Amazon.com Widgets

« More Kindle | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday »

McCain's Mansions





note: If you still don't think John McCain is unfit to be the president of all the people; here is one from the archives that will remind you what an arrogant prick he really is.



 

Comments

user-pic

I felt that was a very well done video, and I usually don't say that about these kind of movies that tend to appeal to emotions only. It laid out McCain's stance perfectly and clearly showed how out of touch with the American public is with reality.

Apparently when the economy is in a slump it's because the general American public has been "irresponsible."

This video is to the point, and well done. But -- I think it would be even more effective if they surveyed not simply those whose homes were foreclosed on. They should have included the millions with a solid credit history whose home equity has been completely destroyed by the morgage crisis. (For instance, the WSJ [subscriber access] ran on article a few days ago on senior citizens who planned to sell their homes to help pay for health care and assisted living, but now can't because their home equity was demolished). Or students who cannot get loans for school due to the credit crunch. While it was not simply those with bad credit who took on loan they couldn't afford that are hurting from the mortgage crisis, it has much broader ramifications, which McCain does not understand in the least, helps drive the point home, because those affected had nothing to do with home loans or irresponsible lending.

It goes a lot further than McCain 'not understanding' - he's apparently eager to be an accomplice to more fraud and thievery. John McCain just can't quit his boy 'Foreclosure Phil' Gramm, the "economist" former Senator and UBS lobbyist whose brilliant forays into banking deregulation helped to bring the mortgage crisis into being. Gramm is a totally corrupt son of a bitch who has managed to get himself a leading role in the biggest financial crises and frauds in the past twenty years: the S&L ripoffs and bankruptcies, the Enron energy extortion schemes and bankruptcies - even a failed "dead peasant" scheme - and John McCain loves the asshole.

If Americans elect this lobbyist tool, expect more of the same.

She didn't do anything irresponsible? Entering into a contract that has the potential to go up to unaffordable rates (15.75%) is irresponsible.

I, being someone who actually wants to afford a house some day, am actually HAPPY about this whole situation. With housing prices skyrocketing like they have for the past 10 years, there was no way I would be able to afford to buy a house if they continued to rise.

And what really burns me is that house prices rose due to irresponsible lending and borrowing. This woman IS partly to blame. She bought a house she couldn't afford, raised the demand for houses, making it harder for ME to afford a house.

As far as people's home equity being decreased by the credit crisis, all I can say is boo hoo. Houses aren't savings plans. They are a place to live. It is the misconception that houses should be a place to MAKE money that has gotten us into this mess.

If, when I own a house, its price raised equal to that of inflation, I will be a happy man.

She didn't do anything irresponsible? Entering into a contract that has the potential to go up to unaffordable rates (15.75%) is irresponsible.

I agree - and making her a loan she would likely default on is irresponsible - and bundling that loan with a lot of other risky loans and selling it off as a high-grade investment is more than irresponsible, it's fraudulent. It's fraudulent even if a bunch of idiots like like Phil Gramm pushed through the legislation to make it "legal". She's going to lose her home - what price to you think will be paid by her banker and their bankers and by Phil Gramm?

My wife and I had to repeatedly explain to a mortgage salesman why his explanation of a 60/40 loan didn't make any sense. He kept saying, you take the mortgage payment you'll be paying and add in the extra for what a traditional mortgage would be. Since we couldn't afford the traditional mortgage, I kept asking where this extra money would come from. He said I just didn't understand and eventually gave up. Turning down that mortgage was one of the best things I've ever done.

Yes, personal responsibility is very important, we all agree with that. This has little to do with that.

This is what happens when bankers go to low income neighborhoods and peddle a loan they know will be defaulted on. Then they take a bunch of those loans and sell those to foreign holders, making a nice profit.

This is like driving on the freeway, and slamming on the brakes and blaming the people that hit you for following too close.

You act, you know what will happen, and you blame the others for a problem you made.

Aside: can anyone explain to me why governors and presidents have the right to pardon criminals? Is there a way to push a bill where they may not do so for a person who has been part of their administration?

Seriously, do you folks even know what it is you're arguing anymore? Or is it all just kneejerk reaction to anything you're packaged and sold?

The opening of this video presents the facts very clearly, before burying it in treacly sentiment: McCain stated in a very straightforward and honest manner that the blame for the mortgage/housing 'crisis' is to be placed both on lenders and borrowers. You know, a rational and balanced message that in addition to pointing out flaws in the lending system includes an appeal to personal responsibility.

