Look, you can be salty at Obama that people bought houses they couldn't afford and had to give them back, and he didn't let the banking system collapse, maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't the one who caused it, he inherited that mess. How's bringing back the people who caused it in 2010 going to help problems?
I got 3.5% extra capital gains tax to pay for Obamacare, which I am fine with voting for even though it probably cost me tens of thousands over the years. But do you think I, "evil" upper-middle-classman techie with great employer health care should care more about expanding Medicaid to the working poor than the working poor themselves? I am OK voting for it and paying for it, but they can't be bothered to turn out to elect people to get it going, or vote for people blocking it? Really, I am willing to pay six figures in capital gains taxes to fund their health care, but they can't be bothered to lift a finger or vote to sabotage it. At some point, the poor of this country have to take responsibility for their politics and understand that good governance and laws don't magically happen, they are a result of people voting and parties winning.
Look, you can be salty at Obama that people bought houses they couldn't afford and had to give them back, and he didn't let the banking system collapse, maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't the one who caused it, he inherited that mess. How's bringing back the people who caused it in 2010 going to help problems?
I got 3.5% extra capital gains tax to pay for Obamacare, which I am fine with voting for even though it probably cost me tens of thousands over the years. But do you think I, "evil" upper-middle-classman techie with great employer health care should care more about expanding Medicaid to the working poor than the working poor themselves? I am OK voting for it and paying for it, but they can't be bothered to turn out to elect people to get it going, or vote for people blocking it? Really, I am willing to pay six figures in capital gains taxes to fund their health care, but they can't be bothered to lift a finger or vote to sabotage it. At some point, the poor of this country have to take responsibility for their politics and understand that good governance and laws don't magically happen, they are a result of people voting and parties winning.
Only a fool thinks the banks were entirely at fault.Fucking LOL Quoted for giant irony.
The banks were 100% the people at fault, but now all of a sudden because it's a scrutiny of Obama's administration you will gladly take them up and defend them? God damn this is hilarious fucking shit LOL.
The BANKS were not doing their job. They were not doing the proper procedures of checking credit and applying loans based on those and countless other shady shit under the table. No one with half a brain would do these things or allow them - thus they should have fallen because THEY fucked up. Instead, they get bailed out and the people who they loaned to get fucked over.
Yet here you are telling us how it's all the middle-class homeowner's fault lol.
Sorry to burst your bubble.holy shit liberal.txt right here
Fucking LOL Quoted for giant irony.
The banks were 100% the people at fault, but now all of a sudden because it's a scrutiny of Obama's administration you will gladly take them up and defend them? God damn this is hilarious fucking shit LOL.
The BANKS were not doing their job. They were not doing the proper procedures of checking credit and applying loans based on those and countless other shady shit under the table. No one with half a brain would do these things or allow them - thus they should have fallen because THEY fucked up. Instead, they get bailed out and the people who they loaned to get fucked over.
Yet here you are telling us how it's all the middle-class homeowner's fault lol.
But do you think I, "evil" upper-middle-classman techie with great employer health care should care more about expanding Medicaid to the working poor than the working poor themselves? I am OK voting for it and paying for it, but they can't be bothered to turn out to elect people to get it going, or vote for people blocking it? Really, I am willing to pay six figures in capital gains taxes to fund their health care, but they can't be bothered to lift a finger or vote to sabotage it. At some point, the poor of this country have to take responsibility for their politics and understand that good governance and laws don't magically happen, they are a result of people voting and parties winning.
How about reforming election law so participation in elections is significantly higher? The low participation biases not just on class but age because the old people who vote consistently now did not do so when they were young either. We got zilch in reforms when there were actual opportunities because people keep putting in Democrats who do not want to shake up the system. Like I've said in the past, if we can't get 50 Senators, when will it happen? Historically, a party could go decades without a majority.
It's also really pathetic how much harder establishment Democrats are to people within their own party while always bending over backwards to protect the Republican brand as if they're the legitimate alternative choice. Here's a comparison:
“Defund the police? Defund, my butt. I’m a proud West Virginia Democrat. We are the party of working men and women. We want to protect Americans’ jobs & healthcare. We do not have some crazy socialist agenda, and we do not believe in defunding the police,” he wrote
VS.
"It’s very hard for me to say this because Lindsey and I have worked together on stuff. And when John McCain died, he just went to the dark side," Reid told MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin. "He was happier playing golf with Donald Trump."
"I hope that Lindsey loses. That’s difficult for me to say, but I sure hope he loses," Reid, 80, added.
Really banks were 100% at fault? Buying a McMansion with an adjustable rate mortgage with balloon payment you can't afford is perfectly fine just because a bank will finance you?
This is so dumb. There was a great deal of fraud on the side of the banks and it’s super fucked up that it wasn’t punished. Anyone paying attention though knows there was also a great deal of fraud on the part of buyers. Some people didn’t know what they were signing but plenty of others did.Really banks were 100% at fault? Buying a McMansion with an adjustable rate mortgage with balloon payment you can't afford is perfectly fine just because a bank will finance you?
