Truth on the subprime bullscam.

mook

Potential Star
Registered
Don't be deterred by the finance industry's jargon (which is intended to numb your brain and keep regular folks from even trying to figure out what's going on). At its core, this is a classically simple story of banker greed and outright sleaze. And the astonishing part is that nearly all of the rank injustice perpetrated by today's money changers is considered legal and is practiced by supposedly reputable financial firms.

That's when avaricious mortgage hucksters and high-finance manipulators looked upon this broad pool of needy, vulnerable castoffs and suddenly shouted, "Eureka, GOLD!" With interest rates remarkably low, housing prices seemingly on a nonstop rise, and (this is the Big One) practically no regulation of this low-income market, the money changers promptly began to devise clever, Enronian schemes to entice such "subprime" borrowers into high-interest, high-fee loans. Never mind that these families really could not afford (and mostly did not understand) the level of debt being piled on their backs. That was a matter for manana. Today was for raking in profits from the poor.

The subprime schemes are run through an intricate, intertwined system of loan brokers, mortgage lenders, Wall Street trusts, hedge funds, offshore tax havens and other predators. To entrap borrowers, the industry created an arsenal of arcane financial devices and maneuvers known by such exotic names as "exploding ARMs," YSPs, teaser rates, low-doc mortgages, loan flipping and equity stripping. Ultimately, these schemes are scams, extracting high payments from the families, sucking out any equity they might build up and stealing their homes.

This is one of those economic stories, like the savings-and-loan scam of the 1980s, that are usually buried back in the business section of newspapers. But, just as with the S&L collapse, this debacle is growing too big to contain, and all of us need to be paying attention. The built-in traps of the subprime mortgage market have already taken the homes of more than a million people in just the past year, and the dangers are quickly rising for millions more. This collapse in homeownership for the working poor has begun seeping into the rest of the economy, causing thousands of job losses, shaking the soundness and reputations of some major Wall Street firms, and slowly - ever so sloooowly - forcing lackadaisical bank regulators and clueless politicians out of their laissez-faire stupor.

How It Works

You might have seen some of the come-ons: "Bad Credit? No Problem!" "Zero Percent Down Payment!" "Creative Financing!" "No Documentation Needed!" "Quick and Easy Money!"
The key to building the subprime market is hustle and flimflam-trying to rush anxious, uninformed people into signing on the dotted line for what they're assured is the deal of a lifetime. Of course, the mortgage industry casts its work in a noble light, asserting that its primary purpose is to help extend the joys of homeownership to the masses. But an examination of key players reveals little altruism.

BROKERS. These are independent, local operators who troll for borrowers in your town and mine, using flyers, doorbells, phone calls, personal contacts, websites, late-night TV ads, data banks and every means imaginable to get low-wage renters to sit still for a home-loan sales pitch or to find vulnerable homeowners who can be talked into taking out a refinancing loan. Brokers don't actually make the loans, service them or have any stake in whether the deals work out. Rather, they are simply "finders" who are paid an upfront fee by the mortgage lenders for every borrower they deliver. And 71 percent of all subprime mortgages come through them.
The pretense is that the broker is the borrower's trusted advisor in the shark-infested waters of banking. Au contraire, Bubba. In most states, agents have no legal responsibility to represent a buyer's best interest. And, in fact, they don't, for the system gives brokers lucrative incentives to deceive borrowers.

Through a common practice called "steering," unsuspecting families are guided into the most expensive, riskiest subprime loans. For doing this dirty job, brokers are paid cash bonuses called "yield spread premiums" (YSPs) - though you would call them by their more common name: kickbacks. The Center for Responsible Lending reports that these YSP payoffs, averaging $1,850 per loan, are added to about 90 percent of all subprime loans. That's right, struggling families are silently assessed an extra fee for being secretly steered into a loan with higher interest rates and worse terms than they're entitled to get. They're literally being robbed by their bankers.

LENDERS. These are the brand-name players you might recognize. They include nonbank lenders - for example, New Century Financial, Ameriquest, Option One, Countrywide and Ownit Mortgage Solutions - that sprang up to tap into the new subprime gold rush, and several of them are now bankrupt or under investigation. Many big banking firms, including Wells Fargo, Lehman Brothers and Citigroup, also joined the free-for-all by setting up their own subprime subsidiaries,

Brokers are on the front lines, but the lenders are the ones who invented the scams that are bleeding borrowers. Only a decade ago, subprime loans were a mere fraction of the home-loan market. Today, these financial instruments are an $800 billion business - about 20 percent of all housing loans.

How did the subprime market mushroom? The lenders - again, they are not subject to regulation - drastically and deceptively lowered normal banking standards to draw in low-income borrowers. As one broker says, "The culture around all these subprime lenders has been, 'Hey, bring it to us. We'll make it happen.'" If a borrower can pay little or nothing down, recently had a bankruptcy, and doesn't have the income to keep up payments, the bankers say, "That's OK. Bring us that loan."

Rather than do due diligence, lenders cavalierly offer "low-doc" and "stated income" loans - i.e., they make little or no effort to document an applicant's ability to take on this burden, instead accepting almost anyone's word about having the income to meet monthly payments. "You could be dead and get a loan," says one broker.

The loans themselves are doozies, filled with numerous and nasty provisions that set unwitting borrowers up for failure. These are tucked into 20-page loan agreements written in legal gibberish. A friendly, reassuring, always smiling loan agent flips through the pages saying, "It's simple, just sign here ... and here ... and here." Among the nasties are:

TEASERS. Subprime interest rates are loudly advertised to be only 7 percent or so, with only small-type notice that these are "adjustable rate mortgages" (ARMs). This means that the interest rate will explode to 11 percent or more after a couple of years, causing the families' monthly payments to jump by half or more. Over 90 percent of subprime loans contain ARMs.

BLOATED APPRAISALS. Subprime lenders are notorious for pressuring appraisers to inflate the value of a house, thus causing the borrower to take out a bigger loan than the house is worth.

HIDE-THE-ESCROW. In conventional loans, the borrower's property taxes and mortgage insurance premiums are figured directly into the monthly loan payments, with these monies set aside in an escrow account. For subprime loans, however, lenders often don't include these costly items in the mortgage, thus making the loans appear more affordable than they really are. This leads to borrower shock (and sometimes default) when the tax and insurance bills arrive separately in the mailbox. At this point, ever-helpful lenders offer to refinance the loan, thus collecting additional fees.

EXCESSIVE FEES. On conventional mortgages, various lender fees typically total less than 1 percent of the loan amount. By contrast, subprime borrowers commonly are hit with fees (hidden in mortgage payments) totaling more than 5 percent.

PREPAYMENT PENALTIES. Obviously, it's in a borrower's interest to get out of an abusive subprime loan as soon as possible and to refinance on better terms. But -Gotcha! - more than 70 percent of these loans carry a penalty fee of several thousand dollars for paying off the loan early. In the prime market, only about 2 percent of loans contain such punishment.

WALL STREET. None of the above would be happening (and certainly not on such a massive scale) if the fast-and-easy money crowd on Wall Street hadn't seen a chance to make a killing on lowly subprimers. Lured by the flow of sky-high interest rates being charged to these borrowers (and abetted by the lack of government regulation in this market), Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and other giants lumbered into the action.
They set up special investment units within their banks to buy these risky mortgages from the lenders. Then the Wall Street behemoths consolidated this bulk debt, leveraged it into complex IOUs called "mortgage-backed securities," and sold these packages to wealthy speculators around the world. This Rube Goldberg financial mechanism has shoved hundreds of billions of dollars of capital into the subprime market, fueling lenders' enthusiasm for making even more of these shaky loans.

What a system! Lenders mislead borrowers, collect fat fees from them, then shift the risk of any bad loans to Wall Street. The Wall Street repackagers then transfer the bad-loan risk to their rich investors, drawing even fatter fees. These investor elites get phenomenal yields on the IOUs, then plant their profits in tax-free havens like the Cayman Islands.

It's a brilliant Ponzi scheme ... as long as all those Mr. and Ms. Subprimes keep putting their little dabs of cash into it every month. Oops! There's the rub.

The Bust

Mr. and Ms. Subprime live on the economic edge, with little margin for financial downturns. In the last couple of years, three bad storms hit them. First, falling wages combined with growing inflation (fueled by rising prices for gasoline, utilities, healthcare, etc.) to squeeze their meager household finances to the breaking point. Second, their adjustable-rate mortgages began exploding; someone who was paying $1,000 a month at the start of a $150,000 loan had to pay $1,400 a month two years later.

Third, housing prices (which the whole system claimed would only rise and rise and rise) began tumbling, making it impossible for these borrowers to refinance or sell their homes to avoid financial foreclosure. When home sales were booming, George W declared this proved that his push for economic deregulation was creating a glorious new "ownership society." He was so enthused that he even designated June as National Home Ownership Month. But his laissez-faire "success" turns out to be a house of cards. As one market analyst says, "The gain in home ownership over the last four or five years is almost entirely due to looser lending standards [for subprime mortgages]."

