[Superstar Steve]

Quote:

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night. The theory, according to a participant in the negotiations, is that if the goal is to solve a liquidity crisis, it makes no sense to exclude banks that do a lot of lending in the United States. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling George Stephanopoulos that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people." "If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said. "That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is protecting the system. ... We have a global financial system, and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things, and I believe a number of them will. But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. and the American people don't care who owns the financial institution. If the financial institution in this country has problems, it'll have the same impact whether it's the U.S. or foreign." The legislative outline that went to Capitol Hill at 1:30 a.m. Saturday had said that an eligible financial institution had to have “its headquarters in the United States.” That would exclude foreign-based institutions with big U.S. operations, such as Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS. But a Treasury “Fact Sheet” released at 7:15 Saturday night sought to give the administration more flexibility, with an expanded definition that could include all of those banks: “Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.” See Also McCain and Obama mum on bailout Campaign advisers helped create mess Franken helps craft McCain 'SNL' skit The major change in the suggested eligibility requirements is the biggest change that Treasury publicly made after a day of briefings and conversations with Capitol Hill, and is likely the first of many. Aspects of the $700 billion, two-year proposal that are still under negotiation include what, if anything, will be added to the administration’s simple but sweeping proposal. And the parliamentary route, such as what committees or hearings might be involved, has not been finalized. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has a hearing scheduled for Wednesday that is likely to focus on the proposal. Under what congressional officials called a likely scenario, the measure could go to the House floor on Thursday, with passage expected the same day. The Senate could take the package up as soon as Friday and send it to President Bush for his signature, although the Senate schedule is less predictable and had not been determined. Officials expect passage by huge margins in both chambers because Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have told congressional leaders the country’s financial stability depends on it. House Democrats plan to insist on adding protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. They also want to add a measure to help homeowners facing bankruptcy and an executive compensation restriction designed to prevent golden parachutes for the heads of troubled institutions. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was supportive of the bailout concept in a statement released Friday, believes that “whatever gets done in Congress has to protect Main Street,” senior adviser Stephanie Cutter said on MSNBC on Saturday. On “Fox News Sunday,” Paulson told Chris Wallace that he would resist the Democrats' desired limits on executive compensation. "If we design it so it's punitive and institutions aren't going to participate, this won't work the way we need it to work," Paulson said. "Let's talk executive salaries: There have been excesses there. I agree with the American people. Pay should be for performance, not for failure. We've got work to do in that regard. We need to do that work. But we need this system to work. And so reforms need to come afterwards. My whole objective with the plan we have is to give us the maximum ability to make it work.” And the secretary told NBC’s Tom Brokaw on “Meet the Press” that he doesn’t want new regulations simultaneously: “That's not doable to do that immediately. But we very much need new regulations.” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told Stephanopoulos on ABC: “If we’re going to spend taxpayer money to get rid of bad debt in these places, what is the reciprocal obligation … from the firms? … I think there’s going to be a strong interest to deal with the Main Street aspects.” Appearing with him, House Republican Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio retorted: “We’ve already dealt with that, when we had the housing bill last summer. I didn’t vote for it, because it’s $300 billion bailout for scam artists and speculators and others around the housing industry. But there are a lot of tools in there to help the Federal Housing Administration deal with the foreclosure problem that’s out there. We need to rise above partisan politics … and deal with this as adults.”

umm....WHAT?

American taxdollars to bail out foreign companies?!?

[Volture]

[MWS1980]

nice mess all this deregulation has gotten us in. let's help all this rich fucks who speculated away yours,mine and our cash. when people got taken advantage of by being lied to while getting crappy loans it's a big deal to help them.let them sink or swim. now the government has to bail out the rich and those who think they are. will the last member of the middle class turn off the light on the way out.

[MAV]

MWS1980 wrote:

nice mess all this deregulation has gotten us in. let's help all this rich fucks who speculated away yours,mine and our cash. when people got taken advantage of by being lied to while getting crappy loans it's a big deal to help them.let them sink or swim. now the government has to bail out the rich and those who think they are. will the last member of the middle class turn off the light on the way out.

