The Govt Is Buying Poor People's Loans

[sandnsea]

That is actually what is happening.

Do you support helping poor people have loans for homes or not.

[angstlessk]

1. that is a flagrant LIE...the poor will not see any relief WHATSOEVERATALL!

get over it!

[sandnsea]

14. That is still what this deal does

It buys the loans of poor and working income people. Should we have never given them a chance to start with?

[girl gone mad]

30. What are you talking about?

We might get some of the foreclosed properties that these poor people have already been KICKED OUT OF and the banks can't sell.

Most of the money will be used to by mortgage related securities that the banks don't want to mark to market.

[sandnsea]

35. We might save some of their homes as well

And we might save the programs that help them buy homes in the first place. We certainly won't if we do nothing.

[cui bono]

52. False dichotomy. It's not Bush's way or the highway. Here's a perfectly reasonable solution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4143183&mesg_id=4143183

[sandnsea]

60. That's dealing with the long term economy

Not the current credit crunch. But I'm glad you want to help low income people keep their homes, we haven't done enough on that. I wish everybody would have been up in arms back in July when we passed home legislation. You know lots of people opposed bailing out the homeowners too.

[girl gone mad]

62. We do not need to..

give 700 Billion to the banks in hopes of keeping a couple of people in their homes.

[nolabels]

113. We do not need to give money to people who used predatory lending on minority populations

The combination of high oil prices, lack of actual productive jobs that ad to our GDP and money stream plus a predatory sup-prime loans that could have been sold at prime with fixed rates. I say it blew up in their face faster than they thought it would and now the money grippers need a fix to tide them over.

Probably a lot of sub-plots but i would say that would be the crux of it

[sandnsea]

119. We sure don't, we can let the economy collapse instead

That'll show them. And we can make sure nobody ever gives loans to low income people again.

[Dr Fate]

131. Fine. Now tell us why the millionare & billionare bankers cant foot the bill for it.

????

[girl gone mad]

135. Let me guess:

You still believe in "trickle down" economics.

[sandnsea]

138. Because everybody who wants to save low income mortgage programs

is a Reaganite. Riight.

:eyes:

[nolabels]

185. The thing that is going to collapse is the way they have been doing business

They practiced unsound business principles and it didn't work. They thought they could just keep on sprinkling magic dust and everything would be alright. The bluff was called

[dchill]

172. It is buying and then, hopefully, reselling debt.

The "poor people" will still have to pay for their homes. And yes, in my opinion, everybody deserves a chance, if they qualify for the loan.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Only if said "poor people" get to stay in their homes...

[sandnsea]

9. Just passed Homeowners Act in July

If it wasn't enough, where was everybody then? And yes, we will need more help for them. But that is what this bill does.

[angstlessk]

110. the new FHA loan ONLY helped people who had not been behind in their

mortgage payments for 1 full year, anyone who was currently in trouble and behind were OUT OF LUCK!

[sandnsea]

141. And where was DU when it was being passed??

Oh yeah - nowhere.

OR - complaining about bailing out these homeowners that they now profess to want to help.

[angstlessk]

178. I think the same ones who OBJECTED to the homeowner bailout are now FOR

the wall street bailout..seems to flesh out that way.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. i support lending

based on sound principles...

sP

[sandnsea]

22. It isn't poor people's fault that it wasn't done

If we take these loans out of the banks, we have a chance to do more for them in the long run.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. i doubt it...

after this blip (or crater) passes, home ownership will likely revert to those who can take out a fixed mortgage, with provable income, put 20% down and show solid employment history...

we are going back to those days i would imagine after this...

sP

[sandnsea]

34. So you don't support poor people owning a home? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. i think people should be able to buy a home

at a reasonable price on reasonable terms...i do not support people taking out loans that they cannot payback, and conversely, i do not support banks making loans with a high likelihood of failure. it makes no sense and will lead right back here...foreclosures and bailouts.

sP

[RainDog]

45. YOU ARE SHAMEFUL IN YOUR LIES ON THIS THREAD

you would stop this if you had any decency.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cui bono]

59. We need to step up to the plate WITH A DIFFERENT BAT!!!

The Bush plan is just more corporate theft.

Here's a plan for the people:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4143183&mesg_id=4143183

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

68. What chance do low income homeowners have?

If we don't do something about standing behind these loans?

