Why would the banks want to get involved directly with the home owners when they can be made whole by the government?

I wonder if anyone still doubts that letting the problem work itself out was the best way to go.

I do doubt it. In 1929, when the economy crashed, Herbert Hoover did nothing. He opted to let things work themselves out. In 1932, the economy was a shambles and he was voted out.

Time will tell if the things that are being done are / were effective. But I don't believe (based on history) that doing nothing was an option.

Ah but wait all is well except for health care. Our prophetic leader's actions are focused on our biggest issue... NOT

When the government is involved to the extent that them "doing nothing" makes things worse, they are too involved.

And they are too involved in the housing market, and have been for decades. This NEEDS to be allowed to run its course, or it will just be bubble after bubble. Fannie and Freddie already owe taxpayers $125 billion, and they have a blank check. When we that be enough for you people, or Obama, or the Democrats?

Owning your home is NOT a right, it's a privilege. When the government lost sight of that fact in 1977, and repeatedly legislated ways for Wall Street greed to take advantage of consumer greed and stupidity, and then looked the other way for 35 years - especially in 1987 and 1999 - they stepped further and further away from that concept. Read "The Sellout" by Charles Gasparino.

Meanwhile, in all his overreaching stupidity, Dodd refuses to bring to vote a bi-partisan plan that has about 90% agreement between the two parties on reregulation. The major sticking point? The "Consumer Protection Agency". But he refuses to drop that, because it's an opportunity to create hundreds of new patronage jobs for his Wall Street buddies, at taxpayer expense, when in fact there are no less than six existing agencies that are SUPPOSED to be "protecting the consumer" already. Protect your damn selves, and stop looking to the government to wipe your arse with other people's money.

And guess what? Under the Obama administration, with Dodd at the helm of banking and finance, the top 6 banks account for 67% of deposits. They are BIGGER than they were before they were deemed "too big to fail".

And you guys blame the banks? FALSE. There is no one to blame but the government for meddling where they had no business meddling. The banks are in business to make a profit, and need to be regulated realistically, but when the government regulates to serve the banks? You need to not blame the banks.

This article at least tells the truth instead of some Obama spin about how the housing market is improving and housing starts are up. The big problem with the cost of a new home is the increased prices of materials. Right before Hurricane Andrew hit we bought a new window and a month after we priced another exactly like it from the same place - it was double the price. Those prices have never gone back down. If you have ever been on a housing development site when they are building new homes, you would be appalled at the waste of good materials. If a buyer decides they want a different color bathtub, the new in place is taken out and throw away! A brand new unit wasted. Then there's the banks not lending and an ever-growing inventory of foreclosures that Obama can look forward to for his entire term in office.

If this same old healthcare bill - and it is not a new version they are working to pass - does pass it will cost the taxpayers double what they are saying(because they miss calculated the cost and have never changed that figure), ruin medicare totally, and cost more jobs. You will see a shortage of doctors which is far worse than it is now, doctors retiring, new in-training doctors change professions(many in practice have been doing so already), retainer fees be put into practice by almost every doctor, and less research. Worse yet, if you go to more than one doctore you will pay a yearly retainer fee for each one.........count it up....it will far outweigh your current cost.

We currently have what is considered worldwide as the best healthcare available and Obama wants to ruin it for everyone so the government can suck up your healthcare insurance money by the thousands of dollars and give back pennies. They have not given up government run healthcare and it is still part of this bill. Pelousi is trying to pass this before their Easter break in one week so that they can escape the heat in DC and hope that in two weeks voters will cool down. I think we need to make it clear that it won't happen if this is passed. The voters should not back down even if they do pass it - there are 12 state attorney generals waiting to bring legal action against this bill as unconstitutional and it is.

Hampster - don't get it, huh? If the banks lose, we all lose (speaking for taxpayers). Vacant houses are only a symptom of a progressive-fueled notion that everyone deserves to borrow money with little regard to their ability to pay it back.

The only way things get better is to put money in the pockets of the borrowers so they can make their payments. And simply confiscating the money from taxpayers, as has been done with TARP, Stimulus, Jobs Bill, etc. is just delaying the inevitable. And it's dragging down the entire country in the process.

Government - get out of the way. Foreclosed homes will be resold cheap or knocked down in a hurry if you just let the real economy take care of it.

This has nothing to do with banks and everything to do with us !

Can someone show me where the banks or anyone else held a gun to someones head and forced them to buy a house or to enter the market as a flipper?

The interference from lawmakers is only going to make matters worse. It will cause some to say I want my mediation too. It will further the growing problem of people finding themselves underwater in their property EVEN THOUGH they are paying their mortgage on time.

This will also have an impact on tax collection, unemplyment and the economy as a whole.

Now as I understand - if you loose a home to foreclosure it is not mandated that you go homeless and live on the streets for some period of time. The process provides ample time to put away enough money to secure a rental property.

This - IED if you will - for our economy needs to be dealt with quickly so we can move on - because there is another - IED - in real estate which is the commercial mortgage market. If the two of these go off at the same time - the banks will take their beating and I understand people say GOOD they deserve it - unfortunately for us - banks are a catalyst for everything we enjoy.

The pain suffered by the banks will be minor compared to what we suffer.

Maryland of all places, the State Government never gets it right. They passed a millionaires tax recently and the governor was warned not to do it - but - they wanted to stick it to the rich - the governor said - the rich understand they will accept this tax.

One year later ONE THIRD OF THE MILLIONAIRES LEFT THE STATE and the tax rolls actually went down, See the Wall Street Journal article attached.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Like everything else, the more involved the government becomes the worse it is going to be.

The only action I could see is the government mandating the banks permit all homeowners to refi all debt into their mortgage for a new 50 year mortgage at 4%. This would lower all payments - it would be available to ALL homeowners and would provide the economy with a massive amount of new cash from the savings ALL homeowners would have. WIth cars paid off and rolled into the house - some could take the new value and trade in cars and buy new and on and on - homw improvements would get rolling again.

Other than something like this - get out of the way and lets take our beating and get up again because we can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlTdkYXuzE

Watch this short video and then go on about your day feeling sorry for yourself !

real packer...didn't you read the article? This wave of foreclosures is coming from normal loans, not subprime. These are the people who did things appropriately, and are in trouble due to other things such as job losses.

Frankly this argues for local, smaller banks writing and holding mortgages. A small bank could look at each situation for what it is, and make ad hoc decisions based on each borrower's circumstances. Instead we have the spreadsheet kings at the large mortgage owners, who only know the numbers and the rules, and don't give a rip about the individual cases.

Veh - did you read the comment?

It's simple. You take a loan and don't make the payments. You lose your collateral.

I know a few families with the husband and wife still employed, who stopped paying their mortgage and are saving their money. They are highly educated college grads who have seen their investment drop by more than 33% with little chance that it will appreciate over the short term. I know a few families who, through unemployment, can no longer pay their mortgages. The point being, there is no "cookie cutter" approach to help alleviate the situation. I think offering a 40 or 50 year mortgage is a solution for some. I do not think stalling the inevitable is the solution for anyone.

well now, i smell another nice big bailout for freddie and fannie, and the gov. taking in the bad investments, owning more property again this year.

I think some are missing the big deal going on here. I hope nobody here thinks by now the gov is in any way shape or form being forced to take on these deals gone bad. Every single one of us here know for a fact, this needed direct attention, far more than any HCR. Yet to this date nothing has been done....why? Well the gov. thanks to JP, F&F, ACORN (<== special atten to that last group) is the governments way of buying up property, at discount rates legally, rather than take bt force.

What % is it again of the number of property the gov has bought up again? Taking the "bad loans" off these people's hands. hehehe....yup, all done nice and legal like. Thats why Nobama the Clown didn't do a freaking thing to fix the issue here. If you think some how he forgot there was an issue or it was going to fix it's self, think again. This all goes back to the big circle jerk of things... Nobama working for ACORN giving advise and lectures on how to legally force the banks and so on to force bad loans, F&F, another good buddy, knowingly giving out bad loans and denying there is a problem, and whoa! guess who just got elected president, the change man himself! Doing ANYTHING at all Mr Sham man to fix the economy, putting people back to work, fixing the housing market on behalf of your little band of thieves? Not a dam thing? Well gee.... i wonder why.... dont think i need to actually paint a picture for you whats been going on here including the big HCR, and why some dems and repups alike are laxing gun laws do i? I think with everything going on here, you can paint your own picture out of this.

"Some economists project it could take nearly three years before all these homes have been put on the market and purchased by new owners."

And who do they think is going to buy all these homes that will hit the market. The economy is still tanking, jobs are still being lost and each day the FED prints up more money it becomes even more worthless. Amazingly the reality business is still trying to squeeze more money out of the homes that are still unsold. It's going to get worse long before it gets better.

Owning your home is NOT a right, it's a privilege.

Everything is a right to a liberal, and in addition those rights have to be subsidized by hard working Americans.

veh...that sounds reasonable except for one thing. If the housing markets and mortgage markets are allowed to continue to steam roll downhill then you will also be swept up in the debris field. I don't care if you think you won't because you are a renter, the owner of the property stops paying the mortgage or taxes and your on the street...that simple.

In early 2007 we started seeing the beginning of the mess. I knew how bad it would be because my business is directly related to the land development industry. Almost overnight you saw job losses coming in waves. I know because I also own a retail business. You shut down home building or commercial building and you shut down all other businesses that supply those industries. People loose jobs because of the failure of the housing market they are no longer consumers. That creates secondary losses and secondary layoffs. Do you see my point. If not read the next paragraph.

I make the analogy of what happened to our economy is kinda like a wildfire you always read about in California. These wildfires gobble up vast quantities of land and personal property. Eventually the fire is extinguished but not until it has done all the damage it can do. Now then, all wildfires need 2 common elements, ignition and fuel. The ignition source isn't found until a thorough investigation is conducted. As a matter of fact, nobody really pays attention to the ignition source and they don't really know where it started until much later. The wildfire also needs fuel. Fuel is usually dry undergrowth, downed trees, etc. The firefighters work very hard to try to reduce the fuel source as this is the only way to fight a fire. The economic wildfire began when ARMs reset in 2006-2007. That was the ignition source. No one much cared if these folks began loosing their homes as they did make a bad decision with the type of mortgage they accepted. But they would not have been allowed to take the mortgages but for the snake oil salesmen, commonly referred to as mortgage brokers backed up by fannie and freddie. The flames began reaching heights that were noticed by congress and thus we had TARP. TARP did not address the underlying concern that this wildfire was starting to provide its own fuel. The fuel was job losses, the destruction of disposable income, the shutting down of manufacturing and distribution, the drop in retail sales due to job losses, the glut of vacant homes, and the list can go on and on.