The left-wingers, desperate for any reason to try to keep the better candidate out of the White House (so they can throw an unbalanced power scenario to their own party) try to frame this as elitism. Hilarious. The left doesn't want reality, they want fairy tales of black-masked lenders descending upon the poor and foolish and tricking them into loans they didn't even want or ask for! They want to take the money of those who were smart enough not to get into debt with ridiculous terms, and give it to those who did!

And all this flap over McCain having money. Didn't seem to bother anybody when it was Kerry with the millions (incidentally, all from his rich wife).

Really, if my candidate kept flip-flopping like Obama does, I'd be unsure what to do myself. Now Obama is against mortgage bailouts, for staying in Iraq, against health care reform, for the religious groups, and looking for an anti-abortion running mate. Your heads must be spinning, so I guess I understand where this nonsense comes from: desperation.

they want fairy tales of black-masked lenders descending upon the poor and foolish and tricking them into loans they didn't even want or ask for!blockquote>

As money hungry and stupid people can be, they can't get a loan with No Proof of income, No proof of employment, No proof of assets WITHOUT the mortgage companies ALLOWING such loans to be created and sold off to the world market as packages that are deceptively labeled.

So as Dumb/Greedy/Risky the people were to get the loans, without complicity of the Loan Companies and their drive to give out as many loans as possible, regardless of the quality, None of this would have happened.

Ok Calli,

First, Kerry is not our hero. Most of us barely tolorated him.

Second, after the loans defaulted, the original lenders were long gone with profits in tow. They made money by selling packages of lots of loans to investors. Then, they were scott free. Free from loss of money and free from prosecution.

Meanwhile, the housing market crashed, thousands are losing thier homes (primarily becasue the economy is tanking, and they can't keep up with interest rates, not because they are lazy). The government is forced to pick up the pieces NOT for 'dem liberals givven to them lazy people' but to help the Economy of the whole nation. You know, like those S&L scams your party is so fond of. Billions on bail outs? Again?

And, matter of fact, they did literally go door to door selling those mortgages. So yeah, it was a scam, and yeah YOU are paying for it.

But, unlike you, I'm not voting the bastards back into office.

First, Kerry is not our hero. Most of us barely tolorated him.

Al Gore is a multi-millionaire. So are the Clintons.

I'm no lover of extremely rich people, but neither do I see that alone as a reason to assail someone - particularly in a partisan manner.

Second, after the loans defaulted, the original lenders were long gone with profits in tow. They made money by selling packages of lots of loans to investors. Then, they were scott free

At least two major lending institutions have failed since this whole thing started coming down, and there have been many other repercussions. To say that 'everyone got away scot free!' is more than a bit of an exaggeration; some thieves did pull a fast one and run, but the vast majority of the defaulting loans are people who just bought more house than they could afford, dreaming of flipping it to someone else for more money (or living in a McMansion).

The government is forced to pick up the pieces NOT for 'dem liberals givven to them lazy people' but to help the Economy of the whole nation.

But the government 'picking up the pieces' won't help the economy, it will hurt it. You'll be taking money from people with money to spend and giving it to pay the bills of others. That doesn't generate excess revenue, it doesn't bolster consumer confidence. It just props up a bunch of reckless people and institutions.

And incidentally I'm 100% anti-bail-out unless it is the only way to avoid an immediate national catastrophe - say if all the utilities companies went under simultaneously and someone had to foot the bill for power.

The thing is, both parties are pro bail-out, in almost every instance where the subject comes up. Again, this isn't a Republican or Democrat thing - it's a professional politician thing. I'll agree 100% that we shouldn't be throwing tax money at corporations every time they hit a hiccup, but I also don't think we should be giving money to reckless spenders, no matter how tinkly the piano music that plays behind their sob stories.

But, unlike you, I'm not voting the bastards back into office.

I hate to inform you of this, but the position of loan officer is not an elected one. Republican leadership had nothing to do with the real estate boom and bust - real estate has actually been booming since the dot com boom of the late 90's, and things were getting crazier and more reckless every year. Everyone loved it while the ride was going up. But the longer you delay a bust, the worse it gets.

Republican leadership had nothing to do with the real estate boom and bust...

That is simply untrue (and I actually agree with much of what you said before this). Phil Gramm did, in fact, help pave the way for the housing boom and bust - as the "Foreclosure Phil" link I gave above explains. The problem with your comments is that they implicitly assume that the housing boom was some kind of inevitable follow-on of the dot-com bust. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Gramm introduced enabled the kind of totally non-transparent transactions that fueled the housing boom. The kind of crazy rise in the Case-Schiller index we saw from 1998-2006 was without any kind of historical precedent in the previous century - and very much a product of the ideologically driven deregulatory zeal that John McCain's good buddy Gramm is likely to bring to a McCain administration.

