resolution on this bill.

    However, I see no reason why the debate shouldn't go forward. I think Obama was upset that he spent all this time studying up for the debate and now McCain wanted to no-show due to some pesky market collapse.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    The debates went forward.
    Not really analogous to this situation. They actually have a job to do in DC this week and their leadership there can be an asset to the American people.

  20. When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    There wasn't pending financial and economic doom that called for immediate action.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Rugger View Post
    When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    There wasn't pending financial and economic doom that called for immediate action.
    Exactly....if the guy running at the time was a Navy Admiral his duty would have caused him to postpone the debates.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Rugger View Post
    When the USS Cole was bombed, guess what?
    There wasn't pending financial and economic doom that called for immediate action.

    Immediate action?

    LOL.

    He called David Letterman to cancel his appearance on the show and told him he was RUSHING BACK TO WASHINGTON immediately.

    Then Dave played live feed of McCain getting make-up applied for an interview with Katie Couric.

    A deal was nearly finished, and now McCain just wants to go to capital hill for the photo op.

    Oh, and he also now wants the VP debate postponed as well.
    Maybe Palin needs to meet with the "witch hunter" pastor to be blessed again.

    We're supposed to elect one of these two guys 40 days from now, and this guy can't take a couple of hours to EXPLAIN TO AMERICA how he intends on fixing the mess that his obsessive desire to have less regulation created...

    "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

    John McCain, September 2008


    Nuff Said.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post

    "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

    — John McCain, September 2008


    Nuff Said.
    Factcheck.org


    Out of Context on Health Care
    September 22, 2008
    Obama ad twists McCain's words on health care "deregulation."
    Summary
    An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

    The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance "as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines.
    Analysis
    The Obama-Biden campaign released the ad Sept. 22 and said it will air on national cable TV networks. It claims that McCain said he would "reduce oversight of the health insurance industry ... just 'as we have done over the last decade in banking.' " But the ad takes the comments out of context, failing to explain what exactly McCain meant by the comparison to banking. He was talking specifically about allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance plans across state lines.


    McCain's words come from an article under his byline in the September/October issue of "Contingencies," a journal of the American Academy of Actuaries. Here's what the McCain article actually said, in full context:

    McCain: I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation.

    Note that McCain began by speaking of buying insurance "across state lines." His comparison with banking regulation was limited to "opening up the insurance market" to "nationwide" competition to "provide more choices" to consumers.

    McCain has in fact touted this aspect of his health care plan for months. His Web page on health care prominently says:

    McCain health care plan: An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

    Obama used this misleading accusation on the campaign trail over the weekend. In Daytona Beach, Florida, on Sept. 20, Obama said: "So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street."

    The analogy to banking in the article was poorly timed, given recent financial events, though it's likely it was written well before Wall Street's crisis reached its climax last week. McCain senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin complained to reporters that Obama misunderstood what McCain meant: "If Barack Obama thinks that today's financial troubles were caused by policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country, then it is better that he continue to be silent about solutions to the crisis on Wall Street," he said. Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal that the article was talking about provisions that allowed for banking across state lines, which were approved in 1995 – not "over the last decade," as the article said.

    Obama adviser Jason Furman said that it seemed to him that McCain was referencing 2004 rules that, the Journal reported, "pre-empted state banking regulations and that, [Furman] argues, helped bring on the current financial meltdown." McCain did not cite specific legislation. But it is clear he was comparing such regulations to his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

    We’d also note that this was not "an article praising Wall Street deregulation," as the ad says. Wall Street itself is never mentioned, and the only reference to banking or the financial industry is that one line about regulation over the past decade.

    This ad reminds us of another by the Democratic National Committee that took McCain's comments out of context. That ad charged that McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his full remarks showed that he was talking about a peaceful presence in the country, much like U.S. troops' presence in Japan or South Korea, two examples McCain used in his remarks. McCain said staying in Iraq for a hundred years "would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." The DNC left that part of the quote out of the ad.

    An Accurate Quote

    The Obama-Biden ad ends by calling McCain's plan "a prescription for disaster," as those words, credited to the Boston Globe, flash on screen. Unlike the first quote cited in the ad, this one is accurate. It comes from a Sept. 21 Globe editorial that compared McCain's and Obama's health care plan, raising objections to McCain's. Here's the quote in context:

    Globe editorial (Sept. 21): There is no comparable lab test, however, for the radical revision of healthcare that McCain is proposing. For all of his moderate positions on immigration and climate change, on healthcare he has endorsed a right-wing ideologue's vision: destroy employer-based coverage and turn Americans over to the tender mercies of private nongroup insurers in an unregulated environment. It's a prescription for disaster.

    Obama and Biden may share that assessment of McCain's plan, as their ad says. But the ad's main criticism rests on distorting McCain's words rather than evaluating an actual component of his health care proposal.

    – by Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    Immediate action?

    LOL.

    He called David Letterman to cancel his appearance on the show and told him he was RUSHING BACK TO WASHINGTON immediately.

    Then Dave played live feed of McCain getting make-up applied for an interview with Katie Couric.

    A deal was nearly finished, and now McCain just wants to go to capital hill for the photo op.

    Oh, and he also now wants the VP debate postponed as well.
    Maybe Palin needs to meet with the "witch hunter" pastor to be blessed again.

    We're supposed to elect one of these two guys 40 days from now, and this guy can't take a couple of hours to EXPLAIN TO AMERICA how he intends on fixing the mess that his obsessive desire to have less regulation created...

    "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

    John McCain, September 2008


    Nuff Said.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

    There's your Fannie regulatory bill from 2005 that McCain helped push forward that was blocked by Obama, Dodd, Kerry, and Clinton.

    You should also look into the Community Reinvestment Act rewrite of 1995 (I get that right JP?). Its what loosened the guidelines for loans to begin with and created the subprime market.

  25. On top of that:

    S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

    1/26/2005--Introduced.
    Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
    Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
    Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
    Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
    Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.




    "Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

    The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

    For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.


    I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole"
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. McCain Campaign's Race Baiting HOAX.
    By Arrogant in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-25-2008, 01:07 AM
  2. George Will-- McCain is unfit for the presidency
    By BodyWizard in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 10:32 AM
  3. Deconstructing the Hypocrisy of the McCain Campaign
    By BodyWizard in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 07:57 AM
  4. McCain and Palin Campaign poster
    By Jayhawkk in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Log in
Log in