1) The biggest reason for the economic downturn is the housing market. There are other factors, but that is the main one.

2) The fault with the lending institution is that they should have denied the loans bases solely on a person's income. PERIOD. Things like 3 year ARMS should have never been an option in the first place, as it made it possible for people who shouldn't have been getting houses in the first place to engage in wishful thinking rather than solid financial planning.

3) The cause of the housing market being so bad is due to an enormous amount of loans given out to people who simply couldn't afford to pay them. This is why Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae collapsed. They are a quasi-governmental body that offers home loans to people that could not otherwise pay a mortgage. No matter how creative of a financing package you come up with, those type of loans are going to be higher risk than a standard ones.

4) While there was definitely a lot of predatory lending practices going on, mainly by the stupid and greedy urging of some lenders going on...at some point, people have to take some form of personal responsibility for their actions.

Seriously...people are ALWAYS trying to sell you something, and in doing so are always going to try and make it as attractive sounding as possible. If someone hasn't figured that out by now...that person is just plain stupid. I don't know if you've ever had a mortgage, but I have. Call me crazy...but I've READ the terms of every one I've ever had to put my name on. In some instances, I've had a lawyer look at them if I didn't understand it. I am neither rich nor exceptionally bright, but I figured it out. If ANYONE signs for ANY form of loan (and especially a house loan as your talking HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars) without completely reading the contract, I don't care HOW seedy or slick the salesman is-that person is a fool.

I guess my point is...this is a two way street. However justified much of this rage is at lending institutions and the government, you cannot place all the blame on one party here.

The people I truly feel bad for are people who due to the economic downturn have lost their jobs and can't pay for their house now when they were perfectly able to do so before. THOSE are the people that probably deserve some help.

[the lifeguard]

at least partially because of deregulation there wasn't any oversight on those loans you are talking about. like you said slick salesmen looking for the gullible. im all for personal responsibility but im not gonna call someone stupid because at 25 they don't know the things you know at 40. im glad the subject of executive compensation has been brought up by both parties in regards to the bailout bill.

[MAV]

the lifeguard wrote:

at least partially because of deregulation there wasn't any oversight on those loans you are talking about. like you said slick salesmen looking for the gullible. im all for personal responsibility but im not gonna call someone stupid because at 25 they don't know the things you know at 40. im glad the subject of executive compensation has been brought up by both parties in regards to the bailout bill.

I bought my first house when I was in my early 20's and I made damn sure to read and understand everything. It was a pretty simple mental pattern to follow...

a) This person (the Realtor) is trying to get me to buy something for $225,000 (random figure thrown in)

b) This $225 grand is being put on something being refered to as a 30 year mortgage from the lender (Countrywide in the first case for me).

c) Considering the amount of money and the amount of time stated being relatively half my lifetime, I think it would be best if I reviewed all of the documents involved.

That's from a hillbilly who barely graduated high school, took a lot of mind altering agents as a teenager, baked his brain in the hot sun on a roof for 20 years and thinks landing on his head on the weekends for gas money is a viable hobby.

Sorry...youth is no excuse. This is a common sense issue for the most part. If you use age as a standard, there's a whole bunch of people out there who should be able to walk away from student loans. The only place I would allow age to be a factor is in the elderly as then you may be dealing with dementia.

[the lifeguard]

I didn't say it was an excuse, I said i wasn't going to call them stupid.

[Love Machine Art Barr]

look Mav. nobodies arguing that you arent stupid or ignorant or have bad manners or horrible hygiene. even dumb people do smart things and smart people dumb things.

Quote:

baked his brain in the hot sun on a roof for 20 years

itd be cooler on the roof than on the ground.

[Hugh Jass]

Blaming the borrowers makes no sense. Each individual makes a decision, and if they went over their heads, they will lose their house.

This bailout has nothing to do with individuals. It has to do with propping up a banking system that has failed.

My personal opinion is that the idea of creating "mortgage backed securities", instruments being bought and sold on Wall St. was the biggest problem.