"The left-whiners, desperate for any reason to try to keep the better candidate out of the White House (so they can throw an unbalanced power scenario to their own party) try to frame this as elitism."

I begin to understand why Callicrap's [sic] cacography is so resented around here. McCain's lack of elitism is what I most resent. He is truly a mediocrity (in the Ayn Rand sense) who bought a winning lottery ticket in Miss Beer Baronness. What in "God's" name is McCain "better" at? I don't believe one can conjure up a single instance of betterness, much less bestness (or what ever the word be). He's a Woody Allen character who doesn't even bother to (99% of life is) show(ing) up. For his senate job, etc.

Deregulation as "regal", and "regular" modus inoperandi, that's the (Republican) ticket! the Koenig has no Kleidung:

He's a tone deaf singer of the same old old old old....old song. And dance.

He's submediocre. Nice guy, or prick, "W " surely has him beat in the I.Q. dept. I wager.

As for houses, if camping technology keeps improving as it has been, houses will soon be passe. Homelessness will be the new star-bellied Sneetch chic. I reckon.

Hmmm... a little math.

15% interest with a $2400/month payment at 30 yr fixed (guessing here) means she had a mortgage of about $190,000 on a $26,400 annual income.

Even if her interest rate were 7%, her house payment would be around $1,100, or roughly 50% of her monthly income.

Call me judgemental if you will, but that, my friends is irresponsible.

I don't know enough about the whole foreclosure situation to talk about whether people were foolish or duped or what but I did want to say - the real estate bubble didn't just burst - the economy went south. I'm sure people who might have been able to make it weren't counting on fuel prices reaching record levels which affected EVERYTHING else. They didn't count on jobs disappearing, middle class and low income social programs funding being cut (including help finding other jobs), we all know the government doesn't want any individuals to be able to declare bankruptcy --- that should only be for corporations. Meanwhile - we have a President who says - if you are a good American you will spend away - and, best of all, everything is rosy - ignore the negative talk. Additionally, we have the new Republican society which has reshifted values to where the only thing that matters is money, the poor are suckers (and somewhat immoral) and, the only people who aren't a success don't work hard enough.

That is simply untrue (and I actually agree with much of what you said before this). Phil Gramm did, in fact, help pave the way for the housing boom and bust - as the "Foreclosure Phil" link I gave above explains.

You're more than bootstrapping, you're creating things out of whole cloth. The article you cite - as biased as it is - only claims that Gramm's actions might have contributed to the problem; you seem to forget that lessening oversight and regulation on 'swaps' doesn't create housing demand or sales (people buying and selling houses does); and you again completely disregard the responsibility of the people involved.

You can troll through many, many years of Democrat- and Republican-controlled government and find endless clauses and earmarks that benefit someone's pet lobby. Finding one that can be attributed to a Republican and then attempting to blame the entire housing fiasco on that one item - that's just ludicrous.

And even if you could successfully do so, that doesn't bootstrap to your final position: "I'm not voting the bastards back in office". Your precious Democrats rubber-stamped that bill. You just voted the bastards into office while they were wearing a different hat.

The problem with your comments is that they implicitly assume that the housing boom was some kind of inevitable follow-on of the dot-com bust.

The problem with your comments, and the left-wing position on the housing issue, is that you want to pretend that evil Republicans (the cartoon that all left-wingers portray) swept into the neighborhoods of poor, unsuspecting people and forced them to buy houses they didn't even want.

It's like blaming the cops for putting out the bait car when someone steals it. Yes, the situation was set up, and you can argue about the 'fairness' of some of the things that happened behind the scenes. Yes, some blame does fall on Republicans and Democrats alike. But at the end of the day, someone decided to sign that ridiculous loan contract. Someone decided to steal the bait car.

And frankly I don't get your animosity about the whole situation. We saw over a decade of unprecedented success and financial growth, and so far have had to endure - what, maybe a year of slightly worse times? Economic systems boom and bust. If the economy were to turn around in a year, would you not think the 10+ years of good would offset the year or two of bad?

We saw over a decade of unprecedented success and financial growth

Sometimes referred to as the Clinton Administration. Glad you agree. Meanwhile the war and the resulting artificially-inflated oil prices have killed our economy dead the water.

I find it hilarious when conservative, white, middle-class slobs defend the super-rich yet bitch and moan when we try to raise the minimum wage or a labor union is fighting for a decent wage. The pie is only so big. Nice value system!

Caligraph, quit acting like you are some maverick and everyone here is a robot. If you were writing on some right-wing page you'd sound like everyone else. You come here because you enjoy your role as contrarian. Maybe you should get back to rushlimbaugh.com before you miss a “The Surge is Working!” update.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives