marks2065

that still leaves 38% that think it was not a mistake. minority yes, but not all majorities are right.

it doesn't change the fact that subprime loans were the initial factor in the problem and could have been stopped several times before it busted the economy.

there is not much we can do with what is happening, except learn how it happened to begin with and maybe learn how to prevent it from happening again. i think it is very important to learn what actions caused the problem then not repeat it. just blaming it on the guy in the big chair is wrong if thats not the one to blame. alot of people were involved in creating the mess and we need to be able to make an educated decision in a couple weaks on the first step in fixing the problem, covering up or ignoring the ones that were instramental in this debacle could lead people to vote for the villan instead of the good choice.

But according to the GOP in 2000, Bush was better qualified to be president than McCain. we all make mistakes. until bush the dem's made the big mistakes, now the dem's took back the honor with the ban failures. Well, thank you for admitting 8 years of mistake. Why should anyone trust the GOP to do better this time around? why should anyone trust Obama with the relationships he has with radical groups and people that ran fannie and freddie into the ground? the deficit under Bush has a little to do with 911, katrina, rita, failed clinton era problems, so i do not put all this on him. even when he has tryed to do the nright thing he has run into road blocks by the oposing party. if you eliminate terrorists and natural disasters i think Bush's rankings go way up. i also think if another person was president and had to face these disasters they wouldn't fare to well either.

i know polozi wanted x amount of rep and x amount dem votes, that alone sounds fishy to me. sounded like a settup but i think the rep caught on and messed up her plans to give obama a lift.

not everyone believes iraq was a mistake

you mforgot to read the top According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. just because NeighborWorks loans didn't fail doesn't mean that others didn't And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. 64% were subprime mortgages 64% now thats alot i guess reding the top half would counter you point wouldn't it?

we wouldn't need this bailout if raines,Dodd, clinton, carter and the rest of the cronnies didn't fuck with the system. and that is fact that has been put on these threads with news articles from 1978,1999, and others.

Hey now, no need to be putting down used car sales people. My sig line says more about the fine character of Obama and the company he keeps. your correct used car salesman have more honor and integrity

which has been my point. kallend has been beaten back to saying "prove" it is the this loan type as the rest of his points have no meat......... And I really dont care who or what party. If this is not stopped at its core as what happens with the kinds of asscociations you post here, it will happen over and over......... I posted the proof on the loans but kallend hasn't responded yet. i don't think McCain is the best we have but i know Obama is close to the bottom of the radical barrel. to bad so many people are blind to what he really represents through his associations. Obama is a good used car salesman. Agreed And I will agree with kallend that these loans are not the only part of the issue. Some lenders have made their own beds but, the gov promoted it with the law and changes. And the Dems defended it cause it was and is a cash cow to them. But Obama and his angry wife are much worse than McCain. That is unles you want the country to go quicker toward socialism.... if Obama gets elected the money we make will go nto special intrest radical groups, low income and minorities. the higher taxes to companies will drive them out of the country. the programs obama wants become active, they WILL cause an amplification of our currant problems.

doesn't change the fact that these loans are a large part of the problem. these loans were pushed by fannie freddie, clinton, carter, Dodd, and others from the dem side and these people are working with Obama.

which has been my point. kallend has been beaten back to saying "prove" it is the this loan type as the rest of his points have no meat......... And I really dont care who or what party. If this is not stopped at its core as what happens with the kinds of asscociations you post here, it will happen over and over......... I posted the proof on the loans but kallend hasn't responded yet. i don't think McCain is the best we have but i know Obama is close to the bottom of the radical barrel. to bad so many people are blind to what he really represents through his associations. Obama is a good used car salesman.

kinda puts the start back at carters era

makes you wonder why this stuff isn't being reported ?

------------------------------------------------------- it is not a question of force but expressing your feelings and thoughts to help other people make an educated choice or maybe even help someone to avoid the situation completely. (by the way i am pro choice but i welcome all ideas and thoughts so i can have the tools needed to make good choices)

--------------------------------------------------------- Obama voting present instead of yes or no?= no stance so no backlash on a decission = no backbone taxing the companies and hard working people = no understanding what will happen with his policies his afiliation with freddi and fannmie, acorn, his rev, ayers, and others = rob us this is all fact not speculation to bad the left can't see through this = used car salesman(got you to buy a lemon)

if only the news would report all of Obama's afiliations with these kinds of groups and peoples. people need to see what Obama is really made of and not elect him president. to bad people are overlooking these things because of how mad they are at bush. McCain has proven his loyalty to this country and Obama has proven his loyalties to radical groups and peoples. now this doesn';t prove McCain is the best choice but we do know were his loyalties and heart lies and that is with the american people. McCain has made mistakes but not one time do i feel thaat he made choices to hurt us, only to help us.

you are a perfect example of what Palin is all about. doesn't mean she is right about all situations , but i am sure you are glad that you weren't aborted. there are alot of people out there that are glad that their birth mother beleived as Palin does.

[ Yep. But in this case they predicted dire impacts on the market if it didn't pass. It didn't pass and the market saw its biggest one day drop, ever. That indicates that they got at least that part right. -------------------------------------------------------- part off the drop was due to automatic selling that is programmed into computers. when people invest they have an automatic sell programmed in and alot of them kicked in.