We are only seeing the beginning phases of what began over 3 years ago because everybody wants to look for someone to blame. Wait...my damned house is burning down...put the fire out first. You know the fuel sources. Why did you give money to car makers...I can't afford a God damned car. They are propping up the ignition sources and ignoring the very real firestorm that is brewing.

Veh...you may feel secure in your employment. I suspect you have either a taxpayer supported job, either direct employment or contract employment. Perhaps you in herited a fortune or won the lottery. Whatever it is, your position right now may seem good...but that is all it is...it seems good. Tax payer tittys are drying up from one coast to the next. It is starting at the local levels, moving to the state levels, and will be reaching the federal levels. This wildfire is providing its own fuel. So knock it off with that crap about 1st year contract law.

NHFisherCat...Owning a business isn't a right either. Operating said business fraudulently for 17 years isn't a right either. So, let's take everyone who can't hand over several hundred thousands for a home and make them pay $1000/month in rent that the slumlords increase every year.

You don't really have a clue, do you?

Veh...my apologies...my comment was for real packer fan

Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... They are all brand names, just like Toyota. They are all driving down the road with their accelerators stuck and no one can put the brakes on them. Oh sure, they promise great savings, but no one is going to trust them again for years and years to come. Just like Toyota is "investigating" itself, the progressive, liberal, Democrats are left being responsible to control their own actions. What are we getting with an out of control Democrat Congress and Presidency? Health Care forced down our throats. Out of control spending... Please, someone put on the brakes. Just like Toyota needs to pay the price for their irresponsibility, so do the Democrats. If they pass "Obama Care", EVERYONE who votes for it should be voted out of office. They do NOT have the interest of the American people in mind, or they are too stupid or too greedy to represent us. Wise up Democrats... YOUR BRAND IS TARNISHED, DON'T MAKE IT WORSE BY PASSING OBAMACARE.

hampster:

I can't throw all banks into one basket. There are many banks out there that do not deserve your ire.

A significant portion of these impending foreclosures are more than likely carried by smaller community banks. Some of these banks don't sell off their mortgages into the secondary market and keep them on their books.

Believe me, the last thing a small bank wants to do is take any type of collateral back, especially a home. In my years of banking I had one home I had to foreclose on and I felt horrible about it, even though the couple had no kids. It was like going to a funeral.

Smaller banks will bend over backwards for a homeowner. Many times I would extend payments and simply collect interest. A small deed on my part, but a huge financial lift for the homeowner.

By the way, it wasn't just banks that caused this financial mess.

Government revenue in the United States has steadily increased from seven percent of GDP in 1902 to over 35 percent today. 19.1 percent in 1933 Great Depression. 33.08 percent of GDP in the recession year of 1982 and 37.35 percent of GDP in the recession year of 2001. state and local revenue have increased substantially. State revenue broke 8 percent of GDP in the recession year of 1982 and thereafter has fluctuated between 8 and 10 percent of GDP. Local revenue broke 6 percent in 1982 and thereafter has fluctuated between 6 and 8 percent of GDP. Over 1/2 GDP?? in taxes/fees! then theres the Debt+interest on it! Those Greedy evil banks fault??? ROFLMAO!!!

This whole situation has gone way beyond the point of trying to lay blame on any one entity. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, i.e. greedy bankers, greedy real estate agents, greedy appraisors, greedy developers, greedy brokers, and yes, even greedy home buyers - GREED. The entire country went on a house buying binge and now we're all suffering from the collective hangover.

But for all those who bought houses during the boom years, here's a question that I would love an answer to - WHY DID YOU PURCHASE A HOME WHOSE ASKING PRICE HAD DOUBLED IN A COUPLE OF YEARS? WHATEVER MADE YOU THINK THAT ASKING PRICES WERE REASONABLE? DID IT NEVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT MAYBE THE BOTTOM WOULD FALL OUT WITH PRICES SKYROCKETING AS FAST AS THEY WERE? DID YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PRICES WOULD CONTINUE TO CLIMB AT THE ASTRONOMICAL RATE WITH WHICH THEY WERE CLIMBING? AND LASTLY, WHY DID YOU SUCK EVERY DROP OF EQUITY OUT OF YOUR HOME TO PAY FOR OVERPRICED AUTOMOBILES, VACATIONS, ETC. , ETC., ETC.

I kept asking myself over and over again - why are people purchasing homes at these ridiculous prices? What could they possibly be thinking? Did you never stop to notice that the home you paid $500,000 for sold for half that price two years earlier? Did you think that was reasonable?

I could go on and on with my questions - but one thing is certain - stupidity and greed got us here today.

Well, once that $8,000 tax credit expires, I anticipate saving around 10-15% on our new home.

Housing market in trouble.

J Hicks...my wife and I bought a home in a bedroom community of Washington DC in 1993. We paid $115,000. We had a 6 figure combined income. I recall the builder and brokers trying to sell us so much more. The house, not glamorous, was just what we needed not what we wanted. It took us 15 minutes to tell them what carpet, linoleum, kitchen cabinets, fixtures, siding, and paint to use. It was not a trophy to expose to the world our vast wealth. This was actually near the upper end for homes in this area at the time.

3 years later we started noticing neighborhoods going up around us that had starting prices nearly 3 times what we paid for our house. This was the beginning of the "mortgage poor". It was great for my line of work as a land surveyor and good for my employees but not so good for my former employees now. Glad to see you understand it is the unmitigated greed that brought us to this point. The insanity was in full swing.

The banking industry is guilty of making bad loans and certainly as those loans go into foreclosure the increase in available housing will put pressure on the prices of homes and that is bad news for homeowners. Home ownership is seen as a sign of economic progress and politicians seeking credit for improving this statistic encouraged banks to make more loans and they gladly did as they anticipated greater profit. There are many culprits in this and greed and the desire for power are the leading factors in the series of policies that made it possible. Step back take a deep breath forget your partisan bias and look at the facts, banks got greedy, politicians from both party's allowed them to abuse the system, in many cases they encouraged bad behavior. But more troubling the foxes are in the chicken coop nothing has or will change as long as the same people call the shots. Many of the villains are still in office that is a disgrace.

Can't stop the Domino's, they will fall no matter what, the housing market will fall but it will happen sooner or later and I think this time since it's affects on jobs will not be crucial Obama should let it happen, the people are not paying their mortgages and money is not going back into the economy those are the areas we need to be concerned with not the housing issue .....

How the hell is this the fault of the banks? You're delusional or stupid or both.

In addition to those already in default are 11 million more U.S. borrowers who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth — known as being underwater — and are in danger of becoming delinquent,

In truth, a homeowner that is "underwater" isn't necessarily in danger of becoming delinquent. If the homeowner stays in the house long enough, he will eventually owe less than the house is worth. On the other hand, if the author meant that these 11 million homeowners were delinquent AND underwater, then he should write a better sentence.

Stop complaining about big banks - move your business to credit unions.

well everyone cinch up your teleprompter here comes a mortgage summit with deep deep pockets!!! Just kidding! The American citizens arn't a corporation, so government doesn't care less!!!

There is no housing market for Americans. There is NO economy. The Chinese, India, South America, they are all coming for our homes and land. You poor fools who continue to deceive yourselves that somehow the middle class conspired to wipe out our economy by living the American dream, as if the American dream was wrong as the whole time the real conspiracy has been foreign bankers and investors seeking to destroy this nation made great once by our middle class. That bunch of cowards down in DC has pretended to be fooling with the great health insurance Christmas gift for the last year, so that it would seem as if they are too busy to pay attention to the real issue. They have, in fact thrown in the towel, and it is time for every last one of them to go. That's right, your "government" has elected to side with foreign entities over the security of American citizens. They bail out foreign banks such as BOA and Citi, yes folks, they ARE largely foreign, (!) while countless folks are thrown out of homes which they have paid for and improved for years or decades for as little as pennies on the dollar. These banks should have been forced under 2 years ago, by now the economy would be thriving. If you are an American, you should join me in gathering as many people as you can to deluge all of your representatives with a demand that permanently occupied continuously for the last 5 years or more, single family homes are granted permanent immunity from foreclosure, in consideration of the fact that we homeowners, as taxpayers have bailed out these banks, and that the banks, acting willfully, and in bad faith, did damage the value and continue to damage the value of our properties. They have proven first that they are too big to succeed, and now they are demonstrating that they are too big to exist. As for me, I have never been late on a payment - ever in life. Yet I estimate that the criminal activities of the very bank who holds my mortgage is directly responsible for real dollar losses to me the equivalent of more than half of the balance due on my home.

NHFisherCat...Owning a business isn't a right either

Never said it was.

Operating said business fraudulently for 17 years isn't a right either.

Never said it was.

So, let's take everyone who can't hand over several hundred thousands for a home and make them pay $1000/month in rent that the slumlords increase every year.

If you can't afford a house then you either live with Mom & Dad or rent. What is so hard to understand about that? I rented for MANY years before I could afford "several hundred thousands for a home".

You don't really have a clue, do you?

Unfortunately for you, WAY more then you have.

When Wall Street operated on "partnerships" and were not traded publicly, conservative principles were applied during investments because they were gambling with their own money. Now that Wall Street is publicly owned, they gamble with other peoples money so personal loss was eliminated. And now with our Government bailing them out, Wall Street has been empowered to believe they can handle even more risk while investing driving conservative values further back in the closet if not simply eliminating them all together.

I may not like bankers, however, our government is ultimately responsible for not regulating them correctly to prevent the economic collaps we ALL are experiencing today.

Jim, Your analogy is right on and very well said. I applaud you for your in-site.

JHICKS, You have a very narrow view of this whole mess. Whether it is out of pride because YOU have the cash available to be comfortable or are just looking for a scape-goat, I don't know (and could care less)

In my own case, yes I was forced into a short sale. I had a very affordable house purchased for 120K with a 95K mortgage. Then came job losses Our whole department outsourced and at 60 years old nobody wants to talk to you. (over 300 resumes and applications out with 6 interviews and no job offers.) I was forced to take an almost minimum wage job. I was still making my payments on time. For various reasons I took a transfer in 2008 and had to sell my home. Right when the bubble burst. The housing market feel through the floor. Please keep in mind that my principal on my mortgage was 90K and homes at that point were not selling AT ALL. In my block there were 8 homes for sale or foreclosed on. Meanwhile, I am in Austin Texas and the home I am trying to sell is in Minneapolis, of course I could not afford to pay both rent here and the mortgage in Minneapolis. I took a bath. My reason for relating this is to show that there are many of us out here caught in the middle and whatever happen had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with lack of responsibility or greed or buying more than we could afford.

