263 - 171.

God damn it.

feces occur!

We need to go shoot some Congressmen/women in the fasees....

Can we get a rolecall on who voted what way?

If Bishop voted yes I'm going to make a few calls today.

Not one person I've spoken to locally supported that pos.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

Mine voted no. So did yours.

Good, because I know a group of us were making calls to friends and urging them to call in.

Or course I did the same thing with National Sales tax to no avail. ;P

Looks like it would have passed anyways even without the 91 Republicans....

Mine voted no so did my hometown rep who is also my cousin.

This sux :(

By the way can you post the final vote for Senate?

Never mind I found it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#state

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

You know what the differences are between this bill and the one that failed? Massive earmarks and pork. So much for Mc Cain's so called anti earmark maverick status.

You know what the differences are between this bill and the one that failed? Massive earmarks and pork. So much for Mc Cain's so called anti earmark maverick status.

Indeed, that is such a frigging joke.

There are a ton of stupid self serving riders on this bill.

Rum and arrows are some of the oddities I can recall after perusing it at lunch . ;(

The bill that failed was $700 billion. The one that passed today was $810 billion. That's a lot of bacon we just paid for.

So what was the differences between Thurs and today that caused so many to change their mind?

The politicians did not get paid in the first one.

Several dozen subsidies to nowhere.

Be nice to see who added what and who changed their votes. I wonder what the congress would look like if the election was held tomorrow.

Unfortunately the one that voted for it from my state isn't up for re-election...but I don't think I'd for him anyways, Salazaar.

Putnam yes....i hate that guy.

Nelson nay...not a bad rep in my opinion

I agree.,.... If it was sooooo important why the hell add ANYTHING to the bill? That is what makes me totally sick...

Well, for those clamoring for the bill to pass, I hope you're happy. The markets closed down 200 points, and you will soon be feeling the pain.

Bought and paid for:

Ek7zc0lJxbM

http://www.washingtonyourefired.com/goldman_sachs_2008_contributions.html

WL-9CV-qbMw

I know it's very easy to direct ire towards earmarks...

Here's a telling statistic:

If we paid off EVERY earkmark bill offered by the Congress from here on out, it would take ONE-HUNDRED YEARS to pay off the national deficit.

And this is before we raised the cap to over 11 trillion dollars the other day.

They are a FANTASTIC wedge issue. In reality, EARMARKS DONT MEAN SHIT. They are a drop in a massive bucket of federal spending.

I know it's very easy to direct ire towards earmarks...

Here's a telling statistic:

If we paid off EVERY earkmark bill offered by the Congress from here on out, it would take ONE-HUNDRED YEARS to pay off the national deficit.

And this is before we raised the cap to over 11 trillion dollars the other day.

They are a FANTASTIC wedge issue. In reality, EARMARKS DONT MEAN SHIT. They are a drop in a massive bucket of federal spending.


I think most people know that, unless they are a "knuckle dragger", they amount to 18 billion a year and are the way for congress to bring things home to their district. It's the vote every member of congress out except mine. The issue is with this bill it was the absolute one bill that should have been clean.

I know it's very easy to direct ire towards earmarks...

Here's a telling statistic:

If we paid off EVERY earkmark bill offered by the Congress from here on out, it would take ONE-HUNDRED YEARS to pay off the national deficit.

And this is before we raised the cap to over 11 trillion dollars the other day.

They are a FANTASTIC wedge issue. In reality, EARMARKS DONT MEAN SHIT. They are a drop in a massive bucket of federal spending.

That's one of the most fantastically false statements I've ever heard.

In my entire adult life I've never heard any other adult , who lives on his/her own dime, claim that earmarks don't mean "shit".

They are just another level of bullshit that our loose pocket govt allows/subsists on.

They've been going on for far longer than I've been alive. We've never been ahead ofthe game on nearly any bill because there are earmarks that have jack and shit to do with the original bill.

Add them up over the last 40 years say. Hmmm wonder how much they add to the over all deficiet you seem to think is the end all be all.

Wake up, earmarks are a hideous part of life that doesn't have to be.

EVERYONE in this country has been benefited by earmarks, that is not to say that many of them have been ridiculous in their nature.

Earmarks are how towns, counties and often states often get the dollars necessary for infrastructure.

WL-9CV-qbMw

I vote for a constitutional amendment to make Ron Paul the supreme leader for the next eight years!

I took a internet test to see who most closely aligns with my ideas of how govt should be run (6 months ago or more)..... it incompassed everyone....it may have even been on this web site..... and the name Ron Paul came up .... I had never heard of him.... I would almost work for his campaign if I could go back in time now..........

Rover,

My vision includes bills that are voted on seperately and if local states functions need monies they either find a way to pay for itself or it's discussed seperately.

Problem with riders are they are merely taproots into the financial aqueducts. Sure they may not seem like much $$ out when you look at the original monies called out for in the rider clipped to the bill. However once the pet pork project gets rolling are you , or anyone else for that matter, really going to tell me it's going to be at that original fee?

I've worked with or for the govt most of my adult life and I have rarely seen a govt project stay on budget.

Don't attempt to sell me on how local cities and such benefit. If it's such a worthy cause and truly needed then let it stand on it's own merit. Better yet let the state pay for it instead of federal funds.

There's just not enough oversight to allow spending/allocating intial monies.

Riders are a big waste, and to hear any sane person say "dont' mean shit" just amazes me. It's how those riders are still around, folks being totally blind to the reality of govt functions.

Your vision is a great one and I don't disagree with it, unfortunately it's only a vision.

The bottom line answer to your ideal vision is that state and local taxes would have to significantly rise.

I think earmarks is just one of those things were the foxes are literally guarding the henhouse, and that's not likely to change anytime soon (no matter how much McCain blowhards about it).

Meanwhile, the low hanging fruit has the potential to be at least an order of magnitude more significant than all earmarks combined. At a time like this, priorities matter more than ever.

Why can't it change is what I'm wondering. I'm not talking about McCain's intentionally short changed version that seems only to involve the monies spent.