Those cards are now crashing down. In the first half of this year, home foreclosures are up by 41 percent. Today, a record number of subprime borrowers have fallen behind in their monthly payments and face eviction (once you fall 90 days behind, lenders typically proceed with foreclosure). More than $2.28 trillion worth of ARMs are scheduled to explode to their higher interest rates between now and 2009. Two million families are expected to have the wrenching experience of losing their homes, as well as losing all the money they invested in them.
All of this is working its way up the economic chain. More than 80 lenders have gone out of business in the past six months, thousands of jobs are being cut, and hundreds of thousands of houses are being dumped on an already-saturated market (causing a further decline in prices, which makes other subprime homeowners even more vulnerable to foreclosure, which dumps more houses onto the market ... and the downward spiral continues).

Wall Street big shots are being stung as well. Bear Stearns, for example, has had to scramble to keep its two subprime hedge funds from imploding, bailing out one of them with a panic infusion of $1.6 billion. Analysts estimate that these funds are holding more than $200 billion worth of subprime loans that are in danger of default.

Regulatory Shame

This abuse of vulnerable families and the resulting economic mess would not have happened without the hands-off regulatory ideology that has infected our government. There are no less than five financial agencies at the federal level that could have protected people, yet the subprime surge was allowed to proceed on the fantasy that the financial players would police themselves. The Federal Reserve Board, for example, has direct authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to "prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the board finds to be unfair, deceptive or ... associated with abusive lending practices, or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower." The Fed simply ignored this law.

Finally, with the entire subprime system crashing around them, the regulators issued "guidelines" on June 29 requiring banks to stop some of the worst abuses, including prepayment penalties. But the new rules still allow many of the predatory practices and - worst of all - do not apply to the nonbank lenders that make a large share of subprime loans. In addition, the guidelines do not directly address the role of Wall Street in pushing such loans.
The subprime industry disingenuously asserts that any attempt to regulate it only hurts the poor people who receive these mortgages, for they have nowhere else to turn for homeowner financing. What self-serving hogwash! There could be subprime loans - from public, if not private, sources - structured and administered without deceit. Rather than target lower-income families as suckers to be had, packaging their dreams into investment playthings for speculators and tax dodgers, let's view these folks as assets to the larger community and realize that homes for them are investments in the common good. And while we're at it, let's recognize that the need for "subprime" mortgages is driven by our low-wage/no-benefit economy and by our country's growing scarcity of affordable housing. It's not merely a low-income mortgage system that must be fixed - our leaders' pursuit of a low-income America must be stopped.
---------
They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back. :angry:
 
However, in spite of all that, you know based on your income you can't afford a 350,000.00 house payment. You know going in you can't afford that. You could afford a 70k starter house, just like the first one I bought. But you can't wait to get to the big house. Spoiled asses had to have it all right damn now. Big house, big furnishings, big pool, big car, making 14 dollars an hour.

But even though you know it, and a great majority of these people knew it, allowed someone to put a 350,000.00 dollar morgage and higher on the table and they signed it.

I still can't afford to purchase a Lexus. I could finance one but I can't afford one. So I don't own one. Guy at the dealership told me he could get me in one, but I don't own one because I can't afford the payment. I got other shit to pay for not to mention emergancies that come up. Can't do both.

So these stories can run until the press runs out of ink. Won't change the contracts and those who signed for houses they knew they could not afford are stuck with their decision.

-VG
 
^^^

cosign. The reality of the situation is that this could have all been avoided with just a bit of financial responsibility by the home purchaser. At some point, people have to blame themselves for purchasing items beyond their means.
 
eewwll said:
^^^

cosign. The reality of the situation is that this could have all been avoided with just a bit of financial responsibility by the home purchaser. At some point, people have to blame themselves for purchasing items beyond their means.

The catch is the lenders focused on people with a track record of little financial responsiblity. They were selling crack to crackheads. Yes you have to blame the crackhead for smoking but the dealer should go to jail too.
 
I agree Tem. There is shared responsibility with this one; and "my" proration of the blame probably falls borrowers 45% and Lenders 55%. One could hardly expect the have-nots not to leap at a piece of the American dream. The dream was made to appear attractive, and they bit.

At least part of the problem appears to be whether borrowers fully understood or were fully apprised of the consequences. As you should know, its going to be hard for borrowers to rely on any unequal bargaining position or unconscionability arguments because the details were in print (whether easily understood or not) and borrowers signed off.

QueEx
 
Temujin said:
The catch is the lenders focused on people with a track record of little financial responsiblity. They were selling crack to crackheads. Yes you have to blame the crackhead for smoking but the dealer should go to jail too.

And why should the crackhead go to jail again?

-VG
 
I am in VG's camp. You can be tempted with anything. If I fucked a hooker, would "she shook her ass at me!" be an acceptable excuse to my wife ? Even if I wanted to fuck her, it would still be sqarely and solely my responsibility that I did it. As a middle class American who owned a house through this boom, and now bust, here is what I've seen:

A: People tend to want as much as they can get, and will do many things to get it,

B: People are competitive. Many want not to keep up with the Jones's, but surpass the Jones's. In the course of doing so, bit off more than they could chew.

C: Because of A & B, people are subject to getting suckered. In pursuit of getting thier ego satisfied without enough tempering it with reason, they got into this pickle.

Now, me and my wife received many offers weekly to refinance, and it all seemed to be what it turned out to be - BULLSHIT. I kept my very low interest rate, and am sitting on a sizable chink of equity. I didn't take out money to buy a new Armada. I didn't fund a trip to Barbados, or fatten up the amount of bling in jewelry box for wifey. And you know what, it was no great sacrifice. I knew there was no free lunch. Now, many of those people who fucked up will probably want those of us who didn't take the bait to help bail them out. And that's fucked up. But, to repeat, it is usually your greed that leaves you open for shadyness. Holla.
 
QueEx said:
I agree Tem. There is shared responsibility with this one; and "my" proration of the blame probably falls borrowers 45% and Lenders 55%. One could hardly expect the have-nots not to leap at a piece of the American dream. The dream was made to appear attractive, and they bit.

At least part of the problem appears to be whether borrowers fully understood or were fully apprised of the consequences. As you should know, its going to be hard for borrowers to rely on any unequal bargaining position or unconscionability arguments because the details were in print (whether easily understood or not) and borrowers signed off.

QueEx

Using that scenario, if somebody breaks into my car and jacks my stereo, it's particially my fault for desiring to listen to a CD.

Look QueEx, we are not talking about stupid people here. There are millions of people who saw those same deals and tossed it in the trash. Either that or they decided to wait until they can find a peice of the American dream better suited to their income.

How are you going to assess blame on anyone other than those who were too damn impatient and too selfish to be realistic? I can't tell you how many credit card offers and those instant money checks that show up in my mailbox weekly and all I have to do is sign them. Household Finance sends me live damn checks for 130k from time to time. Is it their fault if I cash the check?

Can I sue them for making my signature the ONLY requirement to get the cash?

-VG
 
VG,

I think you underestimated or, perhaps, overestimated my response. I see the same offers in my mailbox as you mentioned and temptation last no more than the second it takes me to toss the shit in the wastebasket.

On the otherhand, one of my major clients is a public housing authority and I happen to see first hand some of the gullible people of the world. Mind you, the public housing authority is in the business just the opposite of the predatory lenders and brokers, that is, it sells new homes (and arranges conventional financing) to only those whose credit and debt/income ratios qualify. But many, many of the people it serves (low and moderate income bracket) often have been approached, and sometimes about to sign or have signed, deals just like the ones were talking about in this thread. No lie, I wanna smack shit out of some of them. But many of them just happen to be victims of wanting something better and some predator persuading them that some how, there really is pie in the damn sky.

Now, there are other categories of people, a lot in the middle income bracket, that just got the fuck greedy. They should know better and I have a whole lot less sympathy for them. But still, there are many people in that group too (especially the lower-middle) who lack savvy and/or smarts to handle the sales pitches or understand what to them are complex matters. As you know, making a little money doesn't mean you know how to handle it; and not everybody making a little change is gifted with education and/or streetsmarts to avoid the artful and designing pitchsters.

BTW, I never said anybody could/should sue anyubody. If you got that impression, perhaps you missed what I was saying. I used a few legal concepts in speaking to Temujin, who I believe know where I was coming from. To be clear, what I said was few, if any, of those with the fucked up mortgages will be able to use lack of knowledge, unequal baragaining positions or other equitable remedies to escape those contracts. In other words, in most instances, or unless the federal government comes up with something, they will have to live with the consequences.

Peace bro,

QueEx
 
VG,

P.S.

Be thankful that you have the education, smarts, guile, guts, intelligence (of whatever combination of them) that allows you to make sound decisions. And, know too that a lot of people just aren't so blessed. We can easily sit here and say "what fucking fools they were." For many of them, we'd be right. For many more, however, we'd be plain ass wrong.

QueEx
 
I'm in the shared responsibility camp. It's obvious that those that took out these loans as well as those that purchased the bogus paper used to back them share in this debacle. They both rolled the dice betting that incomes and home values would rise forever thereby, in their eyes, they would always have something to fall back on. Rising income for buyers to keep up with those ARM's and mortgage backers on rising property values to pay off the loan if needed.