AND IN MY OPINION, THOSE THAT KEEP RIDEING ON THOSE AS THE REASON FOR THE PROBLEM ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS.

J Hicks

You forgot to list politicians !

Once again as soon as government gets involved in something it becomes a mess - just wait until the auto industry has a chance to figure things out -

Be prepared - that rival auto makers are taking notes of what is happening today - they will figure out a way to price out GM & Chrysler - and we will have yet another monster problem on our hands or we will only have 1 or 2 models of high priced crap cars to purchase and use.

Consider the GREAT IDEA of the creation of the Department of Energy - purpose to reduce dependency on foriegn oil - how's that working out?

GREED is good as long as one accepts the risk of failure and is willing to take that risk WITHOUT ASKING others to soften the landing.

no, barney frank and the liberals caused this mess and the handouts for homes and cars debacle is coming soon to a theatre near you. enjoy the ride or wish you kept that paid off car and rented until you could afford to buy. prices will continue to plummet and you all thought you got a deal. hillarious!

My only saving grace when I lost my job is that I did not have a home loan to pay off. I feel for these people. The goverment screwing them, then on top of that the banks, ( I agree mostly big banks, smaller banks aren't out for blood). These big banks are going to get their money or homes they are just not going all out right now due to public senitment and their buddies in goverment. But they soon will. The goverment is not going to help these folk. They will lose their homes. The banks business plans calls for this. The banks are gambling that they will get to sell these in about five years when thing start back. But the problem is they are only screwing themself. Things won't go back in five years or even ten. We're just too far gone into the hole. The banks greed is going to ruin them as it did before. It's just sad that so much of my tax money is going to help them and not the people they screwed over.

To the conservatives here:

Don't you think relaxed underwriting standards, a flood of trillions of dollars (foreign and domestic) into the American real estate market, and securitization of mortgage debt had a little something to do with this collapse? Not even a little?

radartoe

I think the banks' greed will bump up against reality when the forclosure rate gets high enough.

Don't you think relaxed underwriting standards, a flood of trillions of dollars (foreign and domestic) into the American real estate market, and securitization of mortgage debt had a little something to do with this collapse?

See post #1.34 for the correct answer.

If I were running the show I'd take over all these properties immediately. I'd get them sold for whatever I could get and get on with it. Delaying will not make things better.

Something new please

ABSOLUTELY -

However the banks did not go into it looking to loose money - they were applying critical underwriting standards. Then certain inner city community organizing institutions got pissed and raised holy cain.

The result was intervention by the federal government - at first they called it red-lining.

Now everyone talks about the greed of the bankers - if true - then I would suppose it's not some new phenomenon - RIGHT?

So if the people in these so called "RED-LINED AREAS" represented profits - Why in the world would a banker deny them loans - it's kinda counterintuitive. These areas were red-lined for being..........................BAD CREDIT RISKS !!

So the feds stepped in and started laying down HUGE FINES if banls did not loan in these higher loan risk neighborhoods. The Banks pushed back some and the Feds agreed to then make good on the loans. However, they still had to deal with rating the risk, again the Feds stepped up to the plate and VOILA creative sub-prime market is born.

There is nothing wrong with the ideal or dream that every American own a home - but this must be done equitably with similar standards across the board.

When banks required 20% down - the risk of default was substantially lower - WHY WAS THAT ?

Because the homeowner had skin in the game -

Federal Government has NO PLACE being in Real Estate or any other private sector. Their role should only be to protect us from harm - be it fraud or some other means.

But let things work themselves out in the marketplace-

If you bought a home and lost it -

THAT'S OK !!

YOU WILL SURVIVE !!

YOU CAN STILL HAVE A GREAT LIFE !!

SO YOU FELL DOWN AND HECK MAYBE EVEN BROKE A BONE - GET UP DUST YOUR SELF OFF AND MOVE ON.

(not you personally just people in general)

This constant need to try and spare people some inconveinences or even some pain will lead to our destruction as a free nation. This MUST BE SOMEONE ELSES FAULT has got to stop.

I really wish everyone would watch this video.

Who is to blame for this gentlemens circumstance ?

What if you or someone you love'd was in a similar position ?

Would you have the courage to meet your challenge head-on like this guy did?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlTdkYXuzE

Can you imagine this guy blaming a bank ?

""Some of the positive housing data may not be signaling a true turning point, as many servicers are holding back on foreclosures and the related houses are not yet being offered for sale," said Diane Westerback, a managing directorat Standard & Poor's."

Translation: Smoke and mirrors.

"These types of programs are "protecting house prices and consumer sentiment from going down further," he said."

This is the problem; government is concerned only about its tax revenue and perception when the only thing that really matters is average Americans being able to afford a decent home on average wages, and that will not happen until all of the subsidies and foreclosure moratoriums are lifted and prices are allowed to drop to levels that are actually sustainable. All that the government interferences accomplished was creating a huge backwater that will make the eventual collapse much worse than if it had been allowed to correct itself slowly.

Congratulations to MSNBC for publishing something that had some truth in it(for once)....too bad yesterday they published the exact opposite...

"Survey: Pace of foreclosures may be slowing"

"The foreclosure crisis isn't over, but the pace of growth may finally be slowing down...."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35812835/ns/business-real_estate/

Megalodon-358694

well now, i smell another nice big bailout for freddie and fannie, and the gov. taking in the bad investments, owning more property again this year.
******************************************************
Megalodon they don't have to bail the thieves at F&F out. They have given an unlimited
access to funds that they need, you & I will have to foot the cost for these idiots.
I wonder how much money & favors have to be given in the form of Bribes (Bribes are illegal) to the Democrats that hate this bill, and again we the people will have to pay for it.
How in the Devil can the Democratic Congress be so stupid, even this die hard Democrat is sick of these people & I will help to vote the bums out of office in November & 2012.
I think they all wear Hats to meetings & when they hang their hats up they leave their brains in the hat.

J. Hicks

This is a relatively easy answer to provide; in fact I believe I have answered this before in another forum

Your question:

WHY DID YOU PURCHASE A HOME WHOSE ASKING PRICE HAD DOUBLED IN A COUPLE OF YEARS? WHATEVER MADE YOU THINK THAT ASKING PRICES WERE REASONABLE?

Well for starts the asking price for my home wasn't reasonable, but the asking price for the older home I sold wasn't reasonable either. Someone was just dumb enough to pay the price I listed it for.

So basically I bought a home priced way too high because I made a ton of equity in 3 years on my first home. In buying the new home, I took practically all the equity and put this down on the new home. So to me the price of the home didn't matter because after all said and done, my payment went up very little and the amount financed was pretty close to the same. So this is why I did it and to me it made perfect sense.

Where the stupidity comes into play, is when people took all the equity they earned on the sell of their house and blew it. Not only did they do this, but the new house they decided to purchase was way bigger then they really needed.

Michael #64

Your statements regarding high-risk loans did not apply to loans made after, say, 2000. The problem by that point was that banks didn't have any skin in the game. They punted the risk onto the next person. "Quant" guys on Wall St. assured the investment community that they could take the risk out of these investments vis-a-vis CDOs and CDSs. The point is that the market got so huge because of widespread demand for the product both here and abroad. Banks like Lehman and Bear went bust more for their exposure to commercial real estate rather than residential. Also, the kinds of loans made pursuant to the CRA made up a small fraction of the multi-trillion dollar market. Look at where forclosure rates are highest - Vegas, Florida, Arizona. Those aren't impoverished urban markets.

Look, Greenspan said it best to Congress (paraphrasing): I assumed bank executives would take adequate steps to minimize risk in order to protect shareholder value...I was wrong."

This is an actual quote from his testimony:

"The consequent surge in global demand for U.S. subprime securities by banks, hedge, and pension funds supported by unrealistically positive rating designations by credit agencies was, in my judgment, the core of the problem. Demand became so aggressive that too many securitizers and lenders believed they were able to create and sell mortgage backed securities so quickly that they never put their shareholders' capital at risk and hence did not have the incentive to evaluate the credit quality of what they were selling. Pressures on lenders to supply more "paper" collapsed subprime underwriting standards from 2005 forward. Uncritical acceptance of credit ratings by purchasers of these toxic assets has led to huge losses."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/23/greenspan-testimony-on-sources-of-financial-crisis/tab/article/

That's a frightening thought and very true. People can keep blaming Fannie, Freddy, Frank, Dodd, the CRA, whoever and whatever. The money was flowing in and the banks figured out a way to put it to work so they could collect fees. "What could have been done about it" is a conversation that can only take place after you agree about what actually happened. If you think the government was twisting arms to get loans done, you're wrong and have nothing to contribute to a solution that will ensure that it never happens again.

Greenspan's proposed solution?:

"As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue. This will offset in part market deficiencies stemming from the failures of counterparty surveillance."

Itdoesnotmatter-1033959

People pulling out equity and letting it ride on the stock market was definitely part of the problem. However, even some people that didn't do that still bought more house than they could afford on the theory that prices will go up indefinitely. "The more house I buy, the bigger my gain will be." Unless you don't have a chair when the music stops.

For those that won't read Mr. Greenspan's testimony, he also said this:

What went wrong with global economic policies that had worked so effectively for nearly four decades? The breakdown has been most apparent in the securitization of home mortgages. The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far fewer. But subprime mortgages pooled and sold as securities became subject to explosive demand from investors around the world. These mortgage backed securities being “subprime” were originally offered at what appeared to be exceptionally high risk-adjusted market interest rates. But with U.S. home prices still rising, delinquency and foreclosure rates were deceptively modest. Losses were minimal. To the most sophisticated investors in the world, they were wrongly viewed as a “steal.”

Something new please -

If you think the government was twisting arms to get loans done, you're wrong and have nothing to contribute to a solution that will ensure that it never happens again.

I may not have the answers but I do know one thing is true. The government did get this ball rolling thru arm twisting. Then once the fail safe was put in place - it was a cash money machine that could not be stopped.

To repair anything one should look for the root cause of the problem - YES?

Michael #64

Yes. Now read Greenspan's remarks. I quote:

"The financial landscape that will greet the end of the crisis will be far different from the one that entered it little more than a year ago. Investors, chastened, will be exceptionally cautious. Structured investment vehicles, Alt-A mortgages, and a myriad of other exotic financial instruments are not now, and are unlikely to ever find willing investors. Regrettably, also on that list are subprime mortgages, the market for which has virtually disappeared. Home and small business ownership are vital commitments to a community. We should seek ways to reestablish a more sustainable subprime mortgage market." (Emphasis mine.)