I'm talking about 1 bill 1 vote, no backroom unseen deals to get riders attached etc etc.

I see it as easy , and to use San's apt analogy, low hanging fruit.

Imagine Washington running under such a concept. They'd have to put in 5 day weeks all year round to get all their issues voted on!! omg!

My next dream change is one Sixie touched on. Limit the wages they earn while serving in the House. No auto retirement after 4 years, they have to serve 30 years like any other civilian govt worker ( yes a sore point as I'm one ;p ).

Sorry , derailing this thread for something I can't bring to fruition is silly I know ;(

I am not inherantly against earmarks. My complaint is this. The initial 700billion dollar bill failed. Most of the nays stated their own(and their constituents) objection based on fiscal responsibility. So the second pill passes, because 57 representatives changed their mind. The 700 billion dollar portion of the two bills is Identical. The only difference is an additional 110billion of tax earmarks and spending earmarks. It doesnt make any fucking sense, unless of course the fiscal objection was because the price tag wasnt high enough.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I have been planning to vote for Obama in the general. At this point I am so mad that I will probably just write in Ron Paul anyway.

I am not inherantly against earmarks. My complaint is this. The initial 700billion dollar bill failed. Most of the nays stated their own(and their constituents) objection based on fiscal responsibility. So the second pill passes, because 57 representatives changed their mind. The 700 billion dollar portion of the two bills is Identical. The only difference is an additional 110billion of tax earmarks and spending earmarks. It doesnt make any fucking sense, unless of course the fiscal objection was because the price tag wasnt high enough.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I have been planning to vote for Obama in the general. At this point I am so mad that I will probably just write in Ron Paul anyway.

Yea, cause a McCain win would rock!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Don't attempt to sell me on how local cities and such benefit. If it's such a worthy cause and truly needed then let it stand on it's own merit. Better yet let the state pay for it instead of federal funds.


First you have to reverse the fifty year trend of pulling all funds up to the Federal level and then redistributing. That's why we have national speed limits, wars on drugs, and bridges to no where ... and No Child Left Educated ... etc

Earmarks don't mean shit.

First off, EVERYONE benefits from an earmark at some time or another. It's easy to bitch and moan about the bridge to no where, but when a new community center gets built in your neighborhood are you going to cry, or are you going to re-elect your congressman?


In my entire adult life I've never heard any other adult , who lives on his/her own dime, claim that earmarks don't mean "shit".You have supported some of the most egregious usage of federal funds since the early 20th century, yet you're really going to sit here and take a stand on something that amounts to almost nothing?

Add them up over the last 40 years say. Hmmm wonder how much they add to the over all deficiet you seem to think is the end all be all.Well, considering that we had a surplus until your boy W came into office, I'd say pretty much nothing. And stop trivializing a deficit that amounts to over 10 trillion dollars. Jesus Christ, what will it take to get you to admit that things aren't going well?

Earmarks are a fantastic wedge issue to get people all riled up.
This is a perfect example. While you're going on about this pittance of spending, the government is writing checks with very little oversight that simply dwarf earmark expenditures.

If your argument is we should cut corners at EVERY single possible area we can, then okay. If you're going to get all pissy about something that amount to less than half a percent of the federal budget, surely you're up for tackling some of the more significant (read: things that actually matter) wastes of money.

For fuck's sake, we simply up and LOST (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/) half of the annual earmark spending simply due to an auditing error...

And as far as your suggestion that we create new legislation for every single thing that the Congress wants to do... You already bitch and moan about the inadequacies of the Congress, and rightfully so. Do you understand the already ridiculous legislative overload that they are dealing with right now? It's not even remotely feasible to attempt this.

Ain , while you live in what should be an idealistic driven world of college you sure don't seem bent to make a difference in anything other than your own lil world. I don't see giving up on making a difference at your age. It's a fucking crying shame to see one so cynical when you have the world by the balls. If an old fart like me can still call up and ask for changes and reasons why for and why not by my Rep why can't you aspire to higher? Hell I'm just a "have some college" and alot of tech school guy and I sure as hell try.

Do you know the working days for those elected to serve in those chairs?

It's not up to regular civilian govt worker I'll tell you that right now. I bet if they punch a dern clock and are forced to look at each item they'd come close to earning those disgusting paychecks they cash.

So if I advocate them being forced to actually work issues in the open there's a damn good reason. Not one drawn up by some college prof, but instead one derived from 24 years of voting (and 4 years of Young Republicans before that) and seeing alot of wasted time.

Oh and yes I'll bitch when the community center goes up. Because I know it could have been done cheaper with local involvement. We'd feel the pain and really justify how the monies are spent. Last thing I want is someone in Washington spending monies that may only make it to our end of the world in fractions.

Start there, get rid of riders and you'll see lobbyists in the light of day. Having to act on the up and up as there are fewer behind closed door deals.

Malse has a point, I think he understands why I feel so strongly about this ;( So many bad deals put together behind doors we're not privy to. When those fucksticks were put in office by us ;(

Earmarks are a big load of apparently misunderstood evil. Votes on bills are often based solely on the earmarks(bribes) on said bill.

Clean it up, make it transparent.

There is nothing wrong with Fedreal dollars going to fund state projects. I have a problem with this whole concept of "sweetening" a bill. Each item should be voted on its own merits. It sickens me to death to see 57 people change their vote because it was "sweetened" with earmarks.

There is nothing wrong with Fedreal dollars going to fund state projects. I have a problem with this whole concept of "sweetening" a bill. Each item should be voted on its own merits. It sickens me to death to see 57 people change their vote because it was "sweetened" with earmarks.

I agree 100% Phel, I didn't mean to suggest Fed monies shouldn't be used at a state level. At the core I meant more transparency, vote for what your constituants want not for a bill because someone is agreeing to scratch your back on the down low.

And yes, this latest bullshit change of heart by 57 folks is what's really got my goat. This is an old heartache made very visable. Maybe this would be a good time to make the change. Get Obama on board, make a real change that could make a real difference!

Ain , while you live in what should be an idealistic driven world of college you sure don't seem bent to make a difference in anything other than your own lil world.This is such crap. I want to make an ACTUAL difference. Right now, we are suffering from a huge economic problem. I would like to directly address the many causes of this problem. EARMARKS ARE NOT ONE OF THEM.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot change everything. So, I ask you, do you think that we should prioritize at all? Should we dump our efforts into changing something that for all intents and purposes means jack shit, or should we target the more substantial, wide-reading policy decisions that are dragging us down?

Now, if I make the completely rational decision that no, we should not waste time on earmark reform because we have bigger fish to fry… this somehow means that I’m opposed to change or reform?

Do you know the working days for those elected to serve in those chairs?Yes, I do. I have worked on the Hill and understand very much what they do.

My question is, do you?

If you are a member of Congress, you are on call 24/7. You are there early in the morning, and you are there late at night. If you aren’t in the office, you are meeting with another member, or maybe an advocate, or a member of the press, or a constituent. During this entire time you have a pimply faced staffer telling you who is on the phone this time and what he wants. Five minutes later its another person who wants something else. After you take this call you rush to your committee meeting where an important bill is going through. After that maybe you go to a hearing for a subcommittee you also reside on. You finally get home at maybe 8 (That’s if you don’t do any evening press, have any galas or dinners to attend, etc), and then you go over your day, perhaps make some phone calls, and think about what’s going to happen tomorrow. But you’d damned well be ready to take a call from your head of staff when shit hits the fan.

Now, I notice you poked fun at their short work weeks. Consider this. Republicans are creaming themselves over this OMG WASHINGTON OUTSIDER MAVERICK!! persona that has been adopted by McCain and Palin. First off, do you know why they only work three days? Because lawmakers consider it important to actually come home and work within the state or district where they actually were elected. They meet with constituents, state and local politicians, local media, and other groups of people who are simply inaccessible from Washignton. So if you decide to have them working in Washington five days a week, this would largely go by the wayside. Sorry, no mavericks under this scenario.

Second, please remember that politicians are people. Also realize that 99% of them don’t bring their families to Washington. They have children. They have spouses. They would like to see them for a day or two a week. Are you going to tell them no?

Lawmakers pull in an average of 170k a year. Yes, that is a lot. No, it’s not an easy job and if you think that you’re a complete idiot. I’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more high-stress job.

Start there, get rid of riders and you'll see lobbyists in the light of day. Having to act on the up and up as there are fewer behind closed door deals. Please read up on lobbying reform, and then read about how the system works now, and then realize that this makes no sense. (How much lobbying activity do you think actually goes into earmarks?)

Ahhh accepting same ole same ole because it's too much work.

You'll fit right in with the status quo, well done!

Predictable.

Keep up the misguided armchair advocacy while I actually work to change some of this shit.

"you are meeting with another member, or maybe an advocate". Very nice spin there.

Why can't it change is what I'm wondering. I'm not talking about McCain's intentionally short changed version that seems only to involve the monies spent.

(

Essentially, earmarks are how the incumbents assist each others' campaigns for re-election. The elected official who brings money to his or her state/district in the form of building projects and studies is creating jobs in many cases and saving the local authorities from having to increase local taxes to pay for the item; this leads to voters being more inclined to punch out that *chad* opposite the incumbent's name rather than the challenger.

Our elected officials are great believers in the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" philosophy, and earmarks are one obvious sign of how that works. As long as people have to get re-elected, earmarks will be a part of our financial problems.

Take them away as Fanny suggests, and they would merely morph into another form of spending to perpetuate the status quo.

Very nice spin there.

Hey. That's just the term the industry has adopted. That or 'Government Affairs Consultant' or 'Public Affairs Consultant.'

It's all lobbying. I know it, and everyone in the business knows it, but because it has such a slimy connotation we aren't allowed to talk about it.

Another fun fact I'm sure you'll all love.

You now have to sign up for the register if you are a lobbyist. What is a lobbyist?

a.) Lobbyist makes more than one contact with a covered official on behalf of the organization and
b.) More than 20% of the lobbyist’s time is spent on lobbying activities for the organization and
c.) Lobbyist receives more than $5,000 in a six month period from the organization.

This criterion puts the number of registered lobbyists in Washington DC at around 30,000 people.

A study is going to be released in the next year or so that is the first to actual attempt to count the real number of people engaging in 'lobbying activity.' It puts the count at over 100,000.

Sleep tight. :rolleyes:

I agree with Ainwein, attacking earmarks as being the problem is like making flag burning the main focus when things are going terribly wrong in Iraq. Remember that?

Most of what was added to the "bailout" was things to get republicans, the so called conservatives, to vote yes. Unfortunately by bowing to their bullshit once again the 12,000,000 (Twelve Million) homes in danger of foreclosure were completely overlooked. Well, I guess we're about to have a serious homeless issue. There are currently 10,000 homes being foreclosed on every day now.

I agree with Ainwein, attacking earmarks as being the problem is like making flag burning the main focus when things are going terribly wrong in Iraq. Remember that?

Most of what was added to the "bailout" was things to get republicans, the so called conservatives, to vote yes. Unfortunately by bowing to their bullshit once again the 12,000,000 (Twelve Million) homes in danger of foreclosure were completely overlooked. Well, I guess we're about to have a serious homeless issue. There are currently 10,000 homes being foreclosed on every day now.

I don't know if I made this clear, I don't care which party attaches the taproot of earmarks onto a bill.

You won't have a clean, clear Washington or of the maggots who perpetuate the same ole cancerous bullshit till you either find a way to regulate earmarks or ditch them all together.

I know there are folks who want it to stay, they work at the base of the fruit laden treen watching the parasites on high living high on the fruit while they merely smell the rinds tossed thier way.

Of course those that work in lower positions on the hill want it to stay that way. They want to be that parasite living on the fat fruit.

Well, squash them all...start anew and bring us a cleaner version of Democracy. Where voting records mean something ( because you can actually see why they voted ) and as such you'll have a better view of the person you might want to vote into a higher office. Then maybe we'll really know those stuffed suits.