[RainDog]

96. How many times does someone have to tell you that bail out doesn't cover their loans?

in order for you to understand that the bail out doesn't cover the loans of poor people?

please, instead of arguing this here, why don't you go read up on what is going on so that you will understand that the bail out does nothing and that it can do nothing to stop the devaluation on houses in markets that are already hugely overvalued, for instance, along with other housing problems that, again, are not part of the bailout to pay for real estate speculation gone mad.

nothing the govt. will do will change the fact that we have had a real estate bubble and that bubble has popped. housing prices in areas that have been overvalued (due to speculation and the reaganomic mindset) will have to resettle at a level that represents a market that is not operating in a bubble.

for poor people, this can be a good thing because housing prices will be lower. however, if they cannot afford even that, the bail out does nothing to help them.

the bail out doesn't care about the person who bought a home and then lost a job. it cares about the banks that bought the mtg. backed "investments." This is a ponzi scheme that has reached an end. The only way a ponzi scheme works is for people to continue to buy into it. however, the "product" of a ponzi scheme is still worthless, or worth much, much less than it is presented to be.

The banks did not buy individual mortgages. they bought a bundled package of mtgs and then sold them, over and over. This was the result of a deregulated market that didn't care if a homeowner lost a home, as long as some money could be made. It still doesn't care.

It is ignorant to think that the bail out buys a poor person's mtg. Since this crisis has been ongoing, many of the poorer mtg holders are already out of their homes. No one is going to retroactively put them back in those homes.

[sandnsea]

105. How many times do I have to say I never said that

I never said this bailed out people's loans. I said this is the basis of the low-income mortgage programs and if we don't do something about it, then we won't have them anymore.

Why don't you go back and read what I said.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. About as generous as Mr. Potter buying "bad loans" from the Savings and Loan Company.

[sandnsea]

32. Maybe we're being George Bailey

and taking these riskier loans to give people a chance at staying in their homes. Maybe we're the ones who believe in our neighbors and don't call them and their homes and their lives "trash".

[no_hypocrisy]

84. I'd like to believe it's true but I'm cynical.

The banks and our government don't care about people staying in their homes. They're worried about the world being paralyzed by lack of liquidity.

[sandnsea]

91. So we need to stick with it for more than 5 minutes

to guarantee that they keep caring. Like all these people in this thread should have done back in July - but were nowhere to be found.

[Breeze54]

5. HUD helps poor people buy homes.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

18. Through loans that banks write

and these are the remnants of the loans that are at risk.

[TZ]

23. FHA helps poor/first time buyer buy homes...

and ONE of the think this bill WILL do is give MORE money to FHA to grant these loans.
I should know..thats the ONLY way I was able to buy my place...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. No it is not.

The government is, as far as I can tell, proposing to buy mortgage backed securities, which are not the same thing as mortgages at all. There's enough confusion around here already without adding blatant falsehoods on top.

[galileoreloaded]

7. Careful, the purple koolaid has a bitter aftertaste........n/t

[dkofos]

8. What a crock of SHIT

[Double T]

10. The government is buying criminal mortgage broker's loans.

No one could buy anything until the wall street backed criminal mortgage brokers, investment banks, real estate appraisers, real estate brokers and real estate agents had devised the granddaddy of ALL SCAMS.

[TexasObserver]

11. You are absolutely wrong.

This has nothing to do with saving poor people's loans or homes.

[sandnsea]

16. Yes, it is poor people's loans

You're not seriously going to deny that, are you?

[RainDog]

29. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about

the bail out does not buy poor people's loans. it buys viturally worthless bundled mtg "junk" called an investment that has been rebundled so many times it is worth little to nothing.

the bail out is a bail out of yet another ponzi scheme cooked up by the greedy fucking "investor class" - that is, the top 5% of the economy.

jesus, I cannot believe you can even argue this!!!!!

[sandnsea]

37. The investment that started with poor people's loans n/t

[RainDog]

49. this remark proves that you are totally clueless.

and my ignore list grows, yet again.

[TexasObserver]

151. it also proves she gets her information from Rightwing news talk

Ain't no Democrats saying that.

[sandnsea]

156. Hell, Bill fucking Clinton said it, jesus christ n/t

[TexasObserver]

165. No, he didn't, you just don't understand anything about this and hear what you want to hear.

And you're given to silly emotional outbursts, like those on display in this thread.

[lelgt60]

174. Uh..agree about the bailout not buying poor people's loans - disagree about "investor class"

Not to intrude on the real gist of this thread, but quickly:

My research found around 50% of employed people have 401k's, including 20% of those with incomes below $35000. That's alot more than 5%

I assume that's not what you meant by "investor class"?

[TexasObserver]

148. Your record of never getting anything right remains intact.

[sandnsea]

154. lol, no, I get most things right

and most people around here never admit it.

[TexasObserver]

163. LOL, you seldom get anything right.

And that's why people constantly tell you that you do not understand the topic.

You really are clueless about this bailout and should read what others in this thread say, since all of them understand this better than you.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Where'd them poor people get all that money to loan?