The problem wasn't the existence of subprime debt. The problem was how big the market got. THAT problem was not the result of arm twisting. Subprime isn't a bad thing if you have proper underwriting standards and other risk management policies.

Greenspan was simply wrong and even admitted at one point that he didnt understand what happened to make all this turn out so badly. Just because he said something is not the authority to make all this all right. He screwed up and so did his successor. Subprime mortgages became the rule of the day. Government people forced these loans not even thinking about the problems. Foolish people gave out the loans and foolish people borrowed money on these loans and all with little thought of the consequences. Greenspan ended up being just another government economist that didnt really have a clue.

J.A-522495

Look, you don't want to believe the facts, then don't. Greenspan was wrong when he tried to predict the future. His predictions were wrong. Looking back in hindsight, which is what he was doing before COngress, is much easier. He was saying, "now I see the error of my ways." When you have upwards of $75 trillion flowing into the market, you don't need the government egging anyone on. You don't want to take Greenspan's word for it? Fine. Try this:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7073131.stm

http://www.stock-market-investors.com/stock-investment-risk/the-subprime-mortgage-crisis-explained.html

http://knol.google.com/k/toxic-debt-and-subprime-crisis#

How about from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352198,00.html

If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can also read this:

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2009/ppdp0901.pdf

Something new please

So if I understand what you are opining about.

It is perfectly acceptable for the government to maintain it's postiton as the principle player in this market?

Further, you do not recognize that without their actions this mess in all likelyhood would never have happened, at least not to the degree we find it in now?

Again I will submit - this will only correct itself when the government steps back, if they continue to meddle and try to fix it - it will only worsen.

History is our best teacher - and history provides no lessons where big government has been the answer.

Lastly, what Alan Greenspan says I do not accept as if it came from Obi Wan Knobe. He is not the patron saint of economic solutions.

Looks like I've got some explaining to do here, so I will address each writer individually:

Jim - you bought low and kept it affordable - so did I. I purchased my 1,700 square foot home in 1995 for $90,000. Nothing fancy by any means - but it was a solid house in excellent condition despite already being 11 years old. Loved it then, wish it were bigger now, but where else can I live for $600 per month?

Mike - I feel your pain. You are a casualty of this current economy. You did nothing wrong. I don't have a boat load of cash - quite the contrary. I'm a 46 year old woman who supports family of four, including my husband who is a stay at home dad for more reasons than one, and I'm doing it on less than half of what I earned 2 years ago. I've posted many times about my circumstances. In the last 3 years I lost one job to India (had to train the Indian to take away my family's livelihood) and lost another job to layoffs when the company was about to go under and saved themselves by cutting 40% of the staff. After 10 months of being out of work, I finally found a full time job earning the same amount of money I earned in 1995 when I originally bought my home. The only reason we didn't lose our home during the 10 months of unemployment was because we have a ton of equity and our bank (the same one that sent my job to India) spared us, gave us about 8 months of a free ride, then re-worked our mortgage, turning it into a 40 year loan instead of a 30 year loan. It hurt like heck, and in the long run will cost me a lot more money than if I had never suffered two job losses back to back, but we got to keep the only home my two children have ever known. I feel totally screwed by the current economy.

Itdoesnotmatter - I honestly don't see how you believe you came out OK because someone was, in your own words, stupid enough to pay what you listed your house for, so you felt OK to pay a ridiculous price for the next home you bought. So you were smart, in your mind, to put all the equity from the sale of your last home into the new home. But think about this - what if you were to lose your job and could no longer afford the mortgage payments? Do you still have the equity in your new home that you had in the old home, or has the value of the new home plummeted? If you ended up losing your new home, you also lose all that money that you poured into it from the sale of the old home. I absolutely believe that when you sell a home you should take the proceeds and put it into a new home purchase. BUT - in this economy, if you lose that new home, think about all that equity that is gone forever. I've seen it happen around here where I live. I think it's the most sickening situation of all. Personally, I don't think your move was smart - but that's just my opinion.

Michael (who blames politicians) - why is this the fault of politicians? So they deregulated and looked the other way. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of politicans - they're just legal crooks for the most part - BUT, Americans traditionally want them to keep their noses out of our business. People are up in arms because they bailed out the crooks on wall street and bailed out banks, but if they had stepped in and stopped the "party" during the boom years, people would have cried foul, saying the government was blocking their ability to have the American dream of buying a home.

Nobody forced anybody to purchase a home and nobody forced banks, real estate agents, brokers, developers, etc., etc., etc. to do business with one another. What happened is called Capitalism - it's the American way. No matter what the fall out, plenty of people made a ton of money and they did it legally - so what if the fall out has been devastating. Do you really think anyone making a bunch of money during the boom years ever stopped to think "maybe I shouldn't do this because somebody else might get hurt in the end"?

Shoot - heck no (subsituting for another expression that is better suited, but doesn't look good on Newsvine). Money talks louder than anything else.

J. Hicks,

You can play the "what if" game all day long, but the fact is no one can predict the future.

As for the equity, I can care less about the equity. This is money I didn't have anyways and so if I loose all of it technically nothing changes. I didn't buy a house to earn me equity; I bought it to live in and to raise my children in. In terms of savings, I do this on my own. This is something my wife and I are very good at and have done quite well for ourselves thus far. Should the "what if" happen, I hope the savings I have tucked away for years will keep us afloat. If this gets depleted and I'm not able to pick up another job, then I have no idea what I would do. All I know is the best thing for me to do now is to continue on the same path I always have, trying my best to make good decisions and being smart with my money. Should nothing change, I hope to have my home paid in full in only 8 more years.

Itdoesnotmatter-1033959 - Good for you - and I'm not being sarcastic. Knowing how to save is something that Americans lost sight of decades ago. We became a nation of spenders, spending not with cash, but with credit. To demonstrate what I was talking about regarding equity, I was out of work for 10 months. During that time it became impossible to make my monthly mortgage payment, even though it was and still is a little more than $600 per month. Because at that point we'd been in our home 13 years, and because at that point the home was worth twice what I paid for it, our bank allowed us to stop making payments for 8 months!!! At the end of that period, they refinanced our home without any of the traditional steps one must normally take to refinance. They lowered our already low interest rate even more, and turned the mortgage into a 40 year instead of a 30 year. It hurt like hell to have to take this drastic step, BUT, it saved our home. Had we not had logevity in our home on our side, it would have been disasterous. I'm not so sure the same would have been true for someone like yourself in the same situation with your new home.

You said it would not bother you to lose all your equity - it sure as hell would bother me!

J Hicks,
The equity was already used and therefore gone. As for my new home I'm right at the point where my large payments (extra principle) have just about caught up to what the house is now worth. Either way, I don't rely on home equity for nothing and I think this is where people go wrong. It's not my goal to have, rely, or to earn equity, but to pay my house off before I'm 45. As it stands now, the mortgage is the only monthly bill I have, aside from utilities and bare necessities, and not having this it wouldn't take a whole lot to survive. Certainly no one could take my home from me.

As for your situation, it sounds to me you are fortunate the bank let you do what you did. But I guess in their eyes they are making a ton of money off of you having financed you for another 40 years. I'm curious; did you not have money saved up? I wouldn't blow through all my savings if something happened to my job, but I'd much rather use some of it rather then damaging my credit and financing a home for another 40 years. In my opinion, I just assume loose the old home, rent, restore your credit, and try to purchase again later or never purchase again (depending on age).

Itdoesnotmatter-1033959 - a quick reply to your question. Savings was long gone by this point. I've actually lost three jobs in five years. The first job ended after four months after the company was bought and the office where I worked was shut down in the process. The second job was off-shored to India. The bank that holds my mortgage was the same bank where I worked and the same employer that off-shored my job to India, forcing me to train my "off-shore partner" to take my job if I wanted severance. The third job loss was after 11 months on the job and the company lost two major stakeholders (software development company) just as the recession was getting ready to kick off. They layed off 40% of the staff.

Need I say more here? I think you probably get the "big picture".

This mess is 1 part bank greed, 1 part customer stupidity, simmered over years of deregulation and 3 administrations worth of lack of oversight. Unfortunately those banks are tied to millions of peoples pensions, 401K's, 403B's, etc. - not [providing support would have created significantly worse long term effects.

Until people like Warren Buffet stop agreeing that the TARP and capital injections were a good thing - people like you are just rabble rousers.

Mike416...When you own a home for 30 years, lose your job and nothing is out there to replace it, let me know how you will fair out of such a mess. Glib answers to serious problems don't resolve them.

The answers are staring everyone in the faces. Some of those faces have snouts. Pigs who simply refuse to learn to live on less in the upper brackets of society. They now believe they are entitled to 6 figure salaries. So, they don't mind it if the rest of the country wallows in poverty while they get theirs....as I posted...pigs.

You erroneously found my post to be in defense of the banks (which its not). I find their actions deplorable and wish a pox onto them.

But lets call a spade a spade here. Banks eased credit restrictions and were making record variable interest or interest only mortgages - that was a bad business move on their part. A large portion of people looking to buy houses bought into these loans at the appealing introductory teaser rate - that was a bad move on the customers part. When the rates adjusted - bad timers were a comin'.

Proping them up was necessary for the larger good of the financial security of the american people. If that meant it gaves banks a second chance - thats what happened. But hopefully people are now smarter with their savings, 401K's portfolios and such.

Mike416...Are you serious? Have any idea what employers are now doing to those 401Ks? Most employers drop them completely because they whine they can't afford the administrative costs much less the employer's match. Or, they go the other route...you want a 401k? You pay for it. The only problem is that the employer is collecting interest on the 401K impounds that sit in the bank until they are dispersed to the 401K accounts.

In effect, employers still profit from the deductions by earning interest until the monies are dispersed.

I fault the current administration quite a bit in all of this. A big part of the solution would have been to work hard to get job growth back in America. It really is a no-brain-er but what has the focus been about the last year+?- Health Care . While that is important, hard to afford any premiums-subsidized or not by the Govt. if you do not have a JOB to pay for them- and hard to pay for mortgage without a job.

While the problems that created all of this happened prior to Obama, not a lot has been done to solve it since.

excal...Here's a newsflash. When Bush was president, he used a bit of financial skankery to make the deficit appear smaller than it was by not including the cost of the military expenses for 2 simultaneous wars.

When Obama took office, he did just the opposite. He included all of those same expenses which made the deficit higher than what Bush was willing to admit to. Don't forget. There are still war debts for Iraq we are paying for. If the Iraqis decide to confiscate that $200 billion embassy Bush built in Baghdad, American taxpayers are going to pay for something we no longer have possession of.

Well the bottom line is this, the whole economy is going to hell and there is no real solution why because people are making money, a hell of a lot of money and want the economy to remain the way it is, think about it people .......

Barney Frank deserves more of the blame than the banks.

Barney Frank does deserves most of the blame the rest of the Democrats should be held responsible for the rest, in 2003 The White House calls Fanny & Freddy a systemic risk. Bush administration pushes Congress to enact new regulations. 2003 Barney Frank (D-CN) says F & F are not in crisis. He bashes Republicans for crying wolf and calls F & F financially sound. Democrats block the Republicans-sponsored regulations legislation. The Democrats blocked regulations to bring F&F in line 2 other times.

Really smart.

Isn't it time for them to revise their unemployment figures for February too? Should see that wonderful "we didn't lose as many jobs in February" change to "revised figured should a worse than previsouly figured increase in new claims"...........we did last month and the month before!

In fact, I think we are closer to the beginning than the end. It is unfortunate that those in power have not learn the lessons of history. In 1920, we had a depression every bit as bad as the “great depression”. This is not taught in history because Progressives were not in charge. Think of how much credit we hear given to FDR for getting us out of the great depressions. It was then, 1930-1939, that most of our government expansion occurred: social security, Medicare, Dept of Education, IRS.

In 1920, the country was suffering from the policies of Woodrow Wilson, perhaps our most evil president. He was our second Progressive in the white house – Teddy Roosevelt was the first. Wilson brought us such economic fun as the 16^th Amendment, income tax which was suppose to only be up to 7% for only the top 1% of income earners in the US. You know, the evil rich people. He also brought us Prohibition of alcohol. After all, Progressives know what is best for us, so they will use the power of government to force you to comply. As a side note, have you seen NY City wants to ban salt from restaurants? Labor unions organized by the national socialists and communists in America began to aggressively take on corporations. Labor demanded wage and benefit increases. There were strikes that shut down entire segments of the economy. As a nation, we began spending like drunken sailors on massive government expansion. The result was a bloated annual budget of 6.3 Billion dollars. At the end of his presidency, the top tax bracket was 70%, while most workers paid 35% of their wages in taxes.

The economy simply could not sustain this path, and by 1920, prices began to deflate. Prices across market sectors fell by 18% compared to the 11.8% decline of the “great depression”. Housing prices fell by nearly 50%. The gross national product(GNP) figures declined worse in 1920 than in the 1930-1939 period. Unemployment was 11.7% in the spring of 1920- we are at 10.4% here today. We recovered from the 1920 depression in less than a year and a half. America was so scared of Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive agenda at this time that Warren Harding was elected in 1920. His main campaign slogan was “return to normalcy” from the woes of the progressive era. Harding won in a landslide, 60.3% to 34.1% in the electoral college.

President Harding did two major things regarding the economy. First, he slashed the Federal budget in half, from 6.3 Billion in 1920 to 3.6 Billion in 1922. Wow! The second thing he did was dramatically slash taxes. The top marginal rate was cut in half. This spurred economic growth. Unemployment fell to the lowest level in US peacetime history, 1.1% in 1924. In just the first year of his policies, unemployment fell from 11.7% to 6.7%. The only other time unemployment was so low was during World War II in 1944. The roaring twenties began the largest expansion of middle class wealth ever seen in America. Most households had electricity, running water, telephones, and a car by the end of the decade.

Unfortunately, 1929 saw the stock market collapse, bank failures, under-consumption and a break down in international trade. Unions began to become more aggressive and elements in society blamed those evil bankers for the downturn. Herbert Hoover, also began spending at the Federal level again like a drunken sailor. The result was a volatile mix that sent the economy in a tailspin. Unfortunately, rather than using the model of Warren Harding in 1920 to fix the problem, Hoover and later FDR subscribed to a new economic theory called the Keynesian economic theory.

Keynesian’s believe that in order to keep people employed, governments have to run deficits (sound familiar). This, of course, is the exact opposite of the successful policies of the 1920’s. Hoover began spending and that was followed by FDR and his “new deal”. FDR spent unprecedented amounts of money. Marxists ideology pushed by progressives began gaining a foothold in American economic policy. Roosevelt demonized and went after bankers, the rich, and the well off. He raised taxes back to 70% on top income earners. He also launched several programs with huge amounts of deficit spending to try and boost the economy. While in history books, he receives credit for pulling us out of the depression, many argue that these policies damaged the nation rather than restore it. Especially when you compare them to the resolution of the 1920 depression, it is hard to argue.

So, I look and see what our government is doing. I look and see that the president has surrounded himself with people, some of which are self proclaimed communists or anti-capitalists and Keynesians. I see the stimulus and bailouts brought to us by Bush and Obama and I shake my head. The progressives won those battles. And now they want to saddle us with health care and “Cap and Trade”. They believe the way out is through government spending and “green jobs”. Spain has tried this route and is on the verge of economic collapse. For each green job created, two regular jobs have been eliminated. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Greece is in collapse, with the government having to slash its budget to attempt to become solvent. However, with most people working for the government, this means layoffs and pay decreases to pay for the cuts. We are in a similar situation as a nation. Our national debt will 12.6 trillion and projected to be 14.7 trillion by the end of the year. Our payment to service our debt is over 350 billion currently, more than we pay for the department of education, transportation, housing, and homeland security combined.

So, I think we are on the titanic. The iceberg is ahead. Our last captain set us on this course. The current captain, despite all of the warnings and economic signs, has decided full steam ahead! If we cannot get the captain to turn the ship, we are going to have to man the life boats.

We will make it, after all, we are Americans. There is a fundamental belief that this nation has a covenant with God which is underlined by the constitution and words of our founders. It is instinctual in man that we yearn to be free. It is the belief that rights come from a higher power than man and therefore, no man nor government can take away those rights unless we let them. So we help people into the life boats, bring the constitution with us, and hit the reset button on the nation.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920 http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html

Wake up,

Very well research and written. Much of this is correct. But some of your assumptions are in error. The slashing of taxes and budget in 1920 worked because we were, in effect, and isolated and self sufficient country. In today's world with "Globalization etc." those actions would have little effect. Do you really think that if corporate taxes were cut in half that the corporation would move JOBS from China or Cambodia back to the U.S.A., not in your fondest dreams. They would take the additional profits and run.

I truely hope you have an equally well research answer for this. If so, please forward them to Congress.

Thank you Mike for the compliment. I do agree that we were more isolationist in the 1920's than we are today. Obviously, our trade imbalance with China and other nations have hurt us. Free trade agreements have hurt American businesses. Butregulation, taxes and debt have also hurt. By adopting policies which grow the size of government, government benefits, and the national debt, the burden on the tax base severely restricts the ability of the economy to innovate, invest and grow.

America's corporate tax rate is 39.4%(in 2006) according to Andrew Chamberlin of The Tax Foundation. Our rate is the second highest in the world among nations, Japan being the highest. China, incidentally, has a 25% corporate tax. Of course, people To compete, we must find a way to atract business back to America. Cutting Corporate taxes will help, but it must be coupled with dramatic reduction in government spending. The national debt must be reduced, especially our foreign debt.

We can see the world economy is imploding as is evidenced by what is playing out right now in Greece, Iceland, and Spain. If w don't shore up our economy through some tough choices now, where will freedom loving nations and people be able to invest and prosper?

Wake up,

While I agree that the corporate tax rate might be too high I do not trust them to use any savings to add jobs (Which is most critical to recovery). Maybe a tax break for the corporation that brings their callcenter or factory back to the states. A tax break for the retailer who has 85% of their inventory made totally in the U.S.A. All of this financed by by cuts in federal spending. Can we trust the FED to really cut spending? I doubt it, I truly suspect that they will use creative accounting to bury costs.

I trust the corporate leaders (bean counters) even less. Even the much reviled Wal-Mart. As long as Sam Walton was alive he very proudly displayed the fact that all his merchandise was "Made in America". He wasn't even cold in his grave before the bean counters were switching the entire supplier list over to China. Did they reduce prices any? NO. They took the extra profits and put it in their pockets.

Wake Up & Mike W - good discussion by both of you.

Regarding why corporations may or may not produce goods in the US versus elsewhere in the world. I do think tax rate is part of it, but I really think the FED / US Govt also have massive influence on this. All business seeks to make a profit - some even say greedily so. So if there was a profit to be made using US employees and materials, why wouldn't a greedy business jump on that opportunity? The answer is their profit is greater elsewhere. Why is this?

First it starts with the FED. The FED is the cartel of banks that lends the US Govt money. They make interest and our government has instant credit whenever they need it. So it is an arrangement that works for both parties - a cozy relationship if you will. China, Japan and others also loan money to our government. Whether the government needs to borrow as much as they do is for another seed. The US economy has been up to now as dependable as anywhere in the world ever since 1900. That is why other countries have loaned money - the US is a good customer and credit risk. The FED, China, Japan and all the others make great interest on these loans.

Up to 1972 all money growth was tied to a gold standard. Nixon took us permanently off this standard (a number of reasons - again another seed topic). Since then, the US Dollar has replaced gold as the safest haven. This made the dollar "strong" meaning it is worth more than most other currencies. It replaced gold as the global exchange medium - good in most or all countries to trade with.

So the US and the dollar "cost" more than other currencies. This can be seen by comparing the average US income to other countries average citizen income. The same work someone can do here thus costs more. The work is no different whether done here, Mexico, China, Vietnam, or wherever. But, the dollars paid for that work are different. Thus, there is a tremendous business incentive to move jobs to those areas of weaker currencies.

The dollar strength is really the issue since its strength distorts costs for the same exact effort that can be made by equally qualified people (manufacturing jobs). And the FED is hugely motivated to maintain the strong dollar. Losing this status means some other cartel of banks will fill the void and replace the dollar and the FED and get all that interest.

So, to me this cozy relationship between the FED and Congress is definitely largely a reason why business has the huge incentive to move jobs out of the US to other countries. Yes, there are certainly greedy / bad guys here and there, but really business is all about profit. Most business doesn't set the playing field of dollar strength - they just play on that field. IMO the FED / US Govt (Congress) should get the lion's share of the blame for this.

Evoice, All of what you say is good. But I still maintain that the majority of our problems are directly related to the greed of the stock market and the corporate executives.

First and foremost a company is NOT profitable unless it has customers. Can you see that? Even if our only currency is solid gold, the company does not make money except when somebody puts that gold on the counter. Now with that said, there is one class of company that does make money no matter what. That is the stock broker. He / she makes a commission every-time there is a transaction. How can they make more commissions, by generating transactions. How do they generate more transactions, by basing buy / sell recommendations on the quarterly reports companies make. The Executives are given bonuses for being in the black. during a given quarter there will be times that a given budget center might be in the red. The exec uses the quickest way to get back in the black - reduce payroll. He / she realizes that they can really "maximize" profits by moving function over seas. Great right? The problem is that the exec is eliminating customers, but does he / she care? Heck no. They got theirs and are already moving on to a different company.

SO don't feed me this FED / Government business. It is as plain as the nose on your face. And if taxes were cut the only thing that would do in corporate America is "MAXIMIZE" profits even more. Would it bring jobs back? I would bet a paycheck that it would not.

I agree with both of you. The problem is not Capitalism or the Freemarket. The problem is greed.

While I agree that the corporate tax rate might be too high I do not trust them to use any savings to add jobs (Which is most critical to recovery). Maybe a tax break for the corporation that brings their callcenter or factory back to the states.

Mike, I think this is an excellent idea. I also agree with the points Mike and Evoice have made regarding the Fed. The Fed would have made Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave, twice!

Define "relatively zero time". Can you give a percentage breakout of what amount of time is being spent on health care vs. job creation?

like a roof over ones head and a job.

When did this become the job of the President? When the middle class began joining the ranks of the lower.

Is he supposed to just give everyone money?

This is one case where I agree with conservatives. So many people think they are owed.

btone...Right...Let's let HMO CEOS continue to become billionaires while the country rots in illness. How exactly do you want Obama to create jobs? Go to every Billionaire CEO in the country and tell him he HAS TO hire people? Tell every billionaire wheeler dealer he has to take a cut in salary so he can once again afford to hire people and create jobs?

In 2001, Bush handed billions to corporations to hire and create jobs. Guess what the pigs of venture capitalism did with that revenue taxpayers are now paying for? 1% created or hired. That's how greedy the 1% at the top has become.

Ewent,

I'm not against health care. I am simply asking Pookie to define what he means when he says that President Obama has spent zero time on the economy vs. healthcare.

I'm not sure why you are addressing me.

btone...mea culpa then. I just get so tired of people bashing the life out of this president. To me, if healthcare reform isn't effected, the entire nation's future rests on it. That's how very serious it is.

And, if you ask 15 employers if they want healthcare reform, they will say it is the reason they are refusing to hire. They cannot afford to increase the cost of the healthcare they offer their employees. One issue is definitely the precourser of the other.

It's funny that the previous Administration did not even consider health care nor make an attempt to address the problem in the 8 years they were in control, yet they mentioned the waste and fraud that is there, now that health care is a 2 ton guerrilla on the governments back they still sit there and do the same thing as usual, NOTHING, it's time to elect a government that works for the people not their friends or the special interest groups ........ these politicians need to be shown the door and given the boot period .....

99% health care
1% job creation

The stats I saw showed:

99% : cleaning up Bush's @!$%#-ups

1% : Moving the country forward

Please explain to me why Citibank "owes" you something. Because the stupid ass government took hundreds of billions of money from taxapayers and gave it to the banks? Wrong.

THE GOVERNMENT owes you, not Citibank, but they do NOT owe you a house or a new mortgage. The government owes you an explanation for why they've been meddling in the housing market for 35 years. They own you an explanation for why they've regulated (or de-regulated, or turned a blind eye, as the case may be) to benefit the banks, while simultaneously manipulating the banks to lend to people who should not have been allowed to borrow. The government owes you an explanation for why, over a year after they gave away 100's of billions of OUR money, they have done NOTHING to reinstate Glass-Steagal - even though there is a bi-partisan effort in BOTH houses to do that - to break up the "too big to fails".

Banks are not charitable institutions. You've been sucked into the idea that they owe you something, because the government decided to make you think that by removing a KEY aspect of capitalism: FAILURE. When the government lets them do whatever the hell they want, why wouldn't they?

Pragmatic...Right...Just like employers don't owe YOU a salary. Why not just force all Americans to live in ghettos? Or, get their food from breadlines? Or buy their clothes in the secondhand shops?

Why on earth should any American want a better life with conservative attitudes that bash any progress we try to make? You don't deserve a raise in your salary. You don't deserve any healthcare. You don't deserve a pension.

So, if Americans have all these deductions to pay for infrastructure, do we deserve to expect fully satisfactory road systems, highways and airports?

I wouldn't consider my bank my employer, unless they were making direct deposits into the account that they have with me in exchange for work. It's sad the the homes of many have decreased dramatically. Hypothetically, what if home values increased dramatically across the board? It's doubtful that the taxpayers as a whole would get to share equally in all the equity that is gained. It's a hard pill to swallow, but healthcare isn't a right as much as I have a right to marry drop dead, gorgeous model with great intelligence to match. We all want a better life, but the reality is that wealth simply can't be multiplied by dividing it. It comes from the creative mind and a system that allows the creative mind to work out it's thoughts freely. So yea, a cheap PC bought at the five and dime can be used to write the software that accurately models the physics of batteries and electric motors and can bring forth the end of the gasoline engine.

ewent - This will be the only response I direct to one of your foolish, twangy rants.

A person is "owed" something when they have done work or provided a service. Yes, employers owe employees pay for doing their job. They do NOT owe them more than the job they do is worth on the market. Therefore, burger flippers do not earn what plumbers earn, nor do typists earn what computer programmers earn, and so on.

A person is NOT owed something just because they exist. A person is not OWED a job, a home, health care or a mortgage refinance just because they need or want those things.

Your hyperbole re: ghettos, etc., is not worth responding to. Clearly, if you can't understand the concept of work leading to reward, expecting you to understand the gradations within that concept is too much to ask.

The bleeding heart twang is failing more and more every day, because of lame analogies like the ones you're trying to draw. Citibank "owes" someone a re-fi, for the same reaons state's collect taxes to pave roads? Really?

Another reason it is failing is because the liberal attempts to make people feel guilty of something they're not actually doing has finally been exposed.

Citibank does owe people a lot really (goes for any bank, lender, that loans at a AR). When they offer rates to people on credit to out of the blue jack those rates sky high they are using the remaining leverage of people wishing to retain decent credit on debts. Debt is a loan, a loan has it's terms agreed on at it's inception. When one party changes those terms or disguises them the contract is is error. Contracts under false assumptions have no validity. Yes, they include "somewhere" shifting terms at their discretion but, is that ethical? I can only imagine the damage of an ARM is similar to large credit card balances. If they want more money put it in the terms, if they are satisfied with reasonable terms offer them. This is where the government is failing people and where a lot of home foreclosures are occurring from along with job losses. Creditors shift terms reducing the actual value of their work at will. People have less income left, payments go into default. Creditors shift terms on business owners ( I was one until 05/09) expenses have to be reduced. Done for years in a row it erodes the entire system we live in. It is not all personal irresponsibility or lack of effort, and yes the banks owe us a lot. Reasonable set terms that equate to a lot of money, if over years thousands of dollars per person. If they lent more than their customers could reasonably afford it was faulty fact finding on their part. If I ask a bank for a mansion, a yacht, and a private jet and they give it to me on a blue collar salary it is their mistake. Banks are quite responsible to a lot, and the government for not requiring reasonable limits, rates, and debt to income ratios. They also should require yearly reviews of income changes as nothing is static. Drop in income freeze accounts to bring balances to affordable. When over 10% are unemployed it is more crucial than ever for a system that works for all sides. Without it this all just spirals downward. To what end?

Did you not read the story? They weren't talking about the people with risky loans. They were talking about people like YOU who had a good job and bought a house within their means but later lost their jobs alongside of millions of other hardworking Americans.

Thats like saying Toyota isnt responsible for their junk cars they sold because customers should have known better. What exactly did the banks think would have happened when customers variable interest rate adjusted after the teaser rate adjusted? And guess what - they made money on them too by buying credit default securities on those mortgages so when they defaulted (not if - but when), the banks collected money.

But you probably think thats OK. The market will take care of itself right?

Let me explain a little something to a few clueless one's like you.. I bought a modest 125k home with 20% down and a fixed rate of 6.125...30 yr conventional loan. I paid for that home for several years, never late on a payment. In June of 06 my company moved overseas. I searched in earnest every way possible in a tri-county area trying to land a job with comparable wages. This is in an area that still has 15% unemployment currently. I took the best paying job I could find but took a 46% pay cut...yes 46%. I continued making payments while pulling money from savings to make up the earnings deficit in making the mortgage being confident I would re-gain my former wage's. In March of 08, with most of savings shot I realized I wasn't going to be able to continue. I contacted Citi and had to purposely become delinquent on payments before they could even start a re structure process. Long story short, I did everything humanly possible including playing by the rules, and still lost the home. I had thousands of dollars in equity, a hefty down payment and home improvements all gone through no fault of my own. Is anyone to blame...NO. Is it anyone's responsibility to bail me out...NO. It's just life.....no more, no less. But what really pisses me off are high and mighty people who lump everyone into a " deadbeat who lived beyond his means" attitude.

RetAFPilot...Many people took out these mortgages long befor the housing crises. Come up with another "I told you so" post. Blaming people and not those who made million dollar salaries from the commissions on these loans is obtuse. No one put a gun to the heads of those who played skanky loan games with people they knew were not nearly as sophisticated about loan sharking in housing.

AFPilot, you cannot lump all these people into one large "deadbeat" group!! The story states that these are not the subprime people who got caught up in mortgages they could no longer afford....these are people who took loans they COULD afford and due to circumstances beyond their control are losing homes....like Paul! He played by the rules...but got burned. I've been looking for ANY job for months! No go! They don't want to hire me....I'm too educated; I'm too experienced. Whatever the reason. And it's causing too many problems.

Quit generalizing! It does no good!

I think you missed the bulls eye, but you did hit the target. This guy is just another journalist hack, but they are cheering for the White House and the dems. Remember they are the ones that have been saying for a while now that that everything is getting better.

babba...Grow up. People ARE accountable for THEIR actions. People can't be accountable for scoundels who are greedy extortionists. Blame greed. Not the working class who now get up every day and make a rich greedhead richer. Is that why we were all born? To be a rich man's greedy slave?

babba, people like you have been claiming free this and free that for months now. Please enlighten me as to where all this "free stuff" is. I don't have any....ewent do you? I work. I earn money. I buy things. Hmmmmmmm, where is all this free stuff I hear people like you continue to claim exists?

TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!

Made me laugh out loud Will

...it's Bush's fault! ! !

You hit the nail on the head, Will.

Will...Bush? You mean the first MBA president ever? The one who with that MBA should have been able to keep this country financially sound and not in the toilet he left it in?

btone, you're woefully uninformed and falling back on one of the lamest liberal stool legs that there is.

This is NOT Bush's fault, nor is it Obama's.

This dates back 35 years, at least. It has been building and there were warnings, in '87 and '99 to name two. And no one on either side paid attention. Everyone was happy with the profits being made off of it, including the consumer.

However, if Obama continues the overreaching and yet underreaching meddling and manipulations of past administrations, he just adds his name to the list of administrations to blame and exacerbates the problems some more. So far, it's looking like that's exactly what he's doing - blocking free market solutions that work, as in allowing FAILURE - dealing with it and moving on. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama? That's up to him.

Prag,

I was responding sarcastically to Will's sarcasm. I get tired of reading "it's Bush's fault!" on every single story I read, regardless of the article's content. After the 6,497th time, it begins to lose some of its humor value. (That last sentence, incidentally, is also sarcasm. Don't ask me to quote a source for that number).

I realize it is a much deeper problem. I'm just amazed at how many people believe that this problem began on January 21st, 2009.

Ahhhh, it's so refreshing to read someone who actually agrees that this problem has been coming for years and didn't just happen Jan 2009! This is not a Democratic problem nor a Republican problem.....they are ALL to blame!! And it's going to take them ALL to fix it!! Not just one side or the other!! When will everyone realize this???????

My bad, sacrasm gets lost in text sometimes.

In re-reading my post, there was no way you could have known. I knew in my head that it was sarcasm, but it wasn't at all apparent.

Have a great weekend.

flylowguy...That's the real reason there are no jobs. The neocons couldn't abide the idea of prosperity nationwide. So, those with the most money control decided to force Americans to compete with Chinese, Mexican and India's salaries.

Yesterday, there was a news blurb about the No. 1 richest guy in the world...A Mexican. China now has 84 in their billionaire club. India has just shy of that. Gee...let's play connect the dots. Mexico, China, India...all countries the US is now heavily indebted to and all countries that now have the lions share of American jobs.

ewent - What? The primary reason there are no jobs is that the government is trying to create them by borrowing money. It's an unsustainable path, and all the bankers, investors, business owners and even legislators know it.

Many businesses can't borrow money to expand because lenders are expecting to get hit with new regulations. Other businesses that would be hiring are holding off because the health insurance bill still is pending, and could increase the cost of hiring as well as the cost of keeping current employees.

No. The reason there are no jobs is because the current government is trying to penalize any American person or company that makes money. If you really want to increase the rate of hiring in this country, call your US representative and demand that he/she vote against the health insurance bill.

real packer fan..Get real. The government can't create jobs most Americans need. Part of the problem is that Americans need to face up to the fact that they owe no allegiance to any employer who can as easily send their job to China, Mexico or India. That leaves only a handful of options...learn a new skill or become an entrepreneur in your own right.

The government can't offer the types of jobs that once provided huge salaries. But, according to the federal Labor Department, in the last 6 years, the number of government workers has increased and along with it their salaries.

The problem is Civil Service. It works against the private sector because before any employer earns a single dollar in profit, he has to pay for Civil Service workers healthcare and pensions. Before any employee gets their paycheck the deductions for these benefits are already taken.

The only government personnel who deserve to remain in Civil Service are those in the military. Other than that, Civil Service is a huge drain on the economy. How are we supposed to afford to pay for benefits for these people if we don't have jobs?

ewent - thanks for the encouragement (get real?). I don't really see where you wrote anything that refutes what I posted above.

real packer fan..If Obama was to create jobs, every card-carrying neocon would be jumping all over him for increasing government bloat.

The reality is that if we are to regain American jobs, all of those customer service, technical service, personnel and accounting jobs have to be removed from India, China and Mexico. If these corporations earn American dollars in this country for business they are doing outside the US, they should be more heavily taxed for diminishing American jobs.

There's only one reason they do this. To force American salaries to compete for cheap labor countries.

ewent,

I'm sorry. Isn't that exactly what Obama said he would do with the latest $1 trillion dollar bill brought to the table, create jobs? So in a sense, you are wrong. Obama did say he would create jobs. Unfortunately those jobs will be paid for through tax money and almost all government jobs that I know of produce nothing to keep the economy and this country going. You are chasing your tail on this one.

I didn't think it was possible to lie so many times in such a short post.

But, in the words of the great Joe Wilson,

YOU LIE!!!!!

First, TARP was signed into law by President Bush. That is where the BILLIONS (not Trillions) was spent AND has since been mostly recovered.

So much so foreigners threaten to forecose on our country

Foreclose? Have you been paying any attention?

Think Obama gave it to the fat cats on Wall Street that got him elected, or at least paid for his compaign.

I thought it was the unions and Acorn who got him elected.

Kaitlan Jones...TARP was signed by Bush into law in November 2008. Get your facts straight. ARRA is what Obama is responsible for. According to the top financial experts and the GAO, TARP has numerous unrecoverable loans outstanding. ARRA has already enjoyed more than a 50% return on its investment. The reason TARP isn't as successful is the same as everything the Bush Administration ever did...half assed and lacking accountability.

Laughing out loud as if this administration had any competency and at those who can't get their heads out of the past. What are you going to do for your country today?

Actually, gattes, trillions is closer to the mark when you consider BOTH TARP and TALF, the blank check to Freddie and Fannie, and the ongoing non-existant borrowing rates that the financial institutions are using to turn huge profits.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27719011/Financial_Crisis_Tab_Already_In_The_Trillions_and_Counting

TARP was signed by Bush, but has been administered by the Obama administration for the most part, and it is the Obama administration that continues the availability of TARP funds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aRPPFxSkXnOY

Obama received huge contributions from Wall Street and banking.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

.......Because Bush neglected to put any recourse into TARP and allowed the "wall street fat cats" to spend any way they wanted!!!! Thus the reason AIG continues to live large on our tax dollars. I didn't even get a post card from their Scotland trip!!!

LS -

Here's how the government works, in a nutshell.

Congress writes the legislation. The president signs it.

(Obama doesn't seem to get that, but whatever.)

There were far too few strings attached in the TARP legislation, without a doubt. You'll need to remember it was written by a Democratically controlled House and Senate. Should Bush have vetoed it? He had all of Wall Street, the Fed, and the Treasury as well as the Congress yelling at him to sign it. He had the American people wanting him to NOT sign it. He signed it.

And meanwhile, what strings has the Obama administration attached?

Another Govt. 101: Legislation, once passed, can be amended. Have they done so?

Noooo, not really. Instead Obama appointed a "czar" to regulate pay. They also changed the rules for banks that wanted to get back out of TARP once in - to maintain control. Did you know there were dozens of banks that were basically forced to accept TARP funds, even though they didn't need them, so the banks that did weren't "stigmatized"? This liberal fixation for an even playing field will be the death of this country.

"Blame bush" has lost it's credibility, after over a year of Obama. He's had plenty of time to correct and hasn't - he's too busy destroying the health care system in an ideologically-driven push that will be the final straw on the country's economy.

You know, I get tired of all the blame. I don't "blame" Bush...but I sure as hell get tired of all the blame being laid at Obama's feet! Guess what? THEY...all of them in Washington...are to BLAME! Not one person! Not one party! ALL OF THEM!!! And do they care? NOPE! Are they going to fix it? Nope. What are they going to do? Well, let's see, if we ignore something long enough it'll go away! I believe that's what they are hoping for! As for voting them all out? Well, it sounds good in theory, until the next schmuck that makes empty promises gets voted in and does the same damn thing!!

If they dont have credibility - why do you read their stories?

So I guess everyone trusts MSNBC and the Obama-based media with the reporting of this story?

They get the credibility whenever a negative story is posted and people comment in favor of its content.

For example,

http://business.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/25/3949172-initial-jobless-claims-rise-unexpectedly

All kinds of credibility given to this story. Just read the posts.

Gattes,

Bingo. If this article had said "economy rebounds, foreclosures at all time low", it would have been a concoction of the liberal media. Funny how this story gets credence.

Mike,

I think you missed my sarcasm.

btone,

I read these stories out of sheer morbid curiosity.

Claude,

I loved you in "The Invisible Man".

Do you really think Obama can just "do" all that??? Perhaps you should talk to your Senators and Congressmen considering they are the ones who make soooo many unreasonable decisions!!

Well with millions of Americans loosing their jobs, on unemployment, loosing their homes to foreclosure, while trying to feed their family's....

What exactly is he supposed to do:

Stop a foreclosure from happening today or a month from now?

Stop people from losing their jobs today or a month from now?

Feed everyone right now?

The key word in the question is "NOW"

And no, stopping the healthcare push and suddenly lower taxes will not magically translate into money in some's pocket.

Please before someone starts saying "cancel" NAFTA be prepared to dicuss the job losses en masse of Americans working for the foreign companies here now.

Let's see how many truly "socialist" answers I get.

Right now? Lend to businesses directly since the propped up banks stopped doing so. Offer reasonable interest rates and for all the credit be it houses, cards, loans, etc.. freeze interest rates at the original terms offered. If the lenders are unwilling to, the debt is discharged 100% and a legal penalty for damaging people's credit ratings. Low interest loans of up to 100K for small businesses to get even 1 person working again. Why? Businesses generate taxes, jobs, increase property values, and create innovations all by themselves. That's right now. Expedite the process to be completed within 1 month maximum. Small businesses spend more locally in large amounts of money from sales, further supporting their local economies and more jobs. Jobs pay for homes, purchases, etc.. That's how you fix our economy now. NAFTA BS well if it's manufactured outside of the US, do not allow any expense, tax the sales more heavily etc. You need to do but, one simple thing to improve this country and that is allow us to work at all our individual skills. Had a business til 09, retrained to add more skills, and best to date is maybe 4-15 hrs per week pt, and in 08 was working for myself about 60-80 hrs per week. What was the difference that needs to happen right now? Get me and about 10 million others back to work. Suggested lending program pays for itself in a compounding fund available to small business owners. Every month of payments received more businesses are up and running. Quickly many more are working. That is what you can do now. Not socialist, it's assisting free enterprise the way we could when banks were doing their jobs of lending.

For every billion that went to or came from the banks 10,000 or more small businesses would be up, running, and paying to grow the number of others doing so. If 50 billion is there that's 500,000 people working now and with each month tens of thousands of more as payments grow this effort. Government doesn't need to create jobs, it needs to allow those that want to create them to do so. It tried with banks as a middle man, why not go directly to the source, their the ones filing the schedule C form.

Lend to businesses directly since the propped up banks stopped doing so

Socialist. By the conservative definition.

Offer reasonable interest rates and for all the credit be it houses, cards, loans, etc.. freeze interest rates at the original terms offered

Socialist. Taking over bank responsibility

If the lenders are unwilling to, the debt is discharged 100% and a legal penalty for damaging people's credit ratings

Socialist. What about all those who lost out PRIOR to this recession. What makes those affected now any more special?

Low interest loans of up to 100K for small businesses to get even 1 person working again. Why? Businesses generate taxes, jobs, increase property values, and create innovations all by themselves.

Socialist. Who determines who gets what?

Had a business til 09, retrained to add more skills, and best to date is maybe 4-15 hrs per week pt, and in 08 was working for myself about 60-80 hrs per week. What was the difference that needs to happen right now? Get me and about 10 million others back to work.

There lies the issue right there. Where were all these suggestions when the majority of those who couldn't get work was the "lower" class. Nobody paid them any mind. In fact, they looked right down their noses.

Now that the nmiddle class has had its collective a$$ handed to it they feel "entitled" for Government to "do" something to restore them to their previous.

Too bad. So sad.

Now little Johnny can't go to college or play hockey. No DisneyWorld or Cross-Country trip to the timeshare.

For many in the middle class, it doesn't apply. For those who feel like the Government "owes" them their livelihood they are no different from someone collecting a welfare check.

No sympathy here.

I don't collect anything. Self employed people are not even counted, let alone paid to be home. Not socialist in the least, but there is a great lack of help from the SBA for small businesses unless you don't actually need any help. I did work and paid a ton in sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc.. any other tax applied to every service I paid for. Now it is not mine or any other driver's fault fuel doubled in one year to $5/gallon diesel fuel. Not a foreseeable event. Does the government owe me, no. Do they already have a vested interest in me spending tens of thousands or more a year that they collect taxes on, property taxes, fuel and road taxes. Duh! I cease, that ceases. I stated repayment from any loan is required, no welfare check. I also stated it builds other businesses. Who's getting the welfare check really, the tax system. Banks have not been responsible, running credit card systems on people like a loan shark at it's finest. I paid a ton to them as well. No regulation there really. 10%+ unemployed you got a better idea smart alec. That idea earned me an A in economics. It was based on Rochester, NY fast ferry project better use of the money about 50M. Fast Ferry went bankrupt, and millions I have to pay in part through my property taxes. My idea generates a community benefit, growth, and stability through a running businesses taxes. I ran a trucking business nothing to do with government input. Those people are generally smug, just like you're being. USMC adapt and overcome. Insanity keep doing the same expecting a different outcome. Socialize that!

WTF? Maybe move into a more affordable "rental" before their credit is totally shot.

Raymond...I'll settle for that ..Bushocracy was a total failure. That's why we are in this mess. Bush, the MBA, who couldn't leave Obama a surplus like Clinton left Bush.

Clinton left Bush a surplus built on the tech bubble and the real estate bubble. Bubba's bubbles.

real packer fan...Moot point. Bush still spent it, didn't he?

It really doesn't matter how Clinton got the money...he got it! And Bush spent it! Within months of taking office. And right after our "refunds", didn't we go to "war"??? And didn't that start costing millions (or is it billions) each month?

Quit thinking all this mess started Jan. 2009! It goes wayyyyyyy deeper!!

Full credit? 1 man created this mess? During a time where his party held neither congressional majority nor held the presidency? Really? Several Glen Beck talking points in there. Too lazy to address them although they are addressed elsewhere in this thread.

TEvil...The European financial community is already calling for the US to force the US financial institutions to stop playing their sophisticated Madoff-style games.

The root of the housing problem goes back to the source: greedy housing developers. Take a good look at 90% of the homes these greedheads were building for the last decade. Not homes...McMansion. Why? Because McMansions can sell at ten times what a "home" can. So, a developer buys up a few hundred acres dirt cheap thanks to planning and zoning boards, builds 200 McMansions he sells for $450-600,000 and he ends up an instant billionaire.

But, it doesn't stop there. Then, the banks clean up on these higher price homes with higher priced loans with higher priced interest. Enter the loan games. How do you sell a loan to average income earners to get that fat commission? You create ARMs and other fun loan shark type games.

Meanwhile, the pigs of the municipalities are salivating over the new found wealth from McMansion property taxes. Not that these stupids ever notice that the services these McMansioners will require will cost ten times what they ever considered.

Finale: A housing crisis fit for a greedheaded conservative blame game.

oh i agree with your comments completely; I CAN NOT argue that fact but at the same time banks were issuing these crazy loans that the public/borrower had little understanding of due to the misinformation from brokers (and much has come out that banks/lenders were PUSHING brokers to make these loans only) and there are many people who are caught in this mess with out a true way out except foreclosure and bankruptcy. my best freind lost his home when the bank increased his mortgage 500$ a month and his tenants all left (he had a 3 fam where he lived in the top floor). Without the increase he could have made his payments fine but the banks would not work with him. so instead they took a house that was worth 1/3 what he paid. How can anyone deny this activity wasnt planned. in some odd fashion the banks are trying to devise a way to prop back up the housing market so they can then all sell these houses back at some profit.

To me the majority of the blame is cast on wall street/the financial market since they created these fancy security backed mortgage packages. we had wall street hearing, for what? i watched every one of them and NOTHING ever came out of it. Lloyd Blankfien in one basically said out loud "yeah we knew what we were doing was wrong but it was making people money" and it almost seemed the committee led his comment into new questions so he could correct himself.

It was show, but in most i have to blame the citizens of this country. we are fat, lazy complacent and afraid. That would have been the perfect opportunity for the people to go greek on everyone (im talking about protesting not the "other" greek).

but we all sat back thinking our government was going to make its mark and then were let down like usual.

taxation without representation.

http://brokintongue.com/2009/10/government-salaries/

http://brokintongue.com/2009/12/national-bank-of-us%e2%80%a6/

TEvil..I never blame other Americans for my own lack of initiative. Each of us have very different circumstances. I think in the last 30 years, I have had the experience of seeing to what lengths rip-off artists will go for fast cash.

As for Blankfein and Goldman Sachs, they are chiefly to blame for the manipulations against Bear Stearns that set off the ripple effect of this financial crisis. My state is a perfect example of what one Goldman Sachs skanko manipulator can do. Corzine was as much as disaster as Bush. So NJ took 2 hits on a federal level and a state level.

The picture of America today has changed forever. Those with the most money have the most power. That in itself is the single factor that has destroyed a constitutional democracy.

When a Supreme Court can rule in favor of corporations, some of which are foreign owned, to allow them to infuse campaigns with influence peddling donations in proportions no average individual American can possibly compete with, it is time for those average Americans to slap the Supreme Court with impeachment proceedings.

TEvil wrote "Charge banks 50% higher gains/sales taxes on the sale of forclosed properties."
You're proposing adding another middleman (the government) in the sales of houses? That will only raise prices.

Adjust the price to what the house is worth now, and let the banks hold half of the adjusted mortgage in escrow, while the home owner pays for the other half at a much smaller payment, when they finish with the first half then they could pay the second half off or by this time sell it and receive some equity as the market returns, the house could go up in value, and the people would recover their living standard a lot better, as the house goes up the value could be added to the second half held in escrow, to give the banks some added protection to recover their money, the economy would be the winner!!!

real packer fan...Let me see...In order to buy a home in the past decade at the average price, you had to have a loan or come up with more than you'd earn in a year to pay for that home.

Did you skip math in school? There never was a reason anyone needing a $50,000 loan to pay off medical bills has to pay another $50,000 in interest. Most loan companies and banks want long-term loans. How else can they profit from 50% interest on any loan?

Greenspan was no floodlight when it came to the aftershocks of increasing interest rates. That too was a conservative ploy that backfired.

ewent - I didn't say people shouldn't take loans. I said when they fail to make the payments, for whatever reason, they should lose their stuff. But the way it's working now, instead of losing their stuff, the government borrows money and taxes the neighbors to allow people who failed to make payments to keep their stuff. That only makes the problem worse.

I kept all the words to three syllables or fewer. Do you understand?

Real Packer Fan

"But the way it's working now, instead of losing their stuff, the government borrows money and taxes the neighbors to allow people who failed to make payments to keep their stuff."

This only happens when your too big to fail

tevil - sadly, that was true with TARP but not any more. Now you can be too big to fail, or too pathetic, or too cute, or too loud, etc.

Our government is only too willing to confiscate money from its citizens (or borrow/print it with the intention of confiscating it later) to prevent anyone from being the victim of bad luck. Not evil bankers, insurance companies, swindlers or other miscreant. Just bad luck.

real packer fan..People who are working and earning a paycheck have no reason to lose anything unless they've been skanked. There is no way to read the evil in a greedhead's mind. You never know what they are going to do...only what they've done that causes people to lose.

That's commonly referred to as "extortion". What I understand is that the more I make, the more the greedy take. The more the greedy take, the more they want. The more they want, they more their greed entitlement grows.

Let's deal with the greed in this country before no American is safe from the losses.

NH...it isn't up to Obama to "create " a job for you. That's private sector stuff and they went overseas. Capitalism my friend... Sorry you hate the all these programs but I bought a very nice Chevy and gave the dealership a few bucks in profit, then I'll give them a few bucks to change oil,etc. The program was meant to sell cars and 3 MILLION were sold. Failure huh?? Quit being lazy and take care of yourself...I am.

grunt China learned from us on Capitalism and are doing just fine. Problem is we sold ourselves over seas and we think business are "bad". We also pour our money into programs that cost billions with little taxes coming in to support the program.

Grunt

I'm not working because I choose not to work. I retired when I was 49, 11 years ago. I'm glad that you bought a new chevy, please say thank you since it cost us taxpayers 24,000 for you to have a new car. I choose to drive my '88 jeep pick up, I choose to own my home, I chose to raise 5 kids in a Christian environment, I have been married for 36 years. I never mentioned Obama, did I.

The point is that someone is paying for these massive spending packages and they aren't producing results. That someone is you and I. It is obvious that you feel proud to have screwed the American taxpayer so that you could buy a new car.

Please tell me what benefits have we the American taxpayers have recieved for the money that was thrown to the wind by our politicians? Do you see any benefits at all except for your new car at our expense? Stop sucking off the government teat.

Government = EPIC FAIL