I say it's a base issue that has greater ramifications than perhaps I'm clearly explaining. It's a big issue to me, you don't get to tell me it means nothing to me ;P

Soooo I read somewhere this weekend that a healthy % of economists say the bailout is worthless till house prices stop falling.

Errrr maybe I'm daft but I don't see that happening till 2010 ish. I've long said and felt that housing prices were very inflated.

So they passed this huge bill that's maybe 2 years ahead of when it could actually help?

grrrrrrrrrrr

Well, hold on to your hats, kids:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/business/07markets.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1223319669-64tpEwAWvrebstZb4WvbVQ

Hot off the presses in today's NYT, the Dow is down to 9600 and quivering there, as credit markets worldwide are frozen or next to it and the EU scrambles with their own bailout and security guarantee plans; things are bad enough in Iceland that they're contemplating joining the EU (which they've resisted to this point) for the sake of relief...

We may be grumbling (screaming, taking up arms) about the bailout (and especially the extra 115 billion in wheel-greasing bribery addons to get it to pass) but let's hope they start using some of our now next to worthless money to buy up these toxic assets soon so the banks get un-paralyzed :/.

Regards,
Nydia

Soooo I read somewhere this weekend that a healthy % of economists say the bailout is worthless till house prices stop falling.


That's one, very simplistic way of looking at it, but it's fundamentally misconstrued.

Housing prices won't stop falling because there is no free money flying around to let people buy them. There is a reasonably cogent argument that the best "bailout" would have been mortgage assistance to put value back into some of the CDOs that were evaporating, but America will never tolerate that kind of charity.

Properly motivated the majority of debt-based lending will be rebased on something besides insane real estate. But it will take a while, at which point home prices won't matter.

That's one, very simplistic way of looking at it, but it's fundamentally misconstrued.

Housing prices won't stop falling because there is no free money flying around to let people buy them. There is a reasonably cogent argument that the best "bailout" would have been mortgage assistance to put value back into some of the CDOs that were evaporating, but America will never tolerate that kind of charity.


The argument of assisting the homeowners is the best business decision that could be made and will most likely work, it frees up money, stops an avalanche, creates a positive cash flow to banks and allows people and the nation to breathe a bit. The wallstreet bailout without that assistance in it is simply allowing the same people who brought this on to continue what they were doing, which is completely ridiculious.

The fix is right there in front of everyone and some bullshit so called conservative idealogy prevents the most common sense approach to fixing the problem.

The argument of assisting the homeowners is the best business decision that could be made and will most likely work, it frees up money, stops an avalanche, creates a positive cash flow to banks and allows people and the nation to breathe a bit. The wallstreet bailout without that assistance in it is simply allowing the same people who brought this on to continue what they were doing, which is completely ridiculious.

The fix is right there in front of everyone and some bullshit so called conservative idealogy prevents the most common sense approach to fixing the problem.


You have got to stop that Rover, you're much better than that.

You are committing the same crime the neocons commit by using a small group of people to label an entire party/idealogy. By doing this you have fallen into the trap of "U r teh Evil because Ur parties colur is different than my parties!!"

Grats, you've gotten better at polarized banter 101!!!!

This shitty bailout plan has nothing to do with conservative idealogy. It's more akin to the cash and spend doctrine the left usually adheres to than a true conservative. It's bullshit greed that transcends any party and the tags of stupid and greedy should be placed specifically.

There's no way they should have given the monies straight to the folks who are losing their houses either. Tho on paper it sounds good it was stupid as sin for most of those folks to sign those morgages.

Even I knew not to buy at those high prices, and I'm no savant ;P

Emphasizing in order to change context doesn't make what he said wrong. There is certainly nothing conservative about most of our current crop. It's not a minority of them at all.

Unless you mean "fiscal conservative", which is apparently code for this now:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg

You have got to stop that Rover, you're much better than that.

You are committing the same crime the neocons commit by using a small group of people to label an entire party/idealogy. By doing this you have fallen into the trap of "U r teh Evil because Ur parties colur is different than my parties!!"

Grats, you've gotten better at polarized banter 101!!!!

This shitty bailout plan has nothing to do with conservative idealogy. It's more akin to the cash and spend doctrine the left usually adheres to than a true conservative. It's bullshit greed that transcends any party and the tags of stupid and greedy should be placed specifically.

There's no way they should have given the monies straight to the folks who are losing their houses either. Tho on paper it sounds good it was stupid as sin for most of those folks to sign those morgages.

Even I knew not to buy at those high prices, and I'm no savant ;P


I'm not being a polarizer, I'm being realistic. The republican party is not a party of conservatives, it used to be but that went out the window when Goldwater left.


You pull all of the buzz words, "tax and spend" and "liberal media".

As far as those folks who bought those houses that they couldn't afford you could be no more wrong than you are about this.

If these houses are allowed to be foreclosed on there will be 12 million plus homeless families, do you understand the ramifications of that? What then? Let them starve? Live outside? It is common sense and good business sense that these homes should be saved, that payments should be brought into an affordable area. It creates an INSTANT cash flow to the banks holding the paper and in the long run (a mortgage is supposed to have been a long term investment for a bank) it creates a very generous profit.

95% of these mortgages were paid on time and were serviceable until the ARM kicked in, then most of them doubled and in some cases tripled in the monthly payment. This is when it became a crisis, people could not afford that jump, and the banks knew full well what would happen.

When an average person goes in to get a mortgage they have a level of trust that the place they are talking to is telling them the truth, guess what, they weren't.

And don't forget these ARM's came with a clause that those homeowners could not pay off that mortgage for 2 sometimes 3 years which meant no refinancing. Dude, people were hoodwinked and here's why.

It was complete and utter unbridled greed on the part of mortgage brokers, banks and the Lehman Brothers of this country, and it was due to the removal of regulations that kept greed in check.