[sandnsea]

24. They're the borrowers, duh n/t

[Subdivisions]

13. Bull - fucking - shit! n/t

[EFerrari]

15. That's simply untrue and in fact, what the right wing says

when trying to place blame.

[sandnsea]

20. I want to help them by protecting these loans

and help people to pay them in a fair way, which won't happen if banks are stuck with them.

[EFerrari]

43. The truth is, we don't know if there will be such a condition or provision

yet.

[sandnsea]

50. We already have a Homeowners Act to help some folks

We need to make it better and have more of an interest to do that once we own these securities and mortgages they're invested in.

[mrJJ]

17. Bullocks

Buying poor peoples mortgages? Who holds those poor peoples mortgages?

Subprime for dummies MS powerpoint req
http://marktomarket.typepad.com/marktomarket/files/financial_crisis_for_dummies.pps

[RainDog]

19. You are a liar

and a disgrace.

[TZ]

27. Not necessarily.

Without this bill the FHA loans will be harder to find/get.
I am very grateful for mine
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4143674&mesg_id=4143797

[RainDog]

38. She is talking about those who are currently facing foreclosure

and the bail out does not do anything to help these people. This bail out does not have ANYTHING to do with future loans unless people refuse uncreditworthy lending.

Honestly, tz, you are not a credit risk. you have a stable job in a growth industry. you should not extrapolate this crisis and apply it to yourself. that's just your fear.

we are facing a recession and economic hard times NO MATTER WHAT. We have already been facing these hard times... only it has gotten to the point now that Bush et al cannot openly lie about without being called on their bullshit.

If you want to help poor people, you should support a national bank and the sba, not this bail out bullshit.

[sandnsea]

69. No, I am not, you can't read

I am saying that if we do nothing, these mortgages will definitely be foreclosed on. If you believe in helping low income people, why would you not buy the securities that back their loans?

[girl gone mad]

21. Umm, wow.

If you intend to be so outspoken on the issue, why not take at least 10 or 15 minutes to learn about it?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. thats a highly flawed argument

[sandnsea]

26. It is the basis for these loans, correct?

Do we support helping these people, or not. That is the bottom line here. We're going to lose these loans altogether if we don't stop dinking around.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. thats not in the least bit the basis of this bailout. either you are stupid or deliberately

misconstruing the truth.

[sandnsea]

33. It has nothing to do with low income loans??? n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. it has nothing to do with bailing out people's mortgages or helping the poor.

[sandnsea]

41. But it will have

Once we have an interest in getting these mortgages stabilized, which means helping people stay in their homes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. no. there is no proposal to stop foreclosures

[sandnsea]

72. I never said there was

I said we are buying the securities that back the loans for low income people. You obviously don't want to put your money where your mouth is. You either invest in low income people - or you don't. Which is it?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. i think you should invest in a good dose of rationality. it would probably be best for you and for

us. you are beginning to sound unhinged.

[sandnsea]

80. Would people, just one fucking time, stick to the issues n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. its hard to stick to an issue when the premise is a complete distortion of the fact

and your conclusion is a personal attack, (ex: clearly if you dont agree with me you are agaist poor people)

[sandnsea]

87. This is about the basis of home mortgages for the poor

Yes it is much more complicated than that - but if we believe in helping working people get home loans, then we need to be willing to step up to the plate when some of those loans go bad.

And I remember back in July when many of the same people were opposing assistance for homeowners when the Housing Act was being debated too.

[ContinentalOp]

101. So your position is that giving loans to poor is what got us into this mess,

and now we need to "step up to the plate" and bail out the banks because they were forced to make these bad loans to the poor? Now I see where you're coming from. Gee, where have I heard that point of view before?

[sandnsea]

108. My position is that there are loans to low income people

and that the lending industry created a horrific plan to loan to them. But the bottom line is, there won't be anymore help for low income people if we don't take this hit now. That's just the way this country works.

[ContinentalOp]

112. So you're saying this is blackmail and it's a political move.

It's the fault of the banking industry but we have to pay the $700 billion bribe or they're going to refuse to ever lend to the poor again? They will intentionally tank the economy and walk away with billions in profits, so that they can say it was the fault of poor borrowers and they can stop giving loans to the poor?

[sandnsea]

120. Republicans will end these programs

Hell lots of DUers are pissed about these programs, they just won't show their face in a thread like this.

And if you don't know that, then you haven't been paying attention.

[ContinentalOp]

127. Sorry but your posts are pretty much nonsensical. -nt-

[sandnsea]

130. Join the rest of DUers - beat me up instead of arguing the facts

And when I'm proven right in a couple years - when they start trying to end these programs - never ever admit it.

[ContinentalOp]

139. I just don't see the relevance of what you're saying. Republicans will try to end programs...

that help the poor? Wow, thanks for the newsflash! How would this bailout stop that? The only relevant effect I can see is that passing an unpopular bailout may lose the election for Obama and many Democratic congresspeople, in which case the Republicans will have even more power to gut programs that help the poor.

[sandnsea]

142. The relevance of blaming the poor for the collapse of the economy?????

You don't see the relevance in that?

You don't read the posts around here from people who resent helping people stay in their homes?

Really?

[ContinentalOp]

147. The past several posts above this, I've been trying to figure out...

what you think is the problem that got us in this mess, but you keep talking around the issue and remaining vague.

Are you saying that giving loans to poor people is what got us into this crisis? That seems to be your stance.

[sandnsea]

152. Bad loan product

given to poor people. Is that not what started all of this?

Do you hear any of the talking heads making an issue of the bad loan products - or of the poor people they were given to?

[ContinentalOp]

158. People on the right are trying to blame this on "bad loans to the poor"

which is why I'm asking you. You seem to be agreeing with that point of view.

Have you noticed another thread from today that says "Recent reports say bad mortgages only 5% of the problem, derivatives 95% - 5 banks hold most of them"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4144089

[sandnsea]

162. And lots of DUers are saying that too - did you miss that?

That's why many people oppose this bail out. I'm saying that if you support low income loans to poor people, you better step up and keep this economy collapsing based on the premise that it's the fault of poor people.

It's more fun to put words in my mouth and call me names, I know - but try real hard to read what I actually say for a change.

[ContinentalOp]

168. Bullshit. People oppose this bailout precisely because it does nothing to help poor homeowners...

and is nothing but a handout to wall street.

I am trying very hard to read what you're saying but it's tough with sentences like "you better step up and keep this economy collapsing based on the premise that it's the fault of poor people." Maybe I'm stupid, but I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could explain it to me in a simpler way because I'm clearly not getting it.

[sandnsea]

182. I didn't say it was the fault of poor people, not ever

I said poor people are going to get blamed by the lenders which is going to end the programs that help poor people. DUers always prefer to twist what I say in order to trump up excuses to attack me.

[pnutbutr]

39. defaulted loans

The government is buying defaulted loans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. Wrong. The Gov't is buying Poor People's MORTGAGES in order to foreclose on them.

And sell the ones that can't be foreclosed.

To be fair, many of these home loans and other purchases were done on
bad credit, at the height of the 15-year credit-induced greed-fest
where the government told Americans that we had entered a "new paradigm"
where credit creates wealth by increasing "liquidity" i.e. hidden
inflation making Americans feel wealthier than they did before
while paying more and more of their income on more and more expensive
gadgets on a monthly installment plan. Credit feudalism.

[sandnsea]

48. That's why we passed a Housing Act?

To help rewrite loans? Why would we do that if we just wanted to foreclose on everybody?

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. See edited post. To be fair, this is a mound of bad debt.

Wall St. is paying the Gov't to play repo man and suck up the liability.

If the gov't chooses to retain the homes at a trillion dollar loss and
keep people in them by refinancing all the mortgages, Wall St. still gets
the cost equivalent of the paid-out-over-time balloon mortgages.

[sandnsea]

95. So do we stand by the low income mortgages

and work towards legislation to get them refinanced - or do we give up on low-income housing loans.

We have a capitalist system. That's not going to change.

[Waiting For Everyman]

42. No, it's buying mortgage-backed securities INSTEAD OF the loans.

MBSs are large pools of many mortgages, which are cross-sliced into what's called income "tranches". They are owned by a LOT of investors who would all have to agree in order to change one person's mortgage.

MBSs can not be broken apart to modify!!! Can NOT. Saying they can or will be, is a total lie.

They can ONLY be refinanced, which this bill will NOT do. This is what the members of Congress are not being told.

The fact that the MBSs can not be modified is why the banks wouldn't do it for homeowners all this time. It can't be done, which these banks know full well, b/c they say it to homeowners a gazillion times a day. That is what makes MBSs so toxic - they are unchangeable, and have been, all throughout this crisis. And bankruptcy judges can't even change them b/c the law was amended to specifically take away that power from them.

And what one provision was taken OUT of this bailout bill? The bankruptcy privision to give that power BACK TO the judges, so they COULD change these mortgages. What does it take to get this understood?

These mortgages can not be modified as long as they are in MBSs.

[sandnsea]

46. The security becomes valuable when the mortgages are paid

So yes, we are buying an interest in people's loans.

[Waiting For Everyman]

65. That doesn't do a damn thing for a homeowner.

And guess what? They will DECLINE in value b/c this does nothing to lessen the defaults. And the defaults will continue as long as the rates are WAY TOO HIGH... i.e. until they are refinanced.