What alot of people don't realize is that the easy credit policies implemented by the Federal reserve 10 yrs ago is the real culprit. People who back then wouldn't have a prayer of getting a mortgage suddenly found themselves "qualified" and leaped at the opportunity. This was their only shot and they took it. Can you really blame them?

The near future doesn't look pretty. More and more are saying the word recession though the new voices are saying no more than 40% chance at present. A month ago they were saying no chance.

The Fed policies of easy credit which fueled the housing boom which in effect has been driving the overall economy is showing real signs of prolonged troubles. An expected 170,000 increase in the number of jobs turned into a 4000 decrease. Also 90% of the broadbased S&P 500 companies showed a decline today. I read that as the overall economy slamming on the brakes sensing big problems ahead.

Ignore these signs at your own peril
 
QueEx said:
VG,

P.S.

Be thankful that you have the education, smarts, guile, guts, intelligence (of whatever combination of them) that allows you to make sound decisions. And, know too that a lot of people just aren't so blessed. We can easily sit here and say "what fucking fools they were." For many of them, we'd be right. For many more, however, we'd be plain ass wrong.

QueEx

Thanks for the complement but I screw up with the best of em. I just cannot accept the level of excuses I'm reading about that there are people who can be conned into accepting a 300 thousand dollar mortgage.

Now, there are other categories of people, a lot in the middle income bracket, that just got the fuck greedy. They should know better and I have a whole lot less sympathy for them. But still, there are many people in that group too (especially the lower-middle) who lack savvy and/or smarts to handle the sales pitches or understand what to them are complex matters. As you know, making a little money doesn't mean you know how to handle it; and not everybody making a little change is gifted with education and/or streetsmarts to avoid the artful and designing pitchsters.

Well, like people who get their first credit card, they have to learn the meaning of a dollar the hard way. I know it sounds cold but bruh, you don't help people when you constantly remove the responsibility and give it to taxpayers. They don't learn shit when you treat their fuck ups like that.

And it doesn't take any savvy to look in your wallet and see you don't have any money in it. It takes a simple pulling out your wallet and looking. Looking at the job you have and recognize why you still drive that damn hoopty, and why you DON'T go on vacation to the Grand Tetons.

You can't afford it.

Nobody should have to tell you that and I'm saying if you got suckered then chalk it up to expierence and move on. Everybody else does. Its not my responsiblity to fix it.

A lot of preditory shit out there. Time Shares are another case in point. If you ever been to one of those sales pitches, you know what I'm talking about. If you don't tell them suckers HELL to the NAW, you'd be owning a time share, no shit. But you cant' get government to bail you out. Nor should they.


What do you say to those who make enough cheese to own a 350k house, and they end up looking at losing their house because they made a few other bad investments? Lets get a lawyer? I don't think so.

-VG
 
excellent topic of discussion. thanks to the OP.

i place nearly ALL of the culpability squarely on the shoulders of the loan agents.

remember that REGARDLESS of the merits/mental faculties/education of the borrower, the loan agents (and real estate agents who steer them) have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to their clients.

furthermore, keep in mind that it was the LENDERS THEMSELVES who created these overly risky (and highly speculative) financial PRODUCTS.

IN CALIFORNIA, the threshold for qualification as a real estate professional (either in sales, loans or another area) is INCREDIBLY LOW. yet these same people who might not be qualified to be your gardener (no dis to gardeners) are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. ??? it's child molestors on the bottom, and then real estate professionals just slightly above them.
 
excellent topic of discussion. thanks to the OP.

i place nearly ALL of the culpability squarely on the shoulders of the loan agents.

remember that REGARDLESS of the merits/mental faculties/education of the borrower, the loan agents (and real estate agents who steer them) have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to their clients.

furthermore, keep in mind that it was the LENDERS THEMSELVES who created these overly risky (and highly speculative) financial PRODUCTS.

IN CALIFORNIA, the threshold for qualification as a real estate professional (either in sales, loans or another area) is INCREDIBLY LOW. yet these same people who might not be qualified to be your gardener (no dis to gardeners) are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. ??? it's child molestors on the bottom, and then real estate professionals just slightly above them.

The fiduciary responsibility solely means that you must honestly tell you client what the contract states. Thats all. Whether they can pay it back is a business decision the lenders make. It is up to the borrower to look in thier wallet, and up to the lender to see if the buyer is being truthfull. That's what credit checks are for. I am dead set against those who would want me to pay for the poor judgement the lenders had in choosing thier borrowers, and for the borrowers who (willingly) bit off more than they could chew. Now, of course thier may be exceptions, as there always are. But they are not the majority.
 
However, in spite of all that, you know based on your income you can't afford a 350,000.00 house payment. You know going in you can't afford that. You could afford a 70k starter house, just like the first one I bought. But you can't wait to get to the big house. Spoiled asses had to have it all right damn now. Big house, big furnishings, big pool, big car, making 14 dollars an hour.

But even though you know it, and a great majority of these people knew it, allowed someone to put a 350,000.00 dollar morgage and higher on the table and they signed it.

I still can't afford to purchase a Lexus. I could finance one but I can't afford one. So I don't own one. Guy at the dealership told me he could get me in one, but I don't own one because I can't afford the payment. I got other shit to pay for not to mention emergancies that come up. Can't do both.

So these stories can run until the press runs out of ink. Won't change the contracts and those who signed for houses they knew they could not afford are stuck with their decision.

-VG

I would like for you to find a single family house under 350k in So. Cal.
 
I hear what you guys are saying but the old saying is BUYER BEWARE.
Everybody wants to make the mortgage brokers and lenders look like SHARKS that was preying on somebody's little ole grandma who couldn't understand contract language.

But this is not the case. The reason that most people are in trouble are due to interest only loans and ARMS. Meaning that people bought MORE house than they could afford. Plain & Simple. I'm here in ATL and I remember back in '02, '03. Mad folks were JUMPING into houses. Or telling me that they got this great MORTGAGE PRODUCT that would allow them to get in a $200,000 home as opposed to a $150,000 home. So again GREED.
 
I would like for you to find a single family house under 350k in So. Cal.

There very well may not be any SFO's for under 350. There may be townhouses or condos available however. And even if there aren't, that means nothing. You have no right to live anywhere you cannot afford, especially at someone else's expense (if that's what you are suggesting).
 
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
The implosion in the US housing market will get worse as more mortgages reset in October 2007 & January 2008 and beyond.

The “bush crime family” economic policies since they snatched power in December 2000 via a Supreme Court 5-4 decision has been to <s> manage</s> loot the US treasury & the US economy for the sole benefit of trans-national corporations and the top 1% of US income earners.

Has the “bush crime family” succeeded in vacuuming most of the US economic gains $$$$$ into the pockets & coffers of the top 1% of US income earners and trans-national corporations??

They have succeeded in SPECTACULAR fashion.

The fact that this has happened is no longer the subject of debate in the “reality based” community.

Wall street billionaires, labor union economists, right-wing think tank pundits, Democratic & Republican politicians, even president bush all acknowledge what has occurred.

The only debate over this massive wealth injection into the tip of the US economic pyramid was whether any of this wealth would “trickle down”.

It didn’t.

The data compiled by government bureaucrats during the last six years (2000 – 2006) at the Treasury, Commerce, & Labor departments all show the stark reality that the majority of economic gains during the bush administration’s have gone to the Über wealthy.

The consequences of no wage gains for the working poor and the middle class during (2000 – 2006) has resulted in them borrowing billions $$$$$$$ of dollars in order to maintain and increase their lifestyles.

Meanwhile the cost of living (food, gas, clothing, etc) and healthcare have soared.

Americans faced with this economic stress started to use their homes as ATM’s using home equity loans in record numbers.

Given the shrinking pool of Americans who qualified for traditional mortgages (10 -30 year fixed with 5% -20% down payment) the home seller industry in conjunction with Wall street produced increasingly novel & exotic financing methods to sell homes to barely qualified & unqualified home buyers.

The “bush crime family” does not believe in regulated capitalism. Unregulated, Unfettered, Unrestricted, complete ‘Laissez-faire’ economics is their philosophy.

In “BushWorld” when a wedding planner charges a 10% fee on a $30,000 wedding to plan your wedding, he or she will pay normal Federal & state taxes if applicable, on that $3,000 income, which could combine to result in a tax bill as high as 45% depending on which state they live in.

In “BushWorld” when a hedge fund manager charges a 2% management fee on the clients of a $15,000,000,000 (15 Billion) fund, which is $300,000,000 (300 Million) the fee is curiously classified as a capital gain and therefore the maximum tax the hedge fund managers pay is 15% .

In "BushWorld", If big-money biased, special rules, monetary policies result in financial train wreaks like ENRON, or WORLDCOM which financially eviscerates thousands of “hard working Americans” , so what, Fuck them, they are just peons for 'bush crime family' member Ken Lay to screw.

Below are a few articles and data which explain the dramatic income polarization (disparity in wealth between rich & poor) that has occurred (2000 – 2006) under bush. The last article explains the pain that the “the money changers” who financially engineered the mortgage, hedge fund & private equity boom, are about to feel.</font>
<p><hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"><hr><p>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.</b></span>

<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/20070821_tax_graphic.jpg" align="right"></div>
The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.