1. It doesn't allow for individual banks to readjust mortgages for the borrower because they are bundled.

2. It made lenders go out and "fill" packages of mortgages to be securitized and so the bank reps were fudging applications to get the loans.

3. Greedy Wall St. traders jacked up the prices, which led to more incentive for easier and easier guidelines because of profit margins.

4. The whole system created a "national" real estate market compounding the issue. The old parlance was that all real estate was "local" and so areas would slump and others prosper. When the financial fountain was shut off, the ailing Florida, CA, MA markets affected the entire country's RE market.

5. Lending at 100% or more of the value made the investments extremely fragile to falling prices.

As a borrower, if somebody is lending you 100% and your stake is minimal, why wouldn't you take it? This bailout is for banks, people. Not for homeowners. It is a failed system and should die.

[MAV]

Love Machine Art Barr wrote:

look Mav. nobodies arguing that you arent stupid or ignorant or have bad manners or horrible hygiene. even dumb people do smart things and smart people dumb things. Quote: baked his brain in the hot sun on a roof for 20 years itd be cooler on the roof than on the ground.

I assume you work inside...because you sir have obviously not worked on a flat roof.

You're in the wide open with no shade usually working with adhesives. The surface you're on is almost always either black-which heats up hot enough to literally fry an egg (no shit, it works) on-or white, which while cooler to stand on reflects the sun on you all day long.

Occasionally, you even go old school and put roofs down with hot asphalt-you apply it with a nylon mop and the asphalt has to be heated between 575-650 degrees to be workable. That particular type of roof has also left some awfully ugly scars on some people (myself included). You don't know pain until you've had that stuff get on you and burn you only to realize when it stops burning...you're going to have to peel off the now cooled asphalt...although when you rip the asphalt off, it takes all the skin off in the affected area like some bizarre form of bikini wax gone horribly wrong.

Other times, you get to remove an old type of asphalt roof called coal tar pitch. Lovely stuff. It has a high sulfur content, and the second you combine your sweat with sunlight it causes chemical burns with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how "live" the roof is. I've seen more than one person head to the hospital with massive chemical burns and eyes so irritated I can only compare it to someone being pepper sprayed.

The only two more miserable trades to work on in the summer is doing black top and setting concrete forms. Of course the summer is nothing when compared to doing it on a nice winter day with a 25 degree below zero wind chill factor.

[MAV]

Hugh Jass wrote:

Blaming the borrowers makes no sense. Each individual makes a decision, and if they went over their heads, they will lose their house. This bailout has nothing to do with individuals. It has to do with propping up a banking system that has failed. My personal opinion is that the idea of creating "mortgage backed securities", instruments being bought and sold on Wall St. was the biggest problem. 1. It doesn't allow for individual banks to readjust mortgages for the borrower because they are bundled. 2. It made lenders go out and "fill" packages of mortgages to be securitized and so the bank reps were fudging applications to get the loans. 3. Greedy Wall St. traders jacked up the prices, which led to more incentive for easier and easier guidelines because of profit margins. 4. The whole system created a "national" real estate market compounding the issue. The old parlance was that all real estate was "local" and so areas would slump and others prosper. When the financial fountain was shut off, the ailing Florida, CA, MA markets affected the entire country's RE market. 5. Lending at 100% or more of the value made the investments extremely fragile to falling prices. As a borrower, if somebody is lending you 100% and your stake is minimal, why wouldn't you take it? This bailout is for banks, people. Not for homeowners. It is a failed system and should die.

I don't disagree that many of the procedures and practices that have gone on in the last 10 years aren't ridiculous, and letting lending regulations lapse was a crime against the citizens of the America. However, when you make $40,000 dollars a year and you're looking on paper at barely being able to make initial payments on a $325,000 dollar home and know in advance that the payments are going to jump up substantially at some point...you're either dumb or greedy yourself.

The banks deserve our fury, but so do some of the people who HAD to have known how this was going to pan out eventually.

This stuff isn't rocket science. Anyone can go online free of charge at work, home or a pubic library and find that nearly all financial advisors would tell you that you shouldn't be paying over 30 percent of your gross income on housing (rental or otherwise).