They are unpayable, as is. They are TRASH. Worthless. And this does NOTHING to solve this problem. All it does, is improve banks' balance sheets, while ripping off taxpayers and trampling over homeowners for NO REASON.

[ContinentalOp]

67. Sure, we are buying an interest in some people's loans via mortgage backed securities.

That won't prevent any of them from defaulting though. And it won't make those mortgage backed securities worth more. So we're buying an "interest" in an essentially worthless bundle of paper that yes, at one time represented home loans.

We're also going to be sending that money overseas so we're buying an interest in who knows what? A failed office building development in China?

[sandnsea]

75. We'll have more interest in preventing defaults though

Once we have ownership through this plan. We either believe in what we're doing with low income homeowners, or we chalk it up to a bad idea and admit it.

[ContinentalOp]

82. And how will we prevent defaults? -nt-

[sandnsea]

89. We have a new Housing Act

that goes in affect today.

Many of the people screaming at me in this thread should have been screaming back in July when that act was going through Congress.

[ContinentalOp]

93. So why do we need this bailout? -nt-

[sandnsea]

97. Because people opposed real mortgage assistance

They were mad that they had to bail out irresponsible and stupid borrowers - don't you remember? We didn't get enough of these mortgages fixed.

[ContinentalOp]

104. And how does this bailout help to fix them? -nt-

[sandnsea]

111. Several ways actually

It frees up credit so that people don't have to have a 700 credit rating for the banks to work with them. It frees up credit so that people can start buying so home values don't fall too low to get refinanced. It makes "we the people" the keeper of these folks and maybe, for once, we'll pay attention for more than 5 minutes.

[ContinentalOp]

122. A few questions:

It frees up credit so that people don't have to have a 700 credit rating for the banks to work with them.

What incentive will the banks have to "work with" the people who are on the verge of foreclosure? If they are seen as risky borrowers now, why does the availability of more credit suddenly remove that risk? I thought the credit crisis was not a matter of a lack of cash, but of a lack of confidence. What would suddenly make these "bad loans" good investments?


It frees up credit so that people can start buying so home values don't fall too low to get refinanced.

So protecting homeowners from foreclosure should be strictly about private industry voluntarily allowing borrowers to refinance? Doesn't that just continue the root problem of subprime lending? If these people couldn't qualify for low interest fixed rate mortgages during the height of the bubble when credit was cheap and abundant, why would banks suddenly offer these people a better deal now?


It makes "we the people" the keeper of these folks and maybe, for once, we'll pay attention for more than 5 minutes.

How so? What new regulations does this bailout place on the banking industry to prevent this from happening again?

[sandnsea]

125. You've bought into the idea that these folks were bad risks

They weren't. 95% of these loans are good loans. External circumstances, like falling housing prices and changes in credit ratings, are contributing to turning them into risks.

And I don't want Wall Street dictating those changes in the banking industry, because their changes will be to quit doing FHA and HUD type lending at all.

[ContinentalOp]

132. Do you have any evidence of that?

These loans were already divided into "tranches" according to risk. We are only going to be buying the stuff that the industry won't touch with a ten foot pole. And I don't know what you're talking about in regards to wall street dictating changes in the banking industry. This bailout was created by wall street.

Also it would be nice if you could actually answer the questions.

[sandnsea]

136. That 95% of the loans are good?

And that people are having trouble refinancing because of decreased home values and changes in lending practices?

You need to know if I have evidence of that???

Seriously?

[ContinentalOp]

144. Yes, can you point to evidence that:

1: 95% of the mortgages involved in the mbs's we would be buying are good?

2: The bailout will open up credit in such a way that these homeowners will be able to refinance so they can afford their payments?

[sandnsea]

149. It's the way business works

When you remove bad debt, your credit ratings go up and you have more room to work with the remaining debtors. It's common sense. And just about every speech has included the fact that 95% of these loans end up being good. A lot of DUers want to stop them altogether, in case you hadn't noticed.

[ContinentalOp]

167. So the banks will have "more room to work with the remaining debtors"

What would be their incentive to do so? Again, if these people couldn't get refinanced to a low fixed rate when credit was cheap and abundant why would the banks want to do that for them now?

And what about people who are defaulting because they lost their job and can't afford any mortgage? How does this help them? And how does it help people whose homes have already been foreclosed?

And what about people who bought at the height of the bubble and now they can't refinance? You seem to be banking on the possibility that home prices will go up again and then they can refinance. In other words you want to extend the housing bubble!

Also, this is basically the scenario you're proposing: We buy bad debt from the banks at inflated prices above market value. They have a bunch of cash freed up so they decide to refinance some of those loans, essentially buying them back from us for a lower price with the cash we just gave them?