These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.

People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003, according to a separate analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a group that points out policies that it says favor the rich.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
The group's calculations showed that 28 percent of the investment tax cut savings went to just 11,433 of the 134 million taxpayers, those who made $10 million or more, saving them almost $1.9 million each. Over all, this small number of wealthy Americans saved $21.7 billion in taxes on their investment income as a result of the tax-cut law.
</b></span>
The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved on average $318 each on their investments. They collected 5.3 percent of the total savings from reduced tax rates on investment income.

The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.

Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.

The number of taxpayers making more than $100,000 grew by nearly 3.4 million and accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the number of returns filed in 2005 compared with those in 2000.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
The fact that average incomes remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress despite overall growth in the economy. Many Americans are also paying a larger share of their health care costs and have had their retirement benefits reduced, adding to their out-of-pocket costs.
</b></span></font>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#0000FF"><b>read the full article that is excerpted above using the link below</b></font>

<font face="arial black" size="4" color="#ff0000">2005 Incomes, On Average, Still Below 2000 Peak<br>By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON - NYT August 21, 2007</font>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
Where Is the Debt Coming From?
In the chart below from Yardeni.com, U.S. consumers have been withdrawing money from their houses at record levels. Simultaneously, they have been saving less. The reliance on home equity extraction (increasing mortgage debt) to fuel the economy is similar to stock market investors in the 20's, who were borrowing money to invest in the stock market. As history has shown, once the speculation exhausts itself assets deflate, but the debt still has to be paid back. Unfortunately, the housing bubble has already started its descent.
</font>
personal.gif






<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"><hr>

28296.gif

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">
OH, THE PEOPLE YOU'LL BLAME!</font>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Peter Eavis

September 17, 2007 </b>

www.fortune.com

Feckless borrowers, goofy lenders, myopic regulators it took a cast of characters worthy of Dr. Seuss to create the mortgage mess, and it will take more than the Cat in the Hat to clean it up.

THE CRISIS brought on by worries about shaky subprime mortgages continues to rattle Wall Street. Deals are on hold. Loans are scarce. The stock market swoons and recovers, only to swoon again. And worse may lie ahead. "This problem is much greater, much broader, and much harder to contain than the credit crunches of 1994 and 1998," says Larry Fink, CEO of asset-management firm BlackRock and one of the early architects of the market for bonds that are backed with mortgages. The statistics bear him out; each day seems to bring new signs of distress in the housing market. The latest: Home prices in the second quarter of this year declined more than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. national home price index. And inventories of unsold houses are ballooning, putting even greater downward pressure on prices and promising more defaults to come.

Even as the storm rages, the blame game has begun. Senators are blaming regulators. Bankers are blaming borrowers. Brokers are blaming banks. It's not all idle chatter. The arguments over who's at fault and who's a victim will play a big role as Congress, the Federal Reserve, and regulators debate what actions to take, if any, to restore calm in the markets.

As an ordinary investor or homeowner watching while your net worth is buffeted by forces you can't control, you too may be looking for someone to blame. How could borrowers be so heedless? How could banks lend money so sloppily? How could Wall Street gorge on such dubious debt? Well, take heart: We're here to help you play the blame game. But we won't throw out accusations in an indiscriminate way. Instead, let's do something the crazy credit machine never did: Let's be careful how we distribute. After all, weighing just how responsible each player is for this debacle can clarify what happened and it may help us find ways to stop the credit crisis from deepening. As we sift through the participants, we'll award Fingers of Blame to each party, with five fingers indicating maximum guilt. Let the finger-pointing begin!

<b>THE BORROWERS</b>

Let's start at the very end of the credit chain and work up. That means we begin with the borrowers themselves in other words, with us. Thanks to low interest rates in the wake of the stock market crash, getting rich in real estate, always part of the culture, became a national pastime, with cable-TV shows like Flip This House, Flip That House, and The Property Ladder (not to mention newspapers and magazines) stoking everyone's inner Donald Trump. Admit it how often did you go on the web to check the prices of homes in your neighborhood, just to see how much you could get for yours?

As prices kept soaring, the urge to get in on the boom become overpowering. Medical students, hairdressers, and other amateurs were snapping up multiple condos in hot spots like Miami and Las Vegas, planning to flip them for quick gains. And people for whom home ownership once seemed out of reach took on far more debt than they could ever hope to repay. Don't have enough cash to put down the customary 20%? Just put down 10%. Better yet, borrow the down payment! If the bank approves, it must be okay, right? Feckless, naive, and pathetically addicted to easy money sure. But with teaser rates and complicated terms, hopeful homebuyers often had little sense of what they were getting into. Now many will pay dearly for their poor judgment losing their houses, having their credit ruined. We weigh our belief in individual responsibility against the all-too-human failing of getting caught up in a national frenzy.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: THREE FINGERS

MORTGAGE BROKERS</b>

To get these loans they couldn't afford, many borrowers turned to mortgage brokers, who were especially good at enabling borderline borrowers to get their dough. "The brokers have always been a disproportionately large part of subprime origination, so they were well positioned to help fuel the boom in subprime lending," says Guy Cecala, publisher of the newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance. And let's face it, with their nonstop marketing on the radio and the Internet, they're easy to scorn. They made millions, and as pure middlemen, they will feel relatively little in the way of consequences aside from a sharp dropoff in business.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: 3.5 FINGERS

APPRAISERS</b>

Let's not forget the brokers' handmaidens, the real estate appraisers, who too often buckled under pressure from lenders to overvalue houses. Paul Demos, a Chicago-based appraiser, accepts some culpability for his trade. "Lenders would tell appraisers, 'This is the value we need for the loan to work,'" he says. "And appraisers would do it." That's kind of the opposite of how they're supposed to work. But, hey, whatever. It's a judgment call, right? Except nobody is exercising any judgment. In comparison with the other participants, though, the appraisers come across as bit players.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: TWO FINGERS

MORTGAGE LENDERS</b>

Point your finger at mortgage brokers and appraisers, and they will quickly point theirs at the banks and mortgage companies. "Our industry shouldn't take any more blame than lenders and Wall Street," says Peter Ogilvie, president of the California Association of Mortgage Brokers. To hear Ogilvie tell it, his mortgage brokerage, based in Los Baños, Calif., would often refuse to touch loans proposed by well-known banks, because the terms were so disadvantageous. One mortgage he says he declined was to a non-English-speaking, single-parent strawberry-farm worker, who was expected to pay around $12,000 a month.

Once they'd made all the loans they could reasonably make to qualified borrowers, the banks began relaxing the rules and reaching further down the credit scale. No income? No job? No assets? No problem! The industry even came up with a cute acronym for such deals: NINJA loans.

Many lenders are paying a price for such recklessness. Dozens of mortgage companies have gone bankrupt, including American Home Mortgage. And Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender responsible for nearly one of every five mortgages in the U.S. has seen its stock crater amid concerns that it will become a victim too. Senator Barack Obama thinks the industry should pay more: He wants to fund a homeowner relief program by fining lenders "that acted irresponsibly or committed fraud." The mortgage providers made billions from the boom. And judging risk is at the very heart of what they are supposed to do. Otherwise, why not just hand the money out to anyone who asks for it? Oh, wait ... they did.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: FOUR FINGERS

WALL STREET</b>

The banks and mortgage companies never would have made all those loans if they'd had to keep them on their books. But they didn't have to, thanks to the remarkable mortgage machine Wall Street's investment banks and hedge funds concocted. Until two months ago U.S. banks were able to package billions of dollars of mortgages as bonds and sell them to investors, which included other banks, pension funds, and mutual funds. Foreigners were huge buyers of U.S. mortgage paper. And hedge funds scarfed up some of the lowest-rated, highest-yielding stuff in a cynical bid to boost returns.

The result was seemingly bottomless demand for whatever Wall Street could put on the table. Naturally, the amount of subprime mortgages soared. In 2006, subprime-mortgage origination amounted to $600 billion, 20% of total mortgage originations, massively up from 2001, when $160 billion of subprime mortgages were issued, representing 7% of total mortgage lending, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. And they're going bad at a frightening rate. Over 17% of all subprime mortgages were more than 60 days past due at the end of June, double the number a year earlier, according to research firm First American Loan Performance.

But Wall Street was hooked on the profits. For example, Bear Stearns, which recently suffered huge subprime losses in two of its hedge funds, earned $2 billion in 2006, a huge jump from the roughly $600 million it made in 2001. It's a safe bet that mortgage products made a big contribution to the gain. The same goes for, say, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. With all that money rolling in, no one was going to question whether it was right to be exposed to subprime. Lehman got so caught up in its desire for subprime profits that it bought a subprime-mortgage-origination firm, BNC Mortgage, which it recently shut down.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: FOUR FINGERS

RATING AGENCIES</b>

While the wizards of Wall Street could use financial alchemy to turn shoddy mortgages into respectable bonds, they still needed the blessing of rating agencies like Standard & Poor's and Moody's. And the agencies were often all too willing to comply.