[Love Machine Art Barr]

Quote:

You're in the wide open with no shade usually working with adhesives. The surface you're on is almost always either black-which heats up hot enough to literally fry an egg (no shit, it works) on-or white, which while cooler to stand on reflects the sun on you all day long. Occasionally, you even go old school and put roofs down with hot asphalt-you apply it with a nylon mop and the asphalt has to be heated between 575-650 degrees to be workable. That particular type of roof has also left some awfully ugly scars on some people (myself included). You don't know pain until you've had that stuff get on you and burn you only to realize when it stops burning...you're going to have to peel off the now cooled asphalt...although when you rip the asphalt off, it takes all the skin off in the affected area like some bizarre form of bikini wax gone horribly wrong. Other times, you get to remove an old type of asphalt roof called coal tar pitch. Lovely stuff. It has a high sulfur content, and the second you combine your sweat with sunlight it causes chemical burns with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how "live" the roof is. I've seen more than one person head to the hospital with massive chemical burns and eyes so irritated I can only compare it to someone being pepper sprayed.

look Mav. nobodies arguing that you arent stupid or ignorant

[MAV]

Love Machine Art Barr wrote:

Quote: You're in the wide open with no shade usually working with adhesives. The surface you're on is almost always either black-which heats up hot enough to literally fry an egg (no shit, it works) on-or white, which while cooler to stand on reflects the sun on you all day long. Occasionally, you even go old school and put roofs down with hot asphalt-you apply it with a nylon mop and the asphalt has to be heated between 575-650 degrees to be workable. That particular type of roof has also left some awfully ugly scars on some people (myself included). You don't know pain until you've had that stuff get on you and burn you only to realize when it stops burning...you're going to have to peel off the now cooled asphalt...although when you rip the asphalt off, it takes all the skin off in the affected area like some bizarre form of bikini wax gone horribly wrong. Other times, you get to remove an old type of asphalt roof called coal tar pitch. Lovely stuff. It has a high sulfur content, and the second you combine your sweat with sunlight it causes chemical burns with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how "live" the roof is. I've seen more than one person head to the hospital with massive chemical burns and eyes so irritated I can only compare it to someone being pepper sprayed. look Mav. nobodies arguing that you arent stupid or ignorant

You're not seriously telling me I'm stupid and ignorant because I've worked hard and made sacrifices so my family can have a good standard of living because other people aren't willing to do the same, are you?

[Love Machine Art Barr]

no actually im agreeing with you on this just because it came from you:

Quote:

That's from a hillbilly who barely graduated high school, took a lot of mind altering agents as a teenager, baked his brain in the hot sun on a roof for 20 years and thinks landing on his head on the weekends for gas money is a viable hobby.

while agreeing that the people who took the loans are responsible for them so isnt the guy who took the job with these conditions:

Quote:

You're in the wide open with no shade usually working with adhesives. The surface you're on is almost always either black-which heats up hot enough to literally fry an egg (no shit, it works) on-or white, which while cooler to stand on reflects the sun on you all day long. Occasionally, you even go old school and put roofs down with hot asphalt-you apply it with a nylon mop and the asphalt has to be heated between 575-650 degrees to be workable. That particular type of roof has also left some awfully ugly scars on some people (myself included). You don't know pain until you've had that stuff get on you and burn you only to realize when it stops burning...you're going to have to peel off the now cooled asphalt...although when you rip the asphalt off, it takes all the skin off in the affected area like some bizarre form of bikini wax gone horribly wrong. Other times, you get to remove an old type of asphalt roof called coal tar pitch. Lovely stuff. It has a high sulfur content, and the second you combine your sweat with sunlight it causes chemical burns with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how "live" the roof is. I've seen more than one person head to the hospital with massive chemical burns and eyes so irritated I can only compare it to someone being pepper sprayed.

so whether you are complaining or just sharing Ive heard it all before. im impressed the computer you are doing all this typing on can handle the conditions on the roof that youve described.