YES! It is perfectly fine lol.
You know why? Because in the world of lending you DONT LEND when it is high risk. Do you understand what a loan is? It's someone saying "Hmmm, based on what we know about this person - we trust that they can safely pay us back based on the financial and credit information we pulled on him. He has a wife that also works, so we take their employment into the calculation so if one gets laid off they should still be able to get by" - you get the picture.
Do you know why banks do that? Because when SHIT goes wrong, they are on the hook for the loaned amount. They made the loan, and they suffer the consequences. Thats how the world of financial lending goes.
And do you honestly expect the average american middle-class to understand JACK shit about loans? Were talking about pages and pages of bullshit documents written by lawyers in legal language that does nothing but confuses 80% of the population.
We shouldn't bring back the people that caused it, but I do think we could have handled it much better. I do think there should have been a much bigger stimulus package, with the majority of the stimulus checks going to individuals instead of to corporations. We also needed to hold the white collar criminals accountable in real ways.Look, you can be salty at Obama that people bought houses they couldn't afford and had to give them back, and he didn't let the banking system collapse, maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't the one who caused it, he inherited that mess. How's bringing back the people who caused it in 2010 going to help problems?
We shouldn't bring back the people that caused it, but I do think we could have handled it much better. I do think there should have been a much bigger stimulus package, with the majority of the stimulus checks going to individuals instead of to corporations. We also needed to hold the white collar criminals accountable in real ways.
YES! It is perfectly fine lol.
You know why? Because in the world of lending you DONT LEND when it is high risk. Do you understand what a loan is? It's someone saying "Hmmm, based on what we know about this person - we trust that they can safely pay us back based on the financial and credit information we pulled on him. He has a wife that also works, so we take their employment into the calculation so if one gets laid off they should still be able to get by" - you get the picture. The entire purpose of a loan is doing a calculation to say "Based on this person and their history, we are willing to take the risk they do not pay us back because we feel the chances of that are low"
Do you know why banks do that? Because when SHIT goes wrong, they are on the hook for the loaned amount. They made the loan, and they suffer the consequences. Thats how the world of financial lending goes.
And do you honestly expect the average american middle-class to understand JACK shit about loans? Were talking about pages and pages of bullshit documents written by lawyers in legal language that does nothing but confuses 80% of the population.
Everyone thought they couldn't lose. Banks, buyers, all of them. And there was nothing to stop people from acting on that, with other people's money. It was all really no more complex than that.This is so dumb. There was a great deal of fraud on the side of the banks and it’s super fucked up that it wasn’t punished. Anyone paying attention though knows there was also a great deal of fraud on the part of buyers. Some people didn’t know what they were signing but plenty of others did.
Because liberals think engaging in good faith is a fundamental requirement of civil society and conservatives don’t.Everyone thought they couldn't lose. Banks, buyers, all of them. And there was nothing to stop people from acting on that, with other people's money. It was all really no more complex than that.
With that said, why have we let the OP go off-topic from his original thread fail, to now blaming Obama for Bush's policies, when he know that a year from now he's going to be blaming Biden for the COVID economic downturn?
Why do liberals chronically allow conservatives to control the narrative with blatant obvious lies? That's the real question if you ask me.
I will give you that one.Because liberals think engaging in good faith is a fundamental requirement of civil society and conservatives don’t.
I mean, I sure as shit don't let conservatives yell at their mirrors while blaming libruuls for the shitbags they see.Everyone thought they couldn't lose. Banks, buyers, all of them. And there was nothing to stop people from acting on that, with other people's money. It was all really no more complex than that.
With that said, why have we let the OP go off-topic from his original thread fail, to now blaming Obama for Bush's policies, when we know that a year from now he's going to be blaming Biden for the COVID economic downturn?
Why do liberals chronically allow conservatives to control the narrative with blatant obvious lies? That's the real question if you ask me.
Not much risk in a market environment where the value of the collateral keeps going up faster than the borrowed interest rate. That's a can't lose scenario. It was only when that changed that the borrower's ability to repay became a 'high risk' factor. But what really tanked that market was the loss of willingness to repay from over-leveraged borrowers who were otherwise perfectly able to repay, but believed that they were too far underwater. Or.. why oved half of all approved loan mods during the housing bust either didn't sign or signed and re-defaulted.
Plus, mortgage lenders don't necessarily "suffer the consequences" of foreclosure, as it's actually an essential part of the business model (although generally the least desirable method of revenue generation). But if, for example, you lend out $100k over 30 years and the borrower stops paying at year 5, then getting $50k back right then and there through the forced sale of the collateral is certainly a better resolution than allowing non-payment, especially if you're looking for the cashflow to be able to lend to the collateral's new owners.
But what would I know about this? I've only worked in mortgage underwriting for 25 years and currently write credit policy for a major lender.
YES! It is perfectly fine lol.
You know why? Because in the world of lending you DONT LEND when it is high risk. Do you understand what a loan is? It's someone saying "Hmmm, based on what we know about this person - we trust that they can safely pay us back based on the financial and credit information we pulled on him. He has a wife that also works, so we take their employment into the calculation so if one gets laid off they should still be able to get by" - you get the picture. The entire purpose of a loan is doing a calculation to say "Based on this person and their history, we are willing to take the risk they do not pay us back because we feel the chances of that are low"
Do you know why banks do that? Because when SHIT goes wrong, they are on the hook for the loaned amount. They made the loan, and they suffer the consequences. Thats how the world of financial lending goes.
And do you honestly expect the average american middle-class to understand JACK shit about loans? Were talking about pages and pages of bullshit documents written by lawyers in legal language that does nothing but confuses 80% of the population.
Okay ... ? At what point did you negate anything that I said?
Yes, I understand the collateral of a home plays a factor into everything - just like it does for any other type of loan such as auto loans. My end-point still remains the same - when it comes to lending the concept of blaming the buyer and not the lending institute is fucking hilariously stupid and only comes from the brain of someone that doesn't know jack shit about lending (like the morons that liked your post).
The onus is ENTIRELY 100% on the lender.
Yeah, I expect someone buying a home to understand the terms of their mortgage especially the part where they lose their home if they can't afford to pay for it.
My emphasis on collateral was to explain the circumstances that led to the housing bust.
Putting 100% of the blame on the lender just seems silly and, quite frankly, like you know jack shit about lending.
First, loan documents are actually not that complex or beyond a typical consumer's comprehension. That's condescending IMO. A borrower should be able to look at the LE, CD, note, and DOT and know how much they're borrowing and what the monthly payment will be, as those things are clearly spelt out. So are interest rate and fees. The rest of that mountain of legal docs is mostly standard for every borrower. And while lenders can and should say no to a borrower whose DTI is excessive, it's still up to the borrower to decide if they're comfortable with that payment. Just because they can be approved for a particular payment doesn't mean they should accept it.
Second, lenders don't and can't control the borrower's choices. Lenders don't pick the collateral, for example, they only obtain title and appraisal to determine that it's acceptable collateral. But those things won't tell us if, for example, the HVAC is going to go out 10 months later, hitting the borrower with a huge bill that will affect their ability to repay. And no amount of documentation and analysis is going to mitigate the potential risk that a borrower might get laid off, or divorced, or transferred or whatever.
And finally, people are responsible for their own actions. So of course, lenders should not make loans that they know have low probabilities of repayment. Or engage in lending practices that might lead to market bubbles. But at the same time, there is no such thing as a loan with a 100% certain probability of repayment, if only because inevitability the choice to repay belongs with the individual borrower.
Lending, at the individual loan level, is not a science. It just isn't. It can't be.
And the Trump administration removed nearly all the protections that were10 million people lost their homes while he bailed out Wall Street. Democrats cannot fail, they can only be failed.
The big problem was the adjustable rate loans, with a very low rate initially in order to qualify the applicant, then with a big increase in subsequent years. Plenty of blame to go around here. First on the banks for offering such obvious trap mortgages, and second on the buyer for signing up for it. Yes, mortgages are difficult to understand, but someone who cannot understand such a basic principle should not buy a house, or at least they should get advice from someone who can understand it before making the commitment.My emphasis on collateral was to explain the circumstances that led to the housing bust.
Putting 100% of the blame on the lender just seems silly and, quite frankly, like you know jack shit about lending.
First, loan documents are actually not that complex or beyond a typical consumer's comprehension. That's condescending IMO. A borrower should be able to look at the LE, CD, note, and DOT and know how much they're borrowing and what the monthly payment will be, as those things are clearly spelt out. So are interest rate and fees. The rest of that mountain of legal docs is mostly standard for every borrower. And while lenders can and should say no to a borrower whose DTI is excessive, it's still up to the borrower to decide if they're comfortable with that payment. Just because they can be approved for a particular payment doesn't mean they should accept it.
Second, lenders don't and can't control the borrower's choices. Lenders don't pick the collateral, for example, they only obtain title and appraisal to determine that it's acceptable collateral. But those things won't tell us if, for example, the HVAC is going to go out 10 months later, hitting the borrower with a huge bill that will affect their ability to repay. And no amount of documentation and analysis is going to mitigate the potential risk that a borrower might get laid off, or divorced, or transferred or whatever.
And finally, people are responsible for their own actions. So of course, lenders should not make loans that they know have low probabilities of repayment. Or engage in lending practices that might lead to market bubbles. But at the same time, there is no such thing as a loan with a 100% certain probability of repayment, if only because inevitability the choice to repay belongs with the individual borrower.
Lending, at the individual loan level, is not a science. It just isn't. It can't be.