Posted by Calnotary on 1/18/08 9:19pm
Msg #231397

Mortgage Meltdown -- American Capitalism at its Worst

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/1/17/mortgage-meltdown-american-capitalism-at-its-worst.aspx

Reply by Virginia Doyle on 1/18/08 10:16pm
Msg #231401

Awesome!

Reply by jba/fl on 1/18/08 10:26pm
Msg #231402

Whew - that was long!
A lot of the same as what we have been hearing all along, with the blame-shifting, but the ending, looking at Amsterdam housing costs over 300 years and the interpretation of that graph was very sensible and spot on to my way of thinking.

Always interesting to see how the rest of the world views us, and get away from the local talking heads. (meaning U.S.)

Reply by desktopfull on 1/18/08 11:24pm
Msg #231407

You need to read this article from 2000 on meltdown.

For those who still want to blame the big bad banking industry, this may open your eyes to what really caused the mortgage melt down and Clinton was warned it would cause a housing collapse before he ever strong armed the banks into the subprime mortgage lending business:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Reply by jba/fl on 1/19/08 12:39am
Msg #231408

Re: You need to read this article from 2000 on meltdown.

Now that you have sent us to this article for the 2nd time, the question I have is: Did the Rep. get this org. removed from prominance? Did Bush abolish this crappily planned fiasco from our landscape.?

There is another way to look at the results though: many of these people who benefited from this program did assimilate successfully and perhaps removed themselves from clutches of slum lords, who weren't going to do anything with those properties anyway. (another topic, tho related) They can't all have been total mistakes.

Reply by desktopfull on 1/19/08 6:48am
Msg #231414

Re: You need to read this article from 2000 on meltdown.

Yes, I posted it first in "just politics" but I moved it to here when I viewed the film posted that is still putting all of the blame onto the banking industry, so I figured the link needed to be placed here so the rest of the story could be read along with viewing the film.

The Clinton administration started this house of cards by forcing the banking industry into the subprime market to meet quotas or get their doors shut for not complying. When Bush went into office he could have stopped this avalanche but did nothing and let the media dictate policy because of the election mess and we were already in a recession that started in 1998. I'm not defending any party. I just thought that everyone should know that the banking industry had no choice in creating the subprime mortgage market, but now the regulators in Washington are giving them all of the blame and act like they had nothing to do with the problem. Another nice "catch 22" scenerio the government created and won't own up to the fiasco.

Reply by Aero Mobile Notary Service on 1/20/08 2:06am
Msg #231476

Re: You need to read this article from 2000 on meltdown.

Certainly many lenders enganged in "predatory lending" and I'm not disputing that, but I think consumers share half the blame in this mortgage crisis. For crying out loud, they got themselves VARIABLE rate mortgages and INTEREST-ONLY loans so they could buy a house they knew they couldn't afford at a time when the market was at its highest. As a signing agent, I saw this all the time and I'm sure most (if not all) the rest of you did, too. I'm no financial expert by any means - I'm just another average person - and I'm not trying to be high-and-mighty, but common sense told me not to even think of buying a house during such an inflated market. Prices can only go so high before there's only one direction they can go: down. Now, people like me can pick up a house fairly cheap from someone who's desperate just to get rid of the darn thing, or worse: someone who has no choice because they're in foreclosure.

Yes, corporations are greedy, but individuals need to start taking at least SOME personal responsibility for their bad financial decisions.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 1/20/08 10:57am
Msg #231508

Corporations in and of themsleves are not greedy....

I have never see avarice spelled out in articles of incorporation however corporations are responsible to their stockholders to make a profit. Having the perspective of 20/20 hidsight as a result of my long tenure in the business I knwo that the Bankers have sought to expand thier businesses by various means, one of which was to be allowed to do things other than banking. I bellieve that this situation was originally set up by Ronald Reagan and the the tax act of 1986 following the savings and loan fiasco (another group trying to more than their charters were designed to do). We have recently seen the banks want to sell real estate which they are curently prohibited form doing. Fortunately the legislators involved had the foresight to imagine what things would be like if banks controlled the whole realestate scenario: fortunately also that the National Association of Realtors is strong enough to repulse such an attack!

Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/19/08 12:40am
Msg #231409

Phfft. The uber-rich have been getting gov't subsidies

for the last 30 years.

Bush inherited a surplus. Look at the deficit 8 years later.

There has to be a Nation, caring for its people, building its infrastructure, elevating education, and providing security to have a Free Market, not the other way around.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 1/19/08 10:05am
Msg #231420

Re: Phfft. The uber-rich have been getting gov't subsidies

This should really be in Politics. But the Clinton surplus is a myth.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Reply by SueW/Tn on 1/19/08 10:45am
Msg #231425

Re: Phfft. The uber-rich have been getting gov't subsidies

There's always three sides to every story, yours...theirs...and the truth. Here's the "other side"

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article3073738.ece

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 1/19/08 11:29am
Msg #231431

Re: Phfft. The uber-rich have been getting gov't subsidies

But, one cannot argue with the U.S Treasury's figures.