[girl gone mad]

146. Banks do not want to work with poor Americans anymore.

We can't pay off the debt we already have.

We are tapped out.

The easy credit ship has sailed.

[sandnsea]

153. And do you want it to stay that way? n/t

[ContinentalOp]

161. How would this bailout force the banks to deal with the poor?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

164. I've already posted that info, reread, I have an appt. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

170. LOL! Bye bye. -nt-

[sandnsea]

181. Back for 5 minutes

then I have another appt. It's actually less than 5%.

"The fraction of subprime mortgage loans entering foreclosure in the first quarter of this year jumped to a 5 year high of 2.4 per cent from about 2 per cent in the last quarter of 2006."

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/06/are_subprime_lo.html

[girl gone mad]

171. This bill does nothing to address the problem.

Which is that we are broke.

Giving them more of our money doesn't make us less broke.

Get it?

[girl gone mad]

70. Not quite.

Many of the securities banks want to offload amount to gambling debts for being on the wrong side of bets on whether mortgages would be paid off.

[Fire1]

47. Are you LOOPY???????????

[RainDog]

57. she's ignorant. and after repeatedly being shown how she is ignorant, she continues

this bullshit.

it's incredible, really. she has no understanding of what's going on and yet tries to appeal to people's better natures with lies.

I'd say that makes someone pretty scummy.

[sandnsea]

66. I understand perfectly well what is going on

I just called people's bullshit. Everybody blathers about their concern for the poor, but where were they in July when it mattered? Nowhere. And where will they be when they start clamoring for FHA and HUD to be ended because of these irresponsible homeowners? Nowhere.

If you believe in helping low income people, you better rethink what you're doing today.

[RainDog]

74. no. you do not know what's going on, as you prove every time you post

this has NOTHING to do with poor people. poor people are already living in tents. where were you when blacks and latinos were losing their homes more than two years ago?

we are in a recession and it is going to get worse. no amount of bullshit will change that.

if you want to help poor people, stop propping up the lies of this adminstration. do you even wonder why Paulson is part of this deal with his conflicts of interests? do you really think he has the moral fiber to handle this correctly?

I am embarrassed for you since you seem to be unable to accept the fallacy of your own argument when it is pointed out to you over and over on this thread.

[sandnsea]

83. So should we help them get their homes back?

Get into new homes with loan programs? Stop the ones that aren't thrown out yet?

[Two Americas]

184. Reaganomics

You claimed that the bailout represents the death of Reaganomics. I responded that were you able to make that case, I believe you would win most of us over to your side.

Why are you arguing a point of view that you have no commitment to persuading anyone to?

Is this crisis the result of Reaganomics, or is it not?

Does the bailout end Reaganomics, or prop it back up?

Have Reaganomics improved the country - as promised, with the exact same arguments that are being used now to defend the bailout - or, as I believe, destroyed the country?

If Reaganomics are the cause of the problems, when are we to take them down if not now, when the majority of the people in the country have turned on them?

Why is there little or no talk about Reaganomics by the defenders of the bailout?

[leftofthedial]

51. that's an interesting distortion of what this bailout does

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. interesting? i guess thats one word for it.

[sandnsea]

63. It's the bottom line, like it or not n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. except that its not.

[leftofthedial]

77. a. there is nothing in the bill that means tests (or even identifies) mortgagees

b. there's no guarantee the process will help the "poor people"

c. there's a shitload of middle men between the top line and that bottom line

If the bill started with the "poor people" and unambiguously helped them directly, it would be a start. I'd like to see the problem honestly and correctly defined before a bailout is shoved down my throat though.

[cui bono]

55. No, it's not. But here is what SHOULD happen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4143183&mesg_id=4143183

[Dr Fate]

71. So I dont owe $80 grand in student loans anymore? AWESOME- I support that.

I'm glad to benefit from bailing out the millionare bankers after all- count me as being on board!

I'm glad that congress wants to "put out the fires" in my house as well.

When does the bail out of my debt take effect?

LOL! But seriously- we could support helping poor people with their loans without agreeing with Bush and without handing $700 Billion over to millionares & billionares who already have that much money.

I dont mind "putting out the fire"- but why not make the billionares & millionares come up witht he $700 Billion, since they are the "arsonists?"

No one can seem to answer that for me.

[sandnsea]

78. If the student loan program were causing a crisis

Would you support dumping students like you overboard because somebody else paid their own way through school? Would you support blaming poor students for the crisis? Would you put the entire student loan program at risk?

[Dr Fate]

86. "IF?" LOL. I would support millionare & billionare bankers helping me "put out the fire."

I would support millionare & billionare bankers to "bail me out"- you know, like I'm going to be forced to do for them.

"If?" You question whether my finances are not in crisis or not due to my debt? My "house is on fire" and I need a bail out- or "more houses are going to catch on fire." I know, I'm "selfish." LOL!

I'm not blaming poor people or students for anything- I'm asking that millionares & billionares be forced to come up with the $70 Billion on thier own, w/o asking me for it.

No one can tell me why billionares & millionares cant raise the money on their own, or why we cant tax them exclusively & directly for it.

As it is, if *I* have to bail out millionares & billionares, then I'm going to put out my hand for some goodies as well. The difference is I really dont have $80K-nor will Ihave it anytime soon- while the bankers DO have access to the money they say I need to give them.

Your not trying to tell us that purpose of Bush's plan is designed to give the most help to poor peope are you? LOL!

[sandnsea]

114. So if the student loan program went belly-up

You'd propose billionaires pay for it, even if that ended all student loans?

[Dr Fate]

124. I dont understand your line of thinking. I never said I wanted to end opportunities for students.

I indicated that I would support a "bail out" package where the govt taxes the "arsonists" and helps me "put out the fire in my house."

Why is it such a strange & objectionable idea once I reverse the roles? My house is burning too.

Who said anything about keeping students from going to school? If anyhting, I indicated that the bail out package should have something for people struggling with loan debt.

Again, dont you agree that the millionares & billionares who "started the fire" should foot the fire department bill in this case?

Again, I'm all for fixing this- the issue is who should pay for it.

I dont think innocent bystanders should foot the bill- I think the "arsonists" should.

[sandnsea]

128. But that's what would happen

Why would the people with the money keep lending money to people who don't pay it back?

[Dr Fate]

133. Fine- then let the goverment "bail out" students...

...by paying for their school. I think College should be tax-payer funded to begin with. Better than paying for wars & bills that only benefit billionares & millionares.

As long as we are handing out billions of dollars to billionare bankers, why not?

Again-for the 7th time, dont you thing that millionares & billionares should foot he bill for the mes they caused?

Who says it has to happen the way you say?- I'm for a bailout as long as the bailees, not the bailors- foot the bill.

[sandnsea]

143. So the government should buy the securities

that back the students' loans - because that's the way our capitalist system works?

I think alot of things, but we live where we live and it's a capitalist country.

[Dr Fate]

150. Capitalism? In that case, we should ALL pull ourselves up by our bootstraps- student & banker alike.

If capitalism means students are on their own, then it means bankers are on their own too- fair is fair.

So the tax payers should give $700 Billion to millionare & billionare bankers who "started a fire" - because that's the way our capitalist system works? LOL!


If "capitalism" is your sole reason for opposing a bail out for regular Joes who are living under crushing student loan debt- then it works both ways.

If "capitalism" is your magic bullet in this debate-then what in the WORLD are we giving a welfare handout to billionare & millionare bankers for? LOL!!! They could come up with that money on their own- talk about some designer boot-straps!

Let me get this straight- if I want to give, say $700 Billion in relief to the middle class students, I'm going against capitalism, but if I want to give the same amount to relief billionare & millionare bankers (who are not personally broke at all)-then I am somehow supporting the free market system?

I've heard it all now- if I want to give away money to "arsonist" bankers, I'm a capitialist- if I want to give hand-outs to students, I'm apparently anti-capitalist.


LOL! I assumed we were already aware that giving $700 Billion in welfare "bail outs" to bankers takes pure capitalism & market forces off the table as an arguing point.

[ContinentalOp]

76. I think it's more accurate to say...

that we are purchasing failed financial products that were constructed out of poor people's mortgages.

It's like if you started a farm to grow corn to feed the poor but a corporation came in and turned all of the corn into high fructose corn syrup and popcorn, with the promise that they would make a profit off of it and buy even more corn for the poor. But now the market is sick of corn syrup and popcorn and nobody wants to buy it. So the government offers to buy it all, the corporation is saved, and the poor people still have nothing to eat. But hey, "let them eat popcorn."

[sandnsea]

79. So are we going to stand by our help for poor people

and buy these products that back these mortgages - or are we going to abandon homeownership assistance for working families.

[ContinentalOp]

85. We should absolutely provide assistance to struggling homeowners...

which is why we should oppose this bailout.

[sandnsea]

90. We need to improve the Housing Act

that goes into affect today. But if we don't do anything today, it will just cycle downwards until it becomes impossible to help anybody keep their home.

[ContinentalOp]

94. OK, so let's get an improved housing act. What does that have to do with this bailout? -nt-

[Dr Fate]

98. Right- and it doesnt address who PAYS FOR the bail out. I say millionares & billionares should pay.

They are the "arsonists" after all- I'm not sure why they shouldnt be responsible for 100% of the expenses involved in "putting out this fire."