But according to the GOP in 2000, Bush was better qualified to be president than McCain. we all make mistakes. until bush the dem's made the big mistakes, now the dem's took back the honor with the ban failures.

No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, . NO, we don't. YOU have not been able to provide one shred of evidence to support your position. Not one shred. ok proof Shouldering the blame for subprime loan failures By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: November 25, 2007 E-Mail Article Listen to Article Printer-Friendly 3-Column Format Translate Share Article Text Size NEW YORK: It has become fashionable of late to say that American subprime borrowers themselves deserve a good part of the blame for the current mortgage mess. They were either greedy (looking for easy money in a bubbly real estate market) or irresponsible (assuming a debt whose terms they did not understand). They should be punished for their behavior, the argument goes - not rewarded with loan accommodations. According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. Regulators have recently stepped up their calls for lenders to be more aggressive in working out these loans. But lenders are pushing back, and borrower advocates - those nearest to the problem - say that not much is getting done. As this working-out war simmers, it seems worthwhile to consider both sides of this mess. Should greedy subprime borrowers take responsibility or should greedy subprime lenders get tagged? Nothing is ever black and white, of course. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of cases in which both borrower and lender are at fault, and others in which just one of the parties may bear greater blame. Still, it is also important to examine some of our long-held assumptions about the sophistication and responsibility of low-income borrowers when trying to make sense of this debate. After all, nonprime borrowers in low-cost, fixed-rate mortgages - appropriate loans for low-income, first-time homeowners - can succeed. And there are figures to prove it. The figures come from NeighborWorks America, a nonprofit organization created in 1978 by Congress to deliver financial aid and training to troubled urban communities. Its affiliate, the Neighborhood Housing Services of America, makes loans to home buyers of low and moderate incomes, a group that resembles the typical subprime borrower. And it's revealing to compare the delinquency and foreclosure rates for subprime loans made by traditional lenders with mortgages made by the Neighborhood Housing Services fund. The fund contains almost 3,000 loans totaling $205 million as of June 30. Its borrowers do not meet conventional credit standards, and their incomes average less than two-thirds the national median income. Some 93 percent of those receiving loans from the fund are first-time home buyers, and almost 90 percent are low- or moderate-income borrowers. Approximately 54 percent are minority households. And yet, the NeighborWorks borrowers are not experiencing the same mortgage woes as subprime borrowers elsewhere around the country. Why? As of June 30, the most recent figures available, 3.34 percent of NeighborWorks' borrowers were at least 30 days' delinquent on their loans, only slightly higher than the 2.63 percent delinquency rate on prime loans recorded in that period by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Compared with subprime loans over all, the NeighborWorks loans really outperform. Its 3.34 percent delinquency rate is well below the 14.54 percent on subprime loans nationwide. Foreclosure figures show a similar pattern. The NeighborWorks loans that went into foreclosure during the second quarter of 2007 totaled 0.56 percent, while subprime loan foreclosures came in at 2.45 percent during that period. The foreclosure rate for NeighborWorks loans was a little over double the 0.25 percent rate for prime loans in the period. "Our loans performed many times better than subprime," said Kenneth Wade, chief executive of NeighborWorks. "It shows that you can serve this customer base and they can succeed." Some of the success of these loans may be a result of an extensive mortgage education program conducted by the 130 loan counselors of NeighborWorks before and after a loan is made. is this what you wanted?

McCain did have it passed before polozi opened her stupid piehole because she wanted to tell america the dem's fix the problem that the gop caused, when in fact they are fixing a dem caused problem. she isn't very bright, but then again she is from Sanfran and we all know what the people are like there. (were's the icon for getting butfucked?)

I am also on the record for not supporting Bush. Funny how the devout Bush supporters from 2004 are now distancing themselves from him. No, it is relevant. You seem to think only one person is responsible for every wrong doing in the world. Again, not very logical and you can do better than that. Why snip the following bit - we can all back up and read it. It shows your point is moot in the case of Bush's spending. He didn't veto ANYTHING. He could have, he had a veto-proof majority in Congress, and he didn't do it. Congress didn't have to override a Bush spending veto while record deficits were being run up by the GOP controlled Congress, because Bush didn't veto anything until July 2006 (and that wasn't a spending bill.) Why didn't dem's stop any of this spending in the senate? seems to me that they let this happen also. the blame is on both sides.

How many of the 90,000 victims became pregnant? I don't know if anyone keeps those data. I still think you'll need a lot of surrogates. Nothing right now stops fundie women from offering their wombs to rape victims who would otherwise abort, but I don't hear of it happening very much. probably in part because then you would have all those other idiots out there complaining its wrong. we have people saying stem cell research is wrong, abortion is wrong, birth control is wrong, drilling for oil is wrong. seems like there is always a group saying what someone does is wrong.

No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. we all know that these loans are part of the problem, trouble is alot of other loans and variables also came into the mix and clouds the real issue. John is using the clouded areas to add confussion to make the problem look more right than left. Is the war and bush economics playing a part in this, yes it is, but the loan fiascal and fannie and freddie issue is mostly on the dem's and they don't want to admit it.