[Skip McGee]

i think its more than just the lenders fault and more than just the borrowers. i agree with mav that you cant turn a blind eye to someone who makes 30k/yr and buys a 300k house. sure the money is there for the taking "why would they say no" but at the same time i could take my life savings and spend it on magic beans cuz someone offered them but i generally know better. the lenders could say the same thing "why would we say no" so thats just a cop out. there is a difference between stretching what you can afford and straight up bad judgement, on both sides. i dont think we should ignore the fact that its regarded as perfectly acceptable to finance yourself into a black hole just as we shouldnt ignore the fact that lenders gave them the money knowing very well they were ignoring guidelines to take advantage of people and make money off their bad judgement. its a two way street and not nearly as simple as blaming one or the other. in the end like hugh says it comes down to greed, ease of the whole system to take advantage plus this country's philosophy of "spend now, worry about it later"

[Hugh Jass]

MAV wrote:

Hugh Jass wrote: Blaming the borrowers makes no sense. Each individual makes a decision, and if they went over their heads, they will lose their house. This bailout has nothing to do with individuals. It has to do with propping up a banking system that has failed. My personal opinion is that the idea of creating "mortgage backed securities", instruments being bought and sold on Wall St. was the biggest problem. 1. It doesn't allow for individual banks to readjust mortgages for the borrower because they are bundled. 2. It made lenders go out and "fill" packages of mortgages to be securitized and so the bank reps were fudging applications to get the loans. 3. Greedy Wall St. traders jacked up the prices, which led to more incentive for easier and easier guidelines because of profit margins. 4. The whole system created a "national" real estate market compounding the issue. The old parlance was that all real estate was "local" and so areas would slump and others prosper. When the financial fountain was shut off, the ailing Florida, CA, MA markets affected the entire country's RE market. 5. Lending at 100% or more of the value made the investments extremely fragile to falling prices. As a borrower, if somebody is lending you 100% and your stake is minimal, why wouldn't you take it? This bailout is for banks, people. Not for homeowners. It is a failed system and should die. I don't disagree that many of the procedures and practices that have gone on in the last 10 years aren't ridiculous, and letting lending regulations lapse was a crime against the citizens of the America. However, when you make $40,000 dollars a year and you're looking on paper at barely being able to make initial payments on a $325,000 dollar home and know in advance that the payments are going to jump up substantially at some point...you're either dumb or greedy yourself. The banks deserve our fury, but so do some of the people who HAD to have known how this was going to pan out eventually. This stuff isn't rocket science. Anyone can go online free of charge at work, home or a pubic library and find that nearly all financial advisors would tell you that you shouldn't be paying over 30 percent of your gross income on housing (rental or otherwise).

Yes, but one bad borrower does not bring down a financial system. I am not talking about bailing out an individual, I am saying that the systematic failure of banking institutions is causing the entire country to sink in economic turmoil.

[MAV]

Love Machine Art Barr wrote:

no actually im agreeing with you on this just because it came from you: Quote: That's from a hillbilly who barely graduated high school, took a lot of mind altering agents as a teenager, baked his brain in the hot sun on a roof for 20 years and thinks landing on his head on the weekends for gas money is a viable hobby. while agreeing that the people who took the loans are responsible for them so isnt the guy who took the job with these conditions: Quote: You're in the wide open with no shade usually working with adhesives. The surface you're on is almost always either black-which heats up hot enough to literally fry an egg (no shit, it works) on-or white, which while cooler to stand on reflects the sun on you all day long. Occasionally, you even go old school and put roofs down with hot asphalt-you apply it with a nylon mop and the asphalt has to be heated between 575-650 degrees to be workable. That particular type of roof has also left some awfully ugly scars on some people (myself included). You don't know pain until you've had that stuff get on you and burn you only to realize when it stops burning...you're going to have to peel off the now cooled asphalt...although when you rip the asphalt off, it takes all the skin off in the affected area like some bizarre form of bikini wax gone horribly wrong. Other times, you get to remove an old type of asphalt roof called coal tar pitch. Lovely stuff. It has a high sulfur content, and the second you combine your sweat with sunlight it causes chemical burns with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on how "live" the roof is. I've seen more than one person head to the hospital with massive chemical burns and eyes so irritated I can only compare it to someone being pepper sprayed. so whether you are complaining or just sharing Ive heard it all before. im impressed the computer you are doing all this typing on can handle the conditions on the roof that youve described.