This was well thought out by them, I assure you of it:

Person wants a house - goes for mortgage - broker says we can get that with 0 down and finance 125% which will put cash in your pocket to cover expenses, maybe buy some new furniture or even get a new car to go with your new house. They did that because they were betting that those mortgages would be payed for the first 2-3 years, which EVERY payment in that time being mostly what? Interest!

So for 2-3 years it's pure profit for them as they are still owed the principle amount. They presented it in their boardrooms as the house they financed for 200k would be worth 325k lets say in three years. Add that up, three years of interest, then foreclose and sell the house for lets say 315k and in theory you have the three most profitable years of a mortgage plus the profit that they theorized they would make on the sale of the property they foreclosed on, and they also sold those packaged mortgages based on that too.

Thats it dude, bottom line, greed ruled the day like it or not. There is a reason for regulations and now you should see why.

Also, as far as this "free market" crap goes...guess what...we live in a world of subsidized markets.

It's bullshit greed that transcends any party and the tags of stupid and greedy should be placed specifically.



It was complete and utter unbridled greed on the part of mortgage brokers, banks and the Lehman Brothers of this country, and it was due to the removal of regulations that kept greed in check.


You are both arguing the same point. It was greed, regardless of party affiliation. But that was only part of the equation. The blind trust (read stupidity) of people that had no idea how an ARM works had a lot to do with that.

I remember my step-father talking about a reverse morgage loan he wanted to take out on the house where he and my mom lived. Thank goodness he lost his faculties before going through with the plan, otherwise he and my mother would no longer have a place to live....

You are both arguing the same point. It was greed, regardless of party affiliation. But that was only part of the equation. The blind trust (read stupidity) of people that had no idea how an ARM works had a lot to do with that.

I remember my step-father talking about a reverse morgage loan he wanted to take out on the house where he and my mom lived. Thank goodness he lost his faculties before going through with the plan, otherwise he and my mother would no longer have a place to live....

Sixee, like I said, it comes down to a trust that people inherintly had with bankers. When a person goes into a bank they trust them, the bank HAS the OBLIGATION of telling the TRUTH, it's that simple. That is how America was brought up...TRUST the BANK. Call it stupidity or what you want and go for it and lay the blame on the people who bought houses...yeah...thats the problem. Those smart bankers were duped by all of those stupid people...amazing isn't it.

Look at it this way:

People tend to distrust the Government. One of the biggest reasons is because we are taxed. People generally resent and distrust any organization that lays claim to their money, why should a bank be any different?

If that's the case, why should any person put their money in the bank Sixee? Because we've been raised to at least believe that our money is safe in a bank. If we expect our money to be safe in a bank, we have to trust that bank with our money.

Most of us have been raised to trust a bank, not to put money under his/her mattress or bury it in the back yard. Most of us have been taught it's safer to get a loan from a bank than from the mob (or even a family member). Now all the sudden we shouldn't trust them with our money? We were supposed to just stop trusting them overnight because you had some magical oracle that banks shouldn't be trusted?

I guess it's all our parents and ancestors fault for telling us to trust banks with our money, right Sixee?

Look at it this way:

People tend to distrust the Government. One of the biggest reasons is because we are taxed. People generally resent and distrust any organization that lays claim to their money, why should a bank be any different?


People don't distrust the government because they are taxed, they distrust the government because of politicians, because politicians have a very strong tendency to lie.

If someone distrusts the government because of taxes they're an idiot. How do you think these things we have are paid for? Those roads, transportation, bridges, schools, military, EPA, CDC, SSI, Disability, Dams, Levies, Cops, Firemen, the list is long and full of necessities. Those things are not free.

I don't trust government, not because it built Hoover Dam or something like that, I distrust it because of things like the Vietnam War, The Iraq War, As Sanchek pointed out the so called fiscal conservatives, the corporate welfare, it's things like that which brought my distrust of government.

Oh I dislike the arm of the govt that handles taxes.

I don't mind taxes, but I sure as hell don't trust the govt to gather them as they do. That's for another thread and story however ;P

Look, folks that didn't jump out of the shady ARM's they were in were and are bound to repeat said stupidty.

If the Govt bailed them out they'd find a way to live beyond reason and logic. They are as guilty as the banks , you don't get to play stupid and just blame the man. Welcome to the realities of adult life.

If a deal seems to good it likely is no?

So that's not a viable answer in my book. Nor do I have an answer that would likely bear fruit I'm afraid. I think it's too early to throw good taxpayer money after bad. WAAAAYYY too early ;(

Oh I dislike the arm of the govt that handles taxes.

I don't mind taxes, but I sure as hell don't trust the govt to gather them as they do. That's for another thread and story however ;P

Look, folks that didn't jump out of the shady ARM's they were in were and are bound to repeat said stupidty.

If the Govt bailed them out they'd find a way to live beyond reason and logic. They are as guilty as the banks , you don't get to play stupid and just blame the man. Welcome to the realities of adult life.

If a deal seems to good it likely is no?

So that's not a viable answer in my book. Nor do I have an answer that would likely bear fruit I'm afraid. I think it's too early to throw good taxpayer money after bad. WAAAAYYY too early ;(

My wife and I lucked out, and by lucked out, I mean we paid out our ass to get out of an ARM. If we'd waited even 2 more months as the housing prices went down, we wouldn't have been able too(and we couldn't have refinanced sooner, as we refinanced the very month that our ARM was at the 2 year window when we could pay it off, even with a charge for doing it before the 3rd year).

We bought our house with an arm, not to get more house than we could afford (we bought a house that was $144,900 when we bought it), but because we both had made some poor decisions earlier in our lives due to credit. We bought what we could afford, and didn't buy anything more than we could afford. Our credit was poor (though I'm over 750 now and she's over 730), but we needed a house in which to start our family.

Our ARM initial rate (which was still 6.5+%, not some low below prime rate that others had) expired after 2 years, making our payment go up $500 bucks a month. We refinanced after those two years, but we had to completely pay off our mortgage, and a fee, and then got a 30year fixed (and closing costs, and we basically lost our down payment from the first mortgage). The issue was, since the housing prices didn't go up, and has been said interest is all that is paid in the first two years, we had next to no equity in our house with which to refinance. The only way we could refinance was to pay a shitton of money to do so. Now, we saw the writing on the wall, and the potential of losing our house if we didn't pay all that money so we did it. The ARM we were sold was misrepresented to us. We were assured our payments couldn't jump that much, and we were also assured it would be easy to refinance as long as we built up our credit (which we obviously did).

Not everyone would have been able to refinance their ARMs. Some of those arms didn't come due until after the housing prices plummeted, so there is no possible way for that person to refinance to save their house.

My wife and I are very intelligent individuals, and to insinuate that we were stupid because we wanted to get a home and start a family is a baseless claim. We had been responsible with our money for years, but it IS hard to build up credit after a past blunder without a means to show one is a good risk.

Our home is now worth according to the city of Columbus $133,000 (this is without the $20,000 we put into the basement this summer). If that assessment had come before we refinanced, we'd have been out of a home too. Surely you aren't calling me stupid Fandros.

There are idiots that are losing their homes because they overextended themselves for sure. There are also honest people that were assured things by mortgage brokers and banks that they would be able to refinance at a later date (even if home values had just remained flat). To paint with a broad stroke is folly.

It's also fair to say that many people lack a financial background to understand some of this. Hell, we bought our house straight up from the sale of our last one about four years ago, and the process was all new to me. I was learning about the paperwork on the fly. I think I'm a fairly educated person, but I can easily see how someone would be taken in by a bank official promising too much.

On the note of trusting the government - there are many areas where people DO trust the government, and even welcome government interference. Well, not on this forum, but we're weird and cynical. Think about food safety, medical safety and doctor conduct, road safety, emergency services, and so on. NPR had a great story addressing just this topic yesterday. They compared areas where we want the government in, and areas we want them out. Stay out of my bedroom, come into my kitchen.

Facts are facts. Banks went WAY out of their way to solicit mortgages, banks didn't even ask for proof of or consider income when they wrote most of those mortgages, banks were the lenders if you lend money to someone you are an idiot if you don't take into consideration how that person will pay it back.

Banks were gambling on a rising realestate market, that is a well known fact. They pushed mortgages on people that they knew they would have issues with once that ARM kicked in, that is a well known fact.

The banks really didn't care if the loans could be paid because they turned around and sold the mortgages which absolved them of any caring on whether it was paid or not.

Here's the scenario:

Fandros wants to borrow $100,000 dollars to buy a house.

Rover says OK, I'll lend it to you and with interest being paid the value of that loan over 30 years is $360,000.00 dollars. I never check Fandros's income, I never consider a debt to income ratio (the affordability of the payment to Fandros)

So I take that paper (promissory note) and sell it to Sixee for $150,000.00.

Now I just made $50,000.00 dollars and I could care less whether Fandros pays it or not because it is now Sixee's problem.

So Sixee says...hmmm...might be a problem here and he turns and sells that loan to Kelraz for $200,000.00, and now Sixee doesnt care if Fandros pays because it is Kelraz's problem. Kelraz who has bought many many of those notes groups a whole bunch together and says to Beelzoid...Hey...have I got a deal for you.. So Beelzoid buys this whole portfolio of notes that is valued at millions of dollars ON PAPER as long as realestate keeps going up Beelzoid is happy.

But now, economic conditions cause people to lose jobs, interest rates rise, and the ARMs kick in, now mind you the ARMs were a big reason why Beelzoid wanted those papers because it meant that he could make even more money as interest rates rise, but he didn't realize that it also meant that people would now have payments double or triple, but he didn't care because those houses would rise in price and he could take them and sell them at a nice profit.

But well, now comes this drop in realestate prices along with rising interest rates and job losses and now things aren't looking to good for Beelzoid so he runs to the government and says...hey...you need to buy these things because if you don't I'll go out of business.

So the government takes the now almost worthless and getting even more worthless paper from Beelzoid and says..just take this money (probably his original buying price) and it will be the problem of the citizens of the USA.

Now Beelzoid just dodged a major bullet but the people in tax payer land, well, they are really really pissed at Beelzoid because they are now paying for his bad business decision and Beelzoid...well...he likes it when people like him. So he takes some of his millions of dollars of free money from the government and he goes on TV and says..."Hey, this happened because of the people who bought these houses"

Now Beelzoid is happy because he got his money back, the congressman are happy because they got to attach neat things for their districts to the money they gave Beelzoid and the people in their districts will re-elect them, and the president (remember him) he's happy because his friend Beelzoid just got money he asked for and now Beelzoid will give him money to build a monument to himself (presidential library) and everyone is happy:D


Except for...those idiots who listened to the bankers and bought those homes because those homes are being taken away and the taxpayers aren't happy because well...they just paid Beelzoids salary.

So guess who loses?

I guess it's all our parents and ancestors fault for telling us to trust banks with our money, right Sixee?

I trust a bank to keep my money safe. I don't trust a bank to make me money than I already have.

People don't distrust the government because they are taxed, they distrust the government because of politicians, because politicians have a very strong tendency to lie.


And why do they lie? To get more of your money....

I agree, there are some good things that government can accomplish, with said tax revenue.

However, there are lots of things (394 pages worth on the latest legislation) that are completely unnecessary.

I trust a bank to keep my money safe. I don't trust a bank to make me money than I already have.



And why do they lie? To get more of your money....

I agree, there are some good things that government can accomplish, with said tax revenue.

However, there are lots of things (394 pages worth on the latest legislation) that are completely unnecessary.


They don't lie to get more money out of me or you, our money pays their salaries which isn't alot, they lie to stay in power and reap the benefits of power and get the money from the large corporations that pay them to put forth and pass legislation that favor those corporations which, is a benefit of power.

I've hesitated buying a house because I knew the market was shady as hell.

I make good cash, decent credit and hell have a VA loan I could use and still I waited. Now I'll end up getting a small comfy house with a good yard in a quiet neighborhood for much cheaper than I would have I not waited. Won't be till maybe 2009 or even 2010 before I dare jumping in that market.

I'm not calling anyone here stupid that jumped into an ARM. My ex and I did the same back in 1992-1993 when we built our house. She was smart enough 5 years ago, yes with me long out of the house ;p, to buy out of the ARM and get a fixed rate. She doesn't make alot of money with her state licensed day care and still she was able to do it. Hell she's not even an American citizen being here on a green card from England and she was able to get it done.

Saying that I think folks are and should be held responsible for the ARMs they sat in for far too long. You don't have to agree with me Rover, you can craft another story trying to absolve some stupid folks for thinking they could keep living off of daydreams and cotton candy and it'll mean jack and shit to me. Being stupid and greedy are no free passes to asking for handouts from the govt , that's a failed policy from the past and one I hope never to see return.

My wife and I are very intelligent individuals, and to insinuate that we were stupid because we wanted to get a home and start a family is a baseless claim. We had been responsible with our money for years, but it IS hard to build up credit after a past blunder without a means to show one is a good risk.

Our home is now worth according to the city of Columbus $133,000 (this is without the $20,000 we put into the basement this summer). If that assessment had come before we refinanced, we'd have been out of a home too. Surely you aren't calling me stupid Fandros.


You seem to have constructed a false dichotomy here. We've all done less than intelligent things, the best of intentions behind them don't change that. Effectively, yes, you placed getting the specific home when and where you wanted ahead of a number of other factors that should have been large red flags. The option shouldn't have been given to you, but you can't claim ignorance of the consequences when you took it.

Fortunately for myself, the most I've ever put myself on the line for was about $10,000. I wasn't particularly money savvy in my early 20s either.

Just as a counterexample, I've counseled at least ten people over the last few years about home buying. I never knew much about the global financial insanity behind interest only ARMs until 2006, but I knew a bad idea when I saw one in 2004 and the income * 3 rule of thumb is older than all of us.

All of these home values were based on funny money that never existed in the first place. When we sold our first home, we sold it for $220,000, when it was purchased four years earlier for $120,000. There wasn't a magic fairy that created an additional $100,000 for us. We've lost about that much in value of our current home, but again, it was never real money, in the sense that it suddenly existed within the economy. Making bets against that sort of thing never seems wise, and many of us are learning that now.

On the other hand, I remember joking with my wife that we should sell the first place, and rent until the housing bubble burst. I wish we'd considered that, we actually would have $100,000 of fake money turned into real money, and a better pick of houses to move to.

I remember looking at my Step-dad and mom's taxes for their house a year ago.

They paid $89,000 back in '98 for it, and when I looked at the taxes it was appraised for $220,000. They added a sunroom, which at the most added $10,000 of value to the home.

Too bad they didn't do the same thing as you suggested Kanyli, $130,000 goes a long way....

I wish I had the capital to invest in a few homes. Wait for this mess to turn around, even if it takes several years, and buy a few homes before the upswing gains momentum...

That is, if it ever does. A friend at work, without any economic experience, claims this is the beginning of people moving into massive apartment buildings for cheaper commutes/housing/energy efficiency. His statement was that all of these explosive cookie cutter neighborhoods that sprung up are about to be abandoned permanently.

Depending on oil and/or alternatives, that isn't a bad long-term prediction. Probably a bit premature right now though.

That is, if it ever does. A friend at work, without any economic experience, claims this is the beginning of people moving into massive apartment buildings for cheaper commutes/housing/energy efficiency. His statement was that all of these explosive cookie cutter neighborhoods that sprung up are about to be abandoned permanently.

There is some logic in this, going back over 30 years. The suburban commuter lifestyle is not tenable without the fossil fuel free ride (which we can see ending) or some other extremely cheap mobile power and a highly subsidized electric and water system. A 300-unit apartment consumes approximately 75% of the resources of an equivalent population reasonably dense neighborhood, and even less than the McMansion-villes that sprung up.

Given the pervasiveness of that housing model, however, it's going to take a lot of pain to move away from it in the short term. In 50 years? Maybe. In 20? Doubtful.

The suburbs are effectively dead, and are already in many areas on their way to becoming the slums of the future; think (with some differences) of the banlieues around Paris and other major European cities. We will never again see the cheap petroleum that made them tenable; what I think will happen is that we will see a bifurcation of population patterns as people opt for one of two viable options: move into denser urban centers where transportation and energy, water, etc delivery costs are offset; or move out into smaller towns in the hinterlands that are of a manageable scale.

Everything said about our current economic crisis, I can't but help thinking that, given the American state of social health, the economic reality check (imagine 'check' in the hockey sense ;) ) will in the long run be a good thing for us in that it will force people to understand that we as a society *are* dependent on each other. We will be likely be forced to confront and reclaim the notion that social contracts have real and substantial value beyond being the abstracted, arcane, and ritualized/fetishized 'family values' ideals the religious right have championed (they recognized that the many of spokes and gears of a functioning society were being dismantled, but misunderstood the causes), or the flip side of that, the much demonized 'entitlement' programs, environmental and regulatory programs and other infrastructure-supporting functions of government that our society has became increasingly disconnected from and contemptuous of as we gorged at our trough of manna from post-war heaven.

Or we can hope, anyway - the other option being a "Drill, baby, drill" cannibalism approach as we squabble over the scraps, keeping our myth of the rugged individual/Horatio Alger alive, erecting ever more desperate and impressive idols to it, until the bitter end.

Regards,
Nydia

Saying that I think folks are and should be held responsible for the ARMs they sat in for far too long. You don't have to agree with me Rover, you can craft another story trying to absolve some stupid folks for thinking they could keep living off of daydreams and cotton candy and it'll mean jack and shit to me. Being stupid and greedy are no free passes to asking for handouts from the govt , that's a failed policy from the past and one I hope never to see return.




Renegotiating a mortgage so it's affordable and turning it from a foreclosure into a paying mortgage is not a handout no matter how you try to paint it.

The story is how things went, it's what was done, just a simplified version.

Being stupid and greedy seem to be free passes for the CEO's of banks and brokerage houses...it got them free handouts.