In the Wall Street pecking order, rating agencies are seen as worthy but plodding accessories. Analysts at the agencies earn far less than their brokerage counterparts, and decisions are nearly always made by a tedious committee process. As a result, they typically fail to react quickly enough to questionable trends and innovations.

But they are not simply bystanders. They have long played a big role in helping investment banks structure mortgage-backed securities by conferring with the banks on what rating a certain structure might get. It sounds innocuous, but critics say it allows Wall Street to gain too much influence over the rating. S&P spokesman Chris Atkins replies: "Dialogue helps issuers understand our ratings criteria and helps us understand the securities they are structuring so that we can make informed opinions about creditworthiness."

The shortcomings of the system became blindingly apparent in July, when Standard & Poor's and Moody's abruptly downgraded nearly $6 billion of subprime-mortgage-backed bonds. Many of the subprime mortgages backing the bonds were less than a year old. That means the rating agencies had little idea about the quality of those loans when the bonds were issued. In a now famous exchange, Steven Eisman, a managing director at hedge fund Frontpoint Partners, spoke out on an S&P conference call. "I'd like to understand why you're making this move today, and why you didn't do this many, many months ago," he said. "It's a good question," responded an S&P analyst. "You need to have a better answer," said Eisman.

Yes, you could argue that bond buyers are sophisticated institutions that can make their own judgments. You could also argue that rating agencies are like stock analysts whose recommendations investors could choose to ignore. But they're not. If a bond carries less than an investment-grade rating, many insurance companies, pension funds, and mutual funds are barred from buying it. Once the rating agencies had blessed the mortgage-backed paper, everyone was free to grab some.

They should have been quicker off the mark, and they need to work on some potential conflicts, but they hardly made out big from this boom.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: 3.5 FINGERS

THE FEDERAL RESERVE</b>

If we want to talk about one player that certainly had the power to put a stop to the excesses, we have to look at the Federal Reserve, which sets interest rates and therefore heavily influences the amount of lending that takes place in the economy.

The chief charge against the Fed is that former chairman Alan Greenspan kept interest rates at very low levels far longer than necessary, which in turn sparked the bubble in housing prices and mortgage lending. Looking back, the Fed's behavior does seem bizarre. It kept the key Federal funds rate at 2% or lower from November 2001 right through to the end of 2004.

Those rate decisions showed that Greenspan had chosen to use the housing market as his main instrument to prop up the economy after the 9/11 attacks. Using monetary policy to encourage a rise in home prices would be a highly unorthodox move for a central bank. But evidence suggests that Greenspan was overly keen to use housing for exactly that. In 2002 he called mortgage markets a "powerful stabilizing force" because they allowed people to extract equity from their homes, and in 2004 he said that homeowners should consider using adjustable-rate mortgages to save on interest and prepayment costs. In 2005, when a record $625 billion in subprime mortgages were made, Greenspan gave a speech that blessed the creation of new loan products, including subprime home loans.

As a result, Greenspan has lost a lot of favor in Washington. In March, Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, laid much of the blame for the current crisis at the feet of Greenspan's Fed, saying that it "seemed to encourage the development and use of adjustable-rate mortgages that today are defaulting and going into foreclosure at record rates."

Are we being fair? Is the Fed really this culpable? On the subprime issue, a person close to the Fed at the time responds, "It was only when we got to early 2006 that the Fed had any real data on what was going on in subprime. The first time we saw the data, we thought it must have been a mistake because the amount of subprime origination was so high. We then thought about the implications." But why didn't the Fed work harder to find the data?

And was monetary policy too lax for too long? The person adds, "There is a glaring fact, which people who make that criticism do not consider. And that is that interest rates long-term interest rates have been going down for 15 years. And it's a worldwide phenomenon." So is the Fed off the hook? "That's nonsense," says Paul Kasriel, economist at Northern Trust. "The fact is, the Fed should have tightened earlier. That way they probably wouldn't have had this dilemma." So the Fed has to accept a large slab of blame for the current crunch. Perhaps it even deserves the lion's share.
<b>BLAME FACTOR: 4.5 FINGERS</b>

HAS ANYONE LEARNED ANYTHING from this fiasco? Perhaps Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, has. The crisis has turned into a test of his leadership. There have been loud cries from Wall Street for a quick cut in the Federal funds rate to ease credit conditions. But others say the Fed should move in a more measured way and not rush to, in effect, protect reckless lenders and speculators from the consequences of their own behavior. So far, Bernanke has resisted the pressure to act precipitously. We can't know what he's thinking, of course, but perhaps he doesn't want to be blamed for creating the next bubble.

</font>
<p><hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"><hr><p>
7818.gif

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
The Ranks of the Comfortable Are Still Thinning </font>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">

<b>by ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

September 9, 2007</b>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/business/09deal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BY now, all of Wall Street understands that the private-equity gravy train has jumped the tracks. But few seem to realize how ugly the pile-up could become.

With the buyout market in free fall, lots of attention has focused on a few obvious pressure points, like which investment banks will rack up big losses on the $330 billion in debt that they committed to pay for leveraged buyouts over the last year.

For the most part, though, Wall Street seems to be taking it all in stride. James Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said last month that he was “comfortable.”

Comfortable? Let me offer a more dour view: wide swaths of Wall Street, and many of the industries that serve it, are in for some serious collateral damage. Not only has private equity been out of business for the last two months, but that activity is not likely to resume with any significance soon. And when it does, it will be at a fraction of its recent peak.

So what does that mean? For much of Wall Street, a severe case of withdrawal. Forget about cutting the size of bonuses: let’s start really thinking about the possibility of slashing jobs.

Virtually every major investment bank in recent years had staffed up its “financial sponsors group” — which serves private equity firms — and many now have dozens, if not hundreds, of people devoted to the effort of calling on Henry Kravis every day.

Here’s the thing: Mr. Kravis won’t have much business going on, so the bankers won’t, either. Even if you redeployed a large number of them to other activities, many jobs would have to go.

Further down the line, the private equity firms themselves may begin to cut personnel, or at least stop hiring. That goes against the grain for most private equity firms, because their limited partners have pressured them to have increasingly larger staffs, not smaller ones.

Why is that? Well, it is hard to justify how the 2 percent management fee from a $20 billion fund — that’s $400 million for those of you doing the math — is going to be divided among only 50 people. (Yes, if it was evenly distributed, that would be $8 million a person, which doesn’t even include possible performance fees.) If private equity firms stop hiring, the ecosystem of irrational compensation packages across Wall Street will also change.

In recent years, private equity helped artificially inflate the market by hiring talent at astronomical prices, pushing up pay scales at banks, law firms and hedge funds — anywhere that private equity tried to take talent from. Then there are the support systems, which may also be taken apart.

Consider the management consulting industry: It’s a dirty little secret, but most of the big-name private equity firms had been outsourcing some, if not much, of their due diligence on deals to firms like McKinsey & Company and the Boston Consulting Group. The consultants, in turn, built up their own groups to handle the enormous work flow.

(In case you’re wondering why private equity doesn’t do all of its own spadework, here’s another secret: It’s cheaper than hiring talent and — get this — some of the cost of outside consultants can be charged back to the investors as a deal expense.)

So, whoops, there go the consultants.

All those starry-eyed M.B.A.’s are in for a shock, too. For the last four years, M.B.A.’s have been clamoring for jobs in the private equity industry. About 11 percent of Harvard’s M.B.A. class of 2006 secured private equity positions, up from 7 percent in the class of 2004. And the number from the class of 2007 is even higher.

That alone should probably have been a sign of a market top. In any case, the party’s over, and it’s not clear where all these M.B.A.’s will go.

Many M.B.A.’s were former bankers who had taken jobs at private equity firms and hoped to return to the equity shops afterward. Now the door to private equity and banking — and don’t forget hedge funds — may be shut, too.

THE collateral damage may keep mounting.

Consider the ultimate bellwether: a little company called SeamlessWeb. As an online food-ordering service used by the major banking houses and law firms, SeamlessWeb does a brisk business with young analysts who get stuck late at the office. Without all those buyout deals requiring all-nighters, SeamlessWeb’s messengers may not be as busy, either.

So what’s the upside?

The analysts who still have jobs may finally get a good night’s sleep. </font>

<p><hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"><hr><p>
 
The fiduciary responsibility solely means that you must honestly tell you client what the contract states. Thats all.

WRONG.

no diss at all, but THIS is exactly why the real estate industry SUCKS ASS. if ANY real estate professional honestly believes that what you wrote above is the limit of fiduciary responsibility, then they should find another job QUICK.

here is a RANDOM definition of fiduciary responsibility:

It is defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a "caretaker" of another's rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of "good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiaries interest." The good faith has been interpreted to impose an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary's interests as well the duty not to favor ANYONE ELSE'S INTEREST (INCLUDING THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST) over that of the beneficiary. Further, if the agent should find him/herself in a position of conflicting interests, the agent must disclose the dual agency (acting for two parties at the same time) or risk being accused of constructive fraud in regards to both or either principals.

:smh:
 
I would like for you to find a single family house under 350k in So. Cal.

its as many BRAND NEW homes (waranteed, under $350K, in southern california) as you need. no closing costs, and credit from the builders for upgrades.

of course, that means you'll be living in the high desert (ex: hesperia) or north of los angeles (palmdale, trashcanster).
 
The reason that most people are in trouble are due to interest only loans and ARMS. Meaning that people bought MORE house than they could afford. Plain & Simple.

that may be true in the A. i don't know, so i can't/won't speak on it.

BUT HERE IN CALIFORNIA, you have to keep in mind it's a MUCH different game. in southern california especially, there is a LARGE immigrant, non-english speaking population. shady latino and asian loan agents and brokers PREYED UPON borrowers who didn't/couldn't understand the documents they were signing. those borrowers DEPENDED UPON the loan agents and brokers to PROFESSIONALLY EXECUTE THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY; instead, the borrowers were duped and lied to, and that has largely contributed to the bottom falling out.
 
The game they are playing now is offering all kinds of things like cars and significant upgrades to prevent marking down the house. This means you can't look at recent comparables to price a house anymore, otherwise you will overpay.

This scheme will also leave you with a higher property tax bill since the local government studies recent sales prices to determine market prices for houses in the area. The value of all perks should be disclosed to determine a "true" purchase price.
 
Cranrab,
I do not take your reply as a diss, but a disagreement. Reasonable folks can disagree, and I return respect to you. However, I (respectfully)disagree with your conclusion.

Fiduciary resposibilities differ according to the relationship. For example, I am the custodian of my 95 year old Grandmother, who is suffering from senility and other afflictions common to a woman her age. I also do social science research at my second job. Both have fiducuary responsibilites, but the similarities end there with one exception. My duties to my Grandmother give me a one of trustee, while in interviewing, I must be honest and protect thier confidentiality. But in both I must be honest. And if your saying that there is some type of guardianship role in being a real estate agent in Cali, I think it is an unrealistic law, which will have the effect of ex-post facto lawmaking by looking at the end result, then making a decision of how the duty was carried out.

Now I know there are unsavory real estate agents and loan officers, but I do not think they comprise the bulk of the market.

P.S. con men usually prey upon greed.
 
The Original Subprime Crisis

This is one of three articles fom the NY Times today on the subprime situation


December 26, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The Original Subprime Crisis
By LOUIS HYMAN
Cambridge, Mass.

WHILE critics of today’s mortgage crisis call for government intervention to suppress subprime lending, few are aware that government intervention created subprime mortgages in the first place.

The National Housing Act of 1968, part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, provided government-subsidized loans to expand home ownership for poor Americans. Liberal policymakers hoped that these loans, called Section 235 loans, would enable poor Americans — urban blacks in particular — to buy their own homes.

Under the program, a poor family could obtain a mortgage from a lender for as little as $200 down and pay only a small portion of the interest. If the borrower defaulted, the government paid the balance of the loan. If the borrower made payments on time, the government covered all of the loan’s interest above 1 percent. Homebuyers could borrow up to $24,000, as long as Federal Housing Administration inspectors declared the property to be in sound condition.

By 1971, Congressional and press investigations found the program riddled with fraud. Section 235 accelerated existing white flight by providing poor African-Americans with money to buy out their anxious white neighbors, who in turn accepted below-market prices for their houses. Real estate agents frightened white homeowners with visions of all-black neighborhoods financed by government money, and then pocketed the proceeds from the resulting high home turnover.

Existing homeowners lost their equity, but a canny alliance of brokers, lenders and federal housing inspectors inserted themselves as middlemen between the buyers and the sellers to reap profits. White speculators, often real estate agents themselves, bought houses cheaply from fleeing white homeowners, did superficial renovations and then sold the houses at steep prices to black first-time homeowners.

As the properties changed hands, the speculators profited and the government paid the tab. When the Federal Housing Administration was not paying interest on inflated mortgages, it was left holding properties in inner-city neighborhoods that could not be sold.

But corrupt opportunists were not the only reason Section 235 failed. Structurally the program could not work because it tried to solve a problem of wealth creation through debt creation.

Homeowners cannot build equity in an overvalued house, no matter what the terms of the mortgage. Whether that inflated value comes from corrupt inspectors or frenzied markets is immaterial. The crisis, now as then, is a symptom of inequality — not its cause.

Louis Hyman teaches history at Harvard.
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

No, no,no, this is a Bush/Reagan trickle down, supply side issue if there ever was one. Don’t try and pass the blame. One major question that the corporately blessed media will not ask is, if the economy is so healthy as they relate it to Wall Street and the sit on their ass class, the investor class, why don’t so many people have a enough money to pay their mortgages and depts off or at least down? Because the average American is making less in terms of today’s dollars than they were 10, 20 and even 40 years ago. The top 5% is doing incredible, so that means the country should be doing cartwheels.
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

No, no,no, this is a Bush/Reagan trickle down, supply side issue if there ever was one. Don’t try and pass the blame. One major question that the corporately blessed media will not ask is, if the economy is so healthy as they relate it to Wall Street and the sit on their ass class, the investor class, why don’t so many people have a enough money to pay their mortgages and depts off or at least down? Because the average American is making less in terms of today’s dollars than they were 10, 20 and even 40 years ago. The top 5% is doing incredible, so that means the country should be doing cartwheels.

Please provide some evidence for your belief, not just a blanket denial.

Also, using your statement about money made in today's dollars, do you consider that fact just a coincidence with the growth of the welfare state ?
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

Please provide some evidence for your belief, not just a blanket denial.

Also, using your statement about money made in today's dollars, do you consider that fact just a coincidence with the growth of the welfare state ?

The editorial page of the NY Times is notoriously right slanted. I.E. David Brooks and their support for the Iraq war, should I say lack of in-depth questioning of the evidence leading up to it. So consider the source.

Simple economics 101. If you spend more than you make, your money is worth less. Check back to my myriad of posts. charts and graphs that display how the dept jumped when Reaganomics took hold (something 41 called voodoo economics) and declined under evil Bill Clinton and then exploded under GW. The war on poverty didn't cause the country ills, it was the Vietnam War that drained us.

Now you can argue if some of the ways it was implemented were wrong, but I would rebut that redlining, the decline of public funding of education that started during the 1950s when whites continued to leave the cities en mass and left many of the cities Black and poor, due to the jobs leaving the industrial north and relocating to the south caused much of those ills. We now see it today in a different form. Manufacturing jobs leaving the south and Midwest for markets that have no worker regulations in other countries. You see white communities imploding. The meth epidemic is not big among Blacks, but poor whites in poor communities.

source: The Economist.com

America's housing market

Cracks in the façade
Mar 22nd 2007 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON. DC
From The Economist print edition

America's riskiest mortgages are crumbling. How far will the damage spread?

CASEY SERIN knows all about the excesses of America's housing bubble. In 2006 the 24-year old web designer from Sacramento bought seven houses in five months. He lied about his income on “no document” loans and was not asked for anything so old-fashioned as a deposit. Today Mr Serin has debts of $2.2m. Three of his houses have been repossessed; others could share that fate. His website, Iamfacingforeclosure.com, has become a magnet for those whose mortgages are in trouble.

Mr Serin and people like him are Wall Street's biggest uncertainty just now. How many Americans are saddled with mortgages they cannot afford on houses that are losing value? The answer matters to anyone who bought high-yielding mortgage-backed securities when a booming property market made mortgages look safe. It also matters to investment banks, which packaged the securities and often own subsidiaries that originate mortgages. It may determine whether America's economy falls into recession. It could even affect the outcome of next year's elections.

Most of the damage so far is in the “subprime” mortgage market, which lends to people whose income is too low, or whose credit history too patchy, to qualify for an ordinary mortgage. On March 13th the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that 13% of subprime borrowers were behind on their payments. Some 30 of America's subprime lenders have closed their doors in the past three months. The cost of insurance against default for the riskiest tranches of subprime debt has soared. The worst effects may not be felt until the mortgage payments of many borrowers with no equity in their homes rise sharply.

Is this a mere irritant in America's vast economy, or the start of something much worse? Opinion on Wall Street is divided. Most argue that the mortgage mess, though a blight on anyone caught up in it, will not spread. The number of mortgages at risk is too small for defaults to threaten everyone else. Even if a fifth of the $650 billion of adjustable-rate subprime loans went bad, that would be a blip in the $40 trillion market for debt. If repossessions extended the housing downturn, it would not derail an economy that—housing apart—remains healthy, with unemployment of 4.5% and jobs growing strongly.

Cellar signal
Growing numbers of pessimists disagree. They think the subprime squeeze marks the start of a broader credit crunch that could drag the economy into recession. Stephen Roach, the famously gloomy chief economist at Morgan Stanley, recently called subprime mortgages the new dotcoms. Just as the implosion of a few hundred internet ventures in 2000 sparked a much broader stockmarket correction and an eventual recession, so the failure of the riskiest mortgages may distress the rest of a debt-laden economy.

To try to assess who is right, you need to know the share of mortgages potentially at risk. And you need to understand the channels through which subprime defaults could spread to the wider economy.