A) While I don't profess to being a scholar (or even above average), I am obviously being self deprecating.

B) I no longer work on the roof. I own the roofing company and my time is predominantly spent going over bids, reviewing contracts, overseeing accounts payable, accounts receivable, evaluating employees, doing time and material bills...many of which can be done with my big ass squarely planted by a computer.

C) My surprising fluidity with words for my substandard education level can be explained by the fact that in business I've had to write a lot of letters...usually adressed to people who owe my company money. It pays to know how to write a good letter.

D) I don't recall complaining about anything I did. I explained what I did (which I guess means I'm sharing). Truth be told, I'm proud of it and there is little I would change about it. In fact, from time to time, I try to get my rear end out of the office and into the field for a few days to keep up with everything. If shit ever went bad and I had to fold my company, I could still go back to being a 2-4 man operation and do the work myself. In tech savvy fields, computer programs become obsolete and thousands of people lose their jobs...people who used to sell DVD's and videos are now getting their ass kicked by Netflix...but people are always going to need be dry.

[MAV]

Hugh Jass wrote:

MAV wrote: Hugh Jass wrote: Blaming the borrowers makes no sense. Each individual makes a decision, and if they went over their heads, they will lose their house. This bailout has nothing to do with individuals. It has to do with propping up a banking system that has failed. My personal opinion is that the idea of creating "mortgage backed securities", instruments being bought and sold on Wall St. was the biggest problem. 1. It doesn't allow for individual banks to readjust mortgages for the borrower because they are bundled. 2. It made lenders go out and "fill" packages of mortgages to be securitized and so the bank reps were fudging applications to get the loans. 3. Greedy Wall St. traders jacked up the prices, which led to more incentive for easier and easier guidelines because of profit margins. 4. The whole system created a "national" real estate market compounding the issue. The old parlance was that all real estate was "local" and so areas would slump and others prosper. When the financial fountain was shut off, the ailing Florida, CA, MA markets affected the entire country's RE market. 5. Lending at 100% or more of the value made the investments extremely fragile to falling prices. As a borrower, if somebody is lending you 100% and your stake is minimal, why wouldn't you take it? This bailout is for banks, people. Not for homeowners. It is a failed system and should die. I don't disagree that many of the procedures and practices that have gone on in the last 10 years aren't ridiculous, and letting lending regulations lapse was a crime against the citizens of the America. However, when you make $40,000 dollars a year and you're looking on paper at barely being able to make initial payments on a $325,000 dollar home and know in advance that the payments are going to jump up substantially at some point...you're either dumb or greedy yourself. The banks deserve our fury, but so do some of the people who HAD to have known how this was going to pan out eventually. This stuff isn't rocket science. Anyone can go online free of charge at work, home or a pubic library and find that nearly all financial advisors would tell you that you shouldn't be paying over 30 percent of your gross income on housing (rental or otherwise). Yes, but one bad borrower does not bring down a financial system. I am not talking about bailing out an individual, I am saying that the systematic failure of banking institutions is causing the entire country to sink in economic turmoil.

I agree with that. I'd even go further than that-a good part of the industry greedily and blindly catered to attempting to dupe people into bad loans for their own short sighted, short term gains. Problem is...while the banking system certainly deserves to get it's ass kicked, nearly every single person in this country and to a somewhat less extent the entire world is tied into the performance of our banks and financial institutions. Allowed to collapse, even due to their own greed, they would send us into an abyss of financial ruin...far greater than what we're already seeing.


At the same time, someone had to provide a market for those practices to become so prevalent that when it failed it began to take everything else with it. I would almost equate it to the dealer/drug user relationship. The dealer is the biggest son of a bitch in the world for being the provider...but there are a lot of users I'd have a hard time shedding a tear for.