So please answer my questions from my earlier post if we don't renegotiate these mortgages, what do we do with our millions of new homeless?

Renegotiating a mortgage so it's affordable and turning it from a foreclosure into a paying mortgage is not a handout no matter how you try to paint it.

The story is how things went, it's what was done, just a simplified version.

Being stupid and greedy seem to be free passes for the CEO's of banks and brokerage houses...it got them free handouts.

So please answer my questions from my earlier post if we don't renegotiate these mortgages, what do we do with our millions of new homeless?

So we have millions of new homeless or you think we might? Perhaps they need to let the banks repossess them and then hold auctions ( already happening) maybe it'll lead to some sort of balancing, painful as it'll be, of a vastly overinflated market ( part in fault to banks ( and their machinations) as well as the home owners in pain now. It's not a friendly method and I surely don't know if it'll work but I'm pretty deadset against a get out of jail free card for the CEO's or homeowners alike.

I'm already against the bailout, so you dont' need to hammer that point home. It was/is a bad move that Bush/McCain and hell even Obama jumped all over. Same ole same ole imho, we're fucked this go round for presidential choices ;(

There is some logic in this, going back over 30 years. The suburban commuter lifestyle is not tenable without the fossil fuel free ride (which we can see ending) or some other extremely cheap mobile power and a highly subsidized electric and water system. A 300-unit apartment consumes approximately 75% of the resources of an equivalent population reasonably dense neighborhood, and even less than the McMansion-villes that sprung up.

Given the pervasiveness of that housing model, however, it's going to take a lot of pain to move away from it in the short term. In 50 years? Maybe. In 20? Doubtful.


Bulldozer the suburban blight over, reforest and solve 2 problems at once? I heard some commentary over folks thinking maybe we should move back into the cities. I'd give much to have a home with no surrounding folks. I don't care if I have to rickshaw into work long as I have my peace and quiet!!! ;P

Zing. Just heard the first Keating 5 reference of the election.

Was by an Obama chief strategist. Wonder if they're going to hit it on it considering it directly deals with Savings and Loans.

It's not a friendly method and I surely don't know if it'll work but I'm pretty deadset against a get out of jail free card for the CEO's or homeowners alike.

I'm already against the bailout, so you dont' need to hammer that point home. It was/is a bad move that Bush/McCain and hell even Obama jumped all over. Same ole same ole imho, we're fucked this go round for presidential choices ;(

Two things;

We know the CEO's, Banks and Brokerage houses have been handed the "We are Paying to keep you out of jail" They got away with it an with little or no retribution, but how is renegotiating a persons mortgage and turning it into something that is now creating a positive cash flow because the homeowner is now making the payments, how is that a "get out of jail free" card? I don't understand.


And if you think we're fucked if either McCain or Obama gets in, why not write in Ron Paul or vote for another on the Ballot? Why vote for Obama it makes no sense.

I'm voting for Obama because I don't think we're fucked if he wins.

Sure, it's okay with you if Obama pushed and passed that p.o.s. Bailout. It's only insidious if a Republican is in the conversation at the time eh?

If ya'll libs are going to give a free pass to Obama simply because he rides a Donkey into town then why bother talking.

I am infact leaning more towards writing in Ron Paul tbh. I had hoped there was a shred of integrity and truth to Obama.

Sadly another illusion is striped away. His 143 days of Senatorial experience before he formed his Presidential advisory committee apparently was enough to fill his suit with the same shit we've lived with too long.

Two things;

We know the CEO's, Banks and Brokerage houses have been handed the "We are Paying to keep you out of jail" They got away with it an with little or no retribution, but how is renegotiating a persons mortgage and turning it into something that is now creating a positive cash flow because the homeowner is now making the payments, how is that a "get out of jail free" card? I don't understand.


And if you think we're fucked if either McCain or Obama gets in, why not write in Ron Paul or vote for another on the Ballot? Why vote for Obama it makes no sense.

I'm voting for Obama because I don't think we're fucked if he wins.

Renegotiate eh, so basically fianance their ill conceived loans that they were too slow on the uptake to ditch when wisdom called for it?

You don't think that's also throwing bad money after more bad money?

Yanno it's not only CEO's and cooporate types that muck shit up.

It's bleeding hearts with no wisdom that are part to blame.

If you give 700b to the bank, you bail them out at the expense of the tax payer.

If you run 700b through the tax payers, you can bail them out and save the banks at the same time.

If there has to be a bailout one way or the other, why favor corporate welfare?

Too slow on the uptake to ditch? Wow you really don't understand whats happened here.

Too slow on the uptake to ditch? Wow you really don't understand whats happened here.

Yeah bub I flipping do, out of 5 sets of friends who had ARMs 4 of them were smart enough years ago to fix their rates.

1 thought the golden goose was going to be around forever.

Yup, I haven't a clue.

C'mon these weren't rates that just happened, there were warning signs for years...

Yeah bub I flipping do, out of 5 sets of friends who had ARMs 4 of them were smart enough years ago to fix their rates.

1 thought the golden goose was going to be around forever.

Yup, I haven't a clue.

C'mon these weren't rates that just happened, there were warning signs for years...

Once home value rates started to drop, it's impossible to get out of an ARM to refinance. If you got an ARM less than 3 years ago, you are completely fucked. I think that's Rover's point that you are missing.

If the person's ARM wasn't able to be refinanced until after the market started dropping, those people have no real recourse other than losing their home.

There is some logic in this, going back over 30 years. The suburban commuter lifestyle is not tenable without the fossil fuel free ride (which we can see ending) or some other extremely cheap mobile power and a highly subsidized electric and water system. A 300-unit apartment consumes approximately 75% of the resources of an equivalent population reasonably dense neighborhood, and even less than the McMansion-villes that sprung up.

Given the pervasiveness of that housing model, however, it's going to take a lot of pain to move away from it in the short term. In 50 years? Maybe. In 20? Doubtful.
50 years is enough time for people to change their minds about nuclear power as a replacement for many uses of fossil fuels (supplemented by alternative energy sources, of course). There is still hope!