America's residential mortgage market is huge. It consists of some $10 trillion worth of loans, of which around 75% are repackaged into securities, mainly by the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Most of this market involves little risk. Two-thirds of mortgage borrowers enjoy good credit and a fixed interest rate and can depend on the value of their houses remaining far higher than their borrowings. But a growing minority of loans look very different, with weak borrowers, adjustable rates and little, or no, cushion of home equity.

For a decade, the fastest growth in America's mortgage markets has been at the bottom. Subprime borrowers—long shut out of home ownership—now account for one in five new mortgages and 10% of all mortgage debt, thanks to the expansion of mortgage-backed securities (and derivatives based on them). Low short-term interest rates earlier this decade led to a bonanza in adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). Ever more exotic products were dreamt up, including “teaser” loans with an introductory period of interest rates as low as 1%.

When the housing market began to slow, lenders pepped up the pace of sales by dramatically loosening credit standards, lending more against each property and cutting the need for documentation. Wall Street cheered them on. Investors were hungry for high-yielding assets and banks and brokers could earn fat fees by pooling and slicing the risks in these loans.

Standards fell furthest at the bottom of the credit ladder: subprime mortgages and those one rung higher, known as Alt-As. A recent report by analysts at Credit Suisse estimates that 80% of subprime loans made in 2006 included low “teaser” rates; almost eight out of ten Alt-A loans were “liar loans”, based on little or no documentation; loan-to-value ratios were often over 90% with a second piggy-bank loan routinely thrown in. America's weakest borrowers, in short, were often able to buy a house without handing over a penny.

Lenders got the demand for loans that they wanted—and more fool them. Amid the continuing boom, some 40% of all originations last year were subprime or Alt-A. But as these mortgages were reset to higher rates and borrowers who had lied about their income failed to pay up, the trap was sprung. A new study by Christopher Cagan, an economist at First American CoreLogic, based on his firm's database of most American mortgages, calculates that 60% of all adjustable-rate loans made since 2004 will be reset to payments that will be 25% higher or more. A fifth will see monthly payments soar by 50% or more.

Few borrowers can cope with such a burden. When house prices were booming no one cared. Borrowers refinanced or sold their homes. But now that prices have flattened and, in many areas, fallen, those paths are blocked.

The greatest difficulties threaten borrowers whose house is worth less than their mortgage. Just under 7% of all American homeowners had this “negative equity” at the end of December 2006 estimates Mr Cagan, using a sample of 32m houses (see chart 1). Among recent homebuyers, the share is even higher: 18% of all people who took mortgages out in 2006 now have negative equity. A quarter of all mortgages due to reset in 2008 are in the same miserable state (see chart 2).

Higher payments and negative equity are a toxic combination. Mr Cagan marries the statistics and concludes that—going by today's prices—some 1.1m mortgages (or 13% of all adjustable-rate mortgages originated between 2004 and 2006), worth $326 billion, are heading for repossession in the next few years. The suffering will be concentrated: only 7% of mainstream adjustable mortgages will be affected, whereas one in three of the recent “teaser” loans will end in default. The harshest year will be 2008, when many mortgages will be reset and few borrowers will have much equity.

Mr Cagan's study considers only the effect of higher payments (ignoring defaults from job loss, divorce, and so on). But it is a guide to how much default rates may worsen even if the economy stays strong and house prices stabilise. According to RealtyTrac, some 1.3m homes were in default on their mortgages in 2006, up 42% from the year before. This study suggests that figure could rise much further. And if house prices fall, the picture darkens. Mr Cagan's work suggests that every percentage point drop in house prices would bring 70,000 extra repossessions.

The direct damage to Wall Street is likely to be modest. A repossessed property will eventually be sold, albeit at a discount. As a result, Mr Cagan's estimate of $326 billion of repossessed mortgages translates into roughly $112 billion of losses, spread over several years. Even a loss several times larger than that would barely ruffle America's vast financial markets: about $600 billion was wiped out on the stockmarkets as share prices fell on February 27th.

In theory, the chopping up and selling on of risk should spread the pain. The losses ought to be manageable even for banks such as HSBC and Wells Fargo, the two biggest subprime mortgage lenders, and Bear Stearns, Wall Street's largest underwriter of mortgage-backed securities. Subprime mortgages make up only a small part of their business. Indeed, banks so far smell an opportunity to buy the assets of imploding subprime lenders on the cheap.

Discredited
Although subprime is a small direct threat to Wall Street it could still inflict pain on bankers—and the broader economy—in other ways. Investors are shunning subprime and all mortgages that seem risky. Spreads have dramatically widened on the securities backed by riskier mortgages and the pooled and debt-laden collateralised-debt obligations (CDOs) based on them. The issuance of subprime-related CDOs has plunged. That is a worry, because investors' appetite for these securities fuelled the boom in riskier mortgages.

Lenders' reluctance and tightening loan standards may combine to form a classic credit crunch. Several lenders, including Countrywide, America's largest mortgage lender, have stopped making no-money-down mortgage loans. HSBC has cut back on second-lien loans. Freddie Mac recently announced it would no longer buy some subprime loans. No one is sure how dramatic, or lasting, the pull-back will be, but Credit Suisse thinks the number of originations in subprime markets could fall by some 50% in the next couple of years and Alt-A loans may fall by a quarter. Even if the shift is confined to America's riskiest mortgages (and there is little evidence yet of tighter lending standards spreading), its effects may climb up the housing ladder.

Just when some would-be buyers find it harder to borrow, rising numbers of repossessions will increase the supply of homes for sale. The backlog of unsold homes is already high, at over 3.5m existing homes, or more than six months' sales. Counting the properties that have already been repossessed—and hence are all but certain to be for sale—that figure rises by about a fifth. Add the likelihood of some 1m more repossessions as adjustable-rate mortgages are reset, and you have the makings of a housing glut.

Falling demand and soaring supply bodes ill for construction and house prices, the main ways housing affects the broader economy. Builders have already cut back. The pace of housing starts is down 33% from its peak in January 2006. Plunging residential investment is the main reason America's GDP growth has slowed to 2.2%. But, as Nouriel Roubini and Christian Menegatti point out in a recent report, that retrenchment is modest by historical standards. In the seven construction busts since 1960, housing starts fell, on average, by 51% from their peak. The mortgage crunch makes matters worse. To work off inventories, builders will have to cut back more, dragging output growth down for longer. Job losses in construction and related industries, which have so far been mild, are likely to rise sharply.

A glut of unsold homes will also push down prices, particularly in areas such as California and Florida, which had a disproportionate share of riskier loans. House prices have already been falling in parts of both states, as they have in Midwestern states, such as Michigan, where manufacturing industry has shed jobs in recent years. Will those declines accelerate and spread?

By many measures, America's house prices are still too high. David Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch points out that the ratio of income to housing costs is still some 10% worse than its historical norm and 20% worse than levels at the end of the last housing downturn in the early 1990s. Take out a chunk of potential borrowers; add in some repossessed homes and house prices could be hit hard. If falling prices raise the rate of default, that could in turn worsen the credit crunch, putting yet more pressure on prices. Wall Street's gloomiest seers think average house prices could fall by 10% this year. If so, the economy could well enter a recession.

Consumers have shrugged off the housing slowdown thus far: real consumer spending is still growing at annual rate of some 3%, thanks largely to strong job and wage growth. But they are unlikely to shrug off a 10% plunge within one year, particularly since America's homeowners have become used to their housing wealth rising by well over 5% a year. No one is sure just how responsive consumer spending is to changes in house prices. Economists normally reckon that a $100 drop in wealth eventually reduces spending by $3-5 a year. But some recent studies suggest the “wealth effect” from housing may eventually be more than double that. Given that Americans have $20 trillion of housing wealth, a 10% price drop could easily halve the pace of consumer spending growth, sending the economy perilously close to recession.

Such a dramatic drop in national house prices this year is possible, but not yet probable. Unlike share prices, house prices rarely plunge in nominal terms. Unless repossession forces a sale, homeowners prefer to sit tight when markets are weak. If house prices stagnate, consumption may suffer a little, but not too much, so long as jobs stay plentiful and wages grow. If so, the mortgage crunch will be a grinding drag on America's economy; one that unfolds over several years, hitting some people and some regions hard, but not, in itself, a macro-economic disaster.

The bursting of the stock-market bubble in 2000 led to a plunge in investment at American firms. To stave off recession, the Federal Reserve loosened monetary policy. Short-term interest rates fell to historic lows, propping up consumer spending, but also fuelling the housing bubble and sowing the seeds of today's upheaval.

Any such loosening is much less likely today. As the statement at their meeting on March 21st made clear, America's central bankers are still more worried about inflation than about recession. And with reason. Core consumer price inflation, which excludes the volatile categories of food and fuel, has accelerated, to 2.6% at an annual rate in the three months to February. With inflation higher than they would like, the central bankers are in no hurry to slash interest rates. They would lose little sleep if output growth stays sluggish or unemployment rates inch up.

The Senate and the houses
In contrast to the dotcom bust, then, the consequences of the housing market's troubles may be felt more sharply on Capitol Hill than at the Fed. Politicians, particularly the Democrats now in charge of Congress, are clamouring for quick action. Hillary Clinton has declared the market “broken”, accused the Bush administration of standing by and demanded something be done. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and another Democratic presidential candidate, is also up in arms.

George Bush often boasts about rising rates of home-ownership under his watch. Hundreds of thousands of repossessed homes, many of them from borrowers who are black and poor, would be politically incendiary. The Centre for Responsible Lending reports that half of the mortgages taken out by blacks in the past few years were subprime. If a fifth of those default, one in ten recent black homebuyers may end up losing his house. Many of these people have stories to tell of being duped into taking on mortgages that they did not understand and could not afford.

Pressure is mounting to right the wrongs—real and perceived. Attorneys-general from New York to California have started to investigate fraudulent mortgage lending. Rather as after Enron, the securities regulator in Massachusetts has demanded that UBS and Bear Stearns hand over internal details of their research coverage of subprime lenders. Congress has already held hearings on predatory lending. More are planned.

Ideas abound on what must be done. Mrs Clinton has called for a “ foreclosure time-out”. Pressure groups want Congress to rewrite the rules of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a federal organisation charged with providing affordable mortgages to the poor, so it can refinance subprime mortgage loans in default. Calls for other types of bail-out will rise.

America's four federal bank regulators are also scrambling to respond. Earlier this month they proposed stricter lending guidelines on adjustable subprime loans. But federal regulators play a limited role in subprime markets. Many of the riskiest mortgages were made by independent, non-bank lenders—such as New Century, Ownit and Fremont. These outfits (which are now collapsing) are overseen by state regulators, not federal ones—and the quality of state oversight varies widely. Only half of states have laws against predatory lending. Many lack rules requiring lenders to perform criminal background checks on brokers, as federal guidelines require.

Few doubt that the subprime mess was, in part, a regulatory failure. But now the mistakes have been made, the biggest risk is that populist politicians rewrite the rules hamfistedly. Fraudulent activity should be punished. The vulnerable need protection from predatory lenders. But an ill-conceived swathe of new “consumer protection” could easily make matters worse. If restrictive regulation scared investors away from the subprime market for good, that really would hurt the poor.

source: State of Working America.org

SWA06_Fig3X.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

Housing prices tanking will be good for many people. If you are not in the housing market, your standard of living is improving since you can buy a house more cheaply.

Furthermore, instead of borrowing against inflated property values to spend in the economy, you can spend your extra disposable income or invest for your retirement boosting the stock market. People will more likely invest additional disposable income rather than borrowed equity loans.

The remedy to stop real estate speculators and crooked appraisers from inflating properties is for them to provide their audited cost basis to the buyers and the mortgage companies. As a buyer, I should be able to demand a full accounting of what you spent on the property. This is a major buying decision that could affect you financially for 30 years or more. Why should I have to guess what a house is worth. If you want double what you spent on a house in 6 mos, I can laugh at you and walk away to deal with people that are near my reality...
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

Add to the subprime mess the credit crunch. Banks aren't loaning money right now ,even to people who have good credit, so having home values drop is a non-starter.From what I've been reading banks aren't lending to each other either. Add another dimension, which is people looking to buy aren't taking the prices as they are now expecting homeprices to fall more.

I had a feeling something was brewing with credit cards and the past couple days word is that credit card delinquencies/defaults are at 25% and late payments have jumped also. It appears credit cards were bundled into the same kind of investment instruments as sub prime loans. The consumer is hurting right now whether they can stand up to this remains to be seen.
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

One basic question no one seems to be asking or thinking about. Why are so many people unable to pay their mortgages? Little or no money to spend. Why don't they have money? Low paying jobs. They claim unemployment is low as compared to "historical levels" whatever that means. People have lost good paying jobs over the last 5 to 10 years (the dot com bubble, which was minor and 911, which was not as bad as is popularity thought as compare to job loss. The acceleration of out sourcing jobs over seas has left less and less good paying jobs. Even in the positions that have added jobs, they are related to exports and they don’t pay that well for the typical worker i.e. warehouse work, making shipping containers, retail clerks, etc. Those that think all of a sudden the housing crisis will subside and people will start spending again could be in for a surprise. The dollar shrinking due to personal and governmental dept doesn’t seem to be on most politicians solutions list with any real answers. Hard choices will have to be made.
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

so that must be the beginning of the White-Flight that was goign on in the 70s. I did read about the "Great Society Deal" in a History class I had two semesters ago, but it didn't get into this much detail. that's some shit though. so this isn't anything new, and people are talking like this is a phenomenon. Could be becuase it's happening to white families instead, which sucks, but damn
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

so that must be the beginning of the White-Flight that was goign on in the 70s. I did read about the "Great Society Deal" in a History class I had two semesters ago, but it didn't get into this much detail. that's some shit though. so this isn't anything new, and people are talking like this is a phenomenon. Could be becuase it's happening to white families instead, which sucks, but damn

White flight began en mass after WWII. They began building suburbs outside of the cities due to GI's returning and the new Interstate highway system made it more convenient to drive longer distances. And I’m sure the influx of Blacks from the south to the northern cites made some whites in some communities uncomfortable. Chicago and Detroit experienced this, Detroit more than others. Actually Los Angeles experienced white flight in the 1930s, automobile culture caught on early there. LA use to have one of the most extensive street car grids prior to the 1930s Now LA is moving back toward more denser urban living, just as Atlanta is trying to do.
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

<font size="5"><center>F.B.I. Opens Subprime Inquiry </font size></center>

New York Times
By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: January 30, 2008

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened criminal inquiries into 14 companies as part of a wide-ranging investigation of the troubled mortgage industry, F.B.I. officials said Tuesday.

The F.B.I. said it was looking into possible accounting fraud, insider trading or other violations in connection with loans made to borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit.

The agency declined to identify the companies under investigation but said the inquiry, which began last spring, involves companies from across the financial industry, including mortgage lenders, loan brokers and Wall Street banks that packaged home loans into securities. It is unclear when charges, if any, might be filed.

As part of its investigation, the F.B.I. is cooperating with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is conducting about three dozen civil investigations into how subprime loans were made and packaged, and how securities backed by them were valued. State prosecutors are also investigating various areas of the mortgage industry.

“It’s significant firepower, depending on how far along the investigation is,” Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said about the F.B.I. investigation.

The F.B.I. has been warning for years that mortgage fraud is a significant and growing problem. In the 2006 fiscal year, it documented 35,600 suspicious-activity reports related to mortgage fraud, up from 22,000 the year before and as few as 7,000 in 2003.

Many of the cases the F.B.I. has brought so far have focused on local or regional mortgage fraud rings that involve speculators, loan officers, brokers and other housing professionals.

State officials have been active in bringing mortgage cases. The New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, is investigating whether Wall Street banks withheld damaging information about the loans they were packaging. Prosecutors in Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois and Connecticut have also been looking into the industry.

Earlier this decade, a group of attorneys general reached settlements totaling more than $800 million with two large lenders: Household International, now part of HSBC, and Ameriquest.

State and federal officials share jurisdiction over the mortgage industry and have often squabbled over who should police it. Many lenders that specialize in making loans to people with blemished credit have state charters, but some of them are owned by or affiliated with federally regulated banks.

Mortgage companies and Wall Street banks have said they are cooperating with numerous federal and state investigations. The firms have also sued each other and have been accused of various infractions by investors and borrowers in numerous cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/business/30fbi.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin'
 
Re: The Original Subprime Crisis

One basic question no one seems to be asking or thinking about. Why are so many people unable to pay their mortgages? Little or no money to spend. Why don't they have money? Low paying jobs. They claim unemployment is low as compared to "historical levels" whatever that means. People have lost good paying jobs over the last 5 to 10 years (the dot com bubble, which was minor and 911, which was not as bad as is popularity thought as compare to job loss. The acceleration of out sourcing jobs over seas has left less and less good paying jobs. Even in the positions that have added jobs, they are related to exports and they don’t pay that well for the typical worker i.e. warehouse work, making shipping containers, retail clerks, etc. Those that think all of a sudden the housing crisis will subside and people will start spending again could be in for a surprise. The dollar shrinking due to personal and governmental dept doesn’t seem to be on most politicians solutions list with any real answers. Hard choices will have to be made.

As usual, I disagree with your statments. First, I find it ironic that you would be so dismissive of the Times as being "notoriously right slanted" and then post something from an obviously left leaning think tank and mention nothing of it. Typical of you. It's funny that lefties like to fixate on the minimum wage, especially when so few actually work for minimum wage, and those that do tend to be young, and don't earn it for very long.

But to get to what I quoted from you. It's not that people don't have jobs, or ones that pay "too little", it's that they got adjustable rate loans, that are now adjusting. They entered into a poor contract. And now they (and you) want those of us who actually practiced financial dicipline to pick up the tab. What makes you think that we should perpetually have high paying low or no skilled labor ? It's ridiculous. I have the same mortgage I had damn near 8 years ago, and the only reason it's gone up is for taxes. And the taxes I pay are to subsidize those who use more resouces than what they pay for.

On a related note - what do you think of the "income tax rebate" ?
 
Back
Top