Channman 2 #1 February 23, 2009 New York (AP) Wall Street has turned the clock back to 1997 > "People left and right are throwing in the towel," said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services. > "The biggest thing I see here is the incredible pessimism," Springer said. "The government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears." > "There's no where to hide anymore," said Jim Herrick, director of equity trading at Baird & Co. > "There's no main driver of the down day," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's Investment Research. "There's just so much skepticism in the overall market and (the question is) is the government doing proper things to get us out of this problem. Obviously the stock market is voting no." I think we are at that time where alittle Cheer, a can do attitude from our President is in store. We may not agree on alot of things, but I hope we can agree that we better find some common ground before we all find ourselves as a nation Irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 February 23, 2009 Sometimes it takes somebody with the courage to say the boat is sinking and that -maybe- we might want to do something about it. Saying the boat isn't sinking when it clearly is, is just stupid.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #3 February 23, 2009 QuoteSometimes it takes somebody with the courage to say the boat is sinking and that -maybe- we might want to do something about it. Saying the boat isn't sinking when it clearly is, is just stupid. Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? That boat was sinking, but the dems insisted everyone deserved "affordable housing".Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 February 23, 2009 Yay him? Pity HE didn't do something about it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #5 February 23, 2009 QuoteYay him? Pity HE didn't do something about it. He tried to. Taking the argument to the congress is all you can do when they control both houses.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 February 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteYay him? Pity HE didn't do something about it. He tried to. Taking the argument to the congress is all you can do when they control both houses. Out of the eight years of the 43rd Administration, only two of them had majority representation of both the House and Senate by the Democrats and even at that it was only a very slim majority. Try again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #7 February 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYay him? Pity HE didn't do something about it. He tried to. Taking the argument to the congress is all you can do when they control both houses. Out of the eight years of the 43rd Administration, only two of them had majority representation of both the House and Senate by the Democrats and even at that it was only a very slim majority. Try again. My bad. I said both houses. Either way, congress - controlled in one house or the other by the dems - turned away the suggestion at its face....and here we are.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #8 February 23, 2009 >Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! >That boat was sinking . . . Funny how back then all the GOPers were saying things like "it's a bad day to be crying the 'recession' word" and crucifying any democrat who was at all critical of any economic policies. Why, I recall how several staunch republicans right here on this board were going after me for claiming that the ballooning deficit would hurt the economy. But now, through the magic of revisionism, they can claim that they were the ones claiming all along that "the boat was sinking!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #9 February 24, 2009 Quote>Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #10 February 24, 2009 >I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's . . . Wow, you're going back over 20 years now to find a democrat to blame? I think you should blame Grover Cleveland. He strongly opposed protective tariffs, and that must be why all our jobs are going to China. He was also a non-interventionist when it came to foreign affairs; no doubt he's why Saddam Hussein eventually became the evil mastermind who attacked the US on 9/11. Cleveland is the REAL reason we are in the economic fix we're in today. And, worst of all, he was a democrat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #11 February 24, 2009 Quote>I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's . . . Wow, you're going back over 20 years now to find a democrat to blame? I think you should blame Grover Cleveland. He strongly opposed protective tariffs, and that must be why all our jobs are going to China. He was also a non-interventionist when it came to foreign affairs; no doubt he's why Saddam Hussein eventually became the evil mastermind who attacked the US on 9/11. Cleveland is the REAL reason we are in the economic fix we're in today. And, worst of all, he was a democrat. It has nothing to do with blaming a democrat. It's about looking at history, regardless of who did what. I've dogged republicans when they did stupid shit too. Thanks for your entertaining use of history, but it really comes off as nothing more than an angry attempt at deflection.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 February 24, 2009 You've posted this same thing about a dozen times. I've yet to see any supporting evidence. Care to share? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #13 February 24, 2009 The main reason people are afraid?? Using tax money to save any business, It should not matter how big. These businesses made bad choices, not the American people.I for one am fed up with the whole political process.We need a three party system.Blue Skies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #14 February 24, 2009 Cheers to that bro! -and I don't care if people get out there and buy GO bama commemorative plates to tile their bathrooms, do something- just stop crying about all this and get on with life. By the way.... I'm a Demeecrat- in case anyone gives a crap. Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #15 February 24, 2009 Quote Cheers to that bro! -and I don't care if people get out there and buy GO bama commemorative plates to tile their bathrooms, do something- just stop crying about all this and get on with life. By the way.... I'm a Demeecrat- in case anyone gives a crap. > I'm a Demeecrat... It appears you and I are victims of Government schooling I have a hard time spelling as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #16 February 24, 2009 > It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels... I was in the car this morning listening to the news on the radio and some women who is a bus driver was being interviewed. She explaned that she hopes to hear the President will put a stop to foreclosures so that people like her would not find themselves on the streets homeless. During the interview I find out that she purchased a $800,000.00 home on a Bus driver salary and now finds herself being evicted. This crap about being homeless, hell I guess she hasn't considered renting an appartment. I guess these are the times we find ourselves, people who no longer have the ability to pull themselve up from hard times without first asking for a free ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 February 24, 2009 QuoteNew York (AP) Wall Street has turned the clock back to 1997 > "People left and right are throwing in the towel," said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services. > "The biggest thing I see here is the incredible pessimism," Springer said. "The government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears." > "There's no where to hide anymore," said Jim Herrick, director of equity trading at Baird & Co. > "There's no main driver of the down day," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's Investment Research. "There's just so much skepticism in the overall market and (the question is) is the government doing proper things to get us out of this problem. Obviously the stock market is voting no." I think we are at that time where alittle Cheer, a can do attitude from our President is in store. We may not agree on alot of things, but I hope we can agree that we better find some common ground before we all find ourselves as a nation Irrelevant. Ohh bullshit. The only reason the economy is in the crapper is because to some degree people need to be protected from themselves. Staunch Republicans and conservatives will never admit that, but that is the only reason we are all in the situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #18 February 24, 2009 QuoteSometimes it takes somebody with the courage to say the boat is sinking and that -maybe- we might want to do something about it. Saying the boat isn't sinking when it clearly is, is just stupid. All well and good, but I think too many people are throwing up their hands and saying the sky is falling because the new administration won't do EVERYTHING their way. And as far as the atmosphere of pessimism goes, it's real enough. I think it's time to at least recall FDR's inaugural speech about "Nothing to fear but fear itself". FDR went on at some length about "blind, unreasoning fear"and so forth and it's worth a listen and some pondering. Of course if Obama dared remind anyone of what FDR said, everybody would jump up and down screaming that he was trying to compare himself to Roosevelt. Because they want to find so much wrong with Obama that anything will do. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #19 February 24, 2009 Quote The main reason people are afraid?? Using tax money to save any business, It should not matter how big. These businesses made bad choices, not the American people.I for one am fed up with the whole political process.We need a three party system.Blue Skies! SOME businesses made very bad choices. Others have been brought down by the chaos produced by the first group.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #20 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote>Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #21 February 24, 2009 > Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. The following lawsuit was brought to you by ACORN Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois Case Summary Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages. U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-banks loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Clayton, Fay (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Love, Sara Norris (Virginia) FH-IL-0011-9000 Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Wickert, John Henry (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-9000 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #22 February 24, 2009 yes but as a staunch conservative he has to believe that the government is at fault. It would break his basic belief structure if a free market had anything to do with this economic downfall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #23 February 24, 2009 Quote> Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. The following lawsuit was brought to you by ACORN Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois Case Summary Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages. U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-banks loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Clayton, Fay (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Love, Sara Norris (Virginia) FH-IL-0011-9000 Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000 Wickert, John Henry (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-9000 That lawsuit has to do with racial issues, not forcing the bank to give loans to people who could not repaay it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #24 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop >the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through >legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? Actually, that's been debunked about a dozen times here. CRA loans have a lower rate of default instead of a higher rate. In other words, if Congress had covered more people by the CRA program the economy would now be in better shape. Try again! The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing". The end enterprises that "hoped to make a big profit" as you say, were mortgage brokers, developers, home builders, and real estate types - none of which set lending standards. And there were banks that tried to hold out and not approve loans that were obviously high risk (think raising the standard internally to something more realistic). ACORN showed up on their doorsteps screaming racism. So from a political correctness perspective, the banks were forced to play. As for companies buying the crap loans, they didn't care if they failed. All the damn Freddie and Fannie loans (90% of all single-family homes) were backed by the U.S. government - or should I say me and others who pay taxes. It's easy to see what may have been going wrong at the consumer level, but it's important to see how it got that way.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #25 February 24, 2009 I guess asking again for any evidence or links to back up your position would be a waste of bandwidth? I thought so. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