[sandnsea]

99. Answered above n/t

[Dr Fate]

92. Dont you think the millionares & billionares should foot 100% of the bill for this?

If not, then why?

Shouldnt the "arsonist" who "startedf the fire" be the one footing the bill, rather than the victims.

That is what you guys dont get- the problem is over who should be paying for "putting out the fire", not whether the fire should be put out-of course it should.

[sandnsea]

100. The student loan question

Seriously. Answer it.

[Dr Fate]

107. I did. Now tell me why millionares & billionares shouldnt foot 100% of this bill.

I answered you- I dont blame students & poor people for anything. I'm all for putting out the "fires"- I just think the millionare & billionare arsonists who strated the fire should foot the bill.

My take is that if we have to "put out the fire" at a millionare's house, then fair is fair-someone needs to "put out the fire" at my house too. The only diffence is I dont have any money- billionare bankers do.

Serioulsy- why shouldnt the "arsonists" have to pay for 100% of the fire damage they caused?

[sandnsea]

123. They won't give any more loans in the future

Isn't that clear to you?

[Dr Fate]

129. But the governemnt could give out the loans-as they seem fine with helping millionare bankers.

Or for that matter, maybe college should be public & tax payer funded as well.

As long as we are giving BILIONS of dollars to millionare bankers, why not?

Isn't that clear to you?

See- for every billion that you want to hand to billionare bankers- I can find a way to give that billion it to people who really need it.

For the 5th time- dont you think millionares & billionares should be paying the bill for the "fire" they started?

[sandnsea]

134. And once we have an interest in this mess

Then people will start getting mad that we have an interest in people's homes and are throwing them out, and that the wealthy didn't have to help pay for this, and they'll demand changes. Quite obviously, people have to be smacked right upside the head before they get see anything. They won't see that it's their family and neighbors who have these shitty loans until it happens to them.

[Dr Fate]

140. Cool- but lets go ahead and do that & say that now.

Let's demand that the millionares & billionares pay for this mess NOW?

Why not?

I'm not for waiting until the shit hits the fan before people get mad at the wealthy for not paying their share-I'm for going ahead and making them pay their share... why get mad at them at all- just make them pay the expenses they caused...

Again, it's not about whether the "fire" should be put out- the issue is who should pay for the bill.

[sandnsea]

145. And they'll never back another federal program n/t

[Dr Fate]

155. Who will never back another federal program? The GOP? DLC chumps? Billionares? I dont read you.

Are you saying that if DEMS listen to the majority of the public and we hold the millionares & billionares accountable, the GOP will continue to fight to give the top 1% all the breaks & benefits?

Exactly what would change here?

I dont get it?

[ContinentalOp]

169. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.

For a minute she had me doubting my own reading skills. See if you can parse this one:

"I'm saying that if you support low income loans to poor people, you better step up and keep this economy collapsing based on the premise that it's the fault of poor people."

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

173. I still havent got an answer for why millionares & billionares cant come up with $700 Billion bucks.

When my family lost their business, no one offered us a "bail out"- we had to sell our belongings and dip into our personal savings to cover our debts.

No one offered to "put out our fire" or give us a single red cent. Yet when it happens to millionare bankers, everyone is supposed to band together and poney up money for these crooks.

I'm all for "putting out the fire"- but no one has yet to give an answer on why the "arsonists" shouldnt pay for the expenses that their fire started.

[ContinentalOp]

175. Because then they would never give loans to the poor again!

Don't you see? :eyes:

Apparently she admits that this is nothing but a massive blackmail scheme but she thinks giving into the ransom is the best way to go.

[Dr Fate]

176. In that case, I learned nothing here. I already know I'm under a thumb.

Bush as well as the "moderate" DEMS always re-hand you the status quo and act like its a brand-new gift.

[dailykoff]

88. The bailout is a huge disincentive to actually restructure anyone's mortgage.

And you know that.

[sandnsea]

102. We'll have to push for more restructuring

But if we allow the economy to collapse because of bad loans to poor people - well there will never be another low income home loan program again, not ever.

[dailykoff]

106. These were not "low income home loans," they were criminally usurious scams.

The worst kind of predatory piracy. Get it straight. You should know better than to pimp for Buscho here and I wish you'd just be honest about your reasons for hyping this toxic shit.

[sandnsea]

116. But there won't be any kind of low income home loans at all

if we let the economy collapse now.

[dailykoff]

137. Separate issues. The fact is that the bailout will hurt, not help, home owners

facing foreclosure.

[sandnsea]

160. No it won't, it will help homeowners

Lots of homeowners. In a lot of ways as I've said in posts above. We need to do more, but this is as good a first step as any.

[ContinentalOp]

109. Ah, I see where you're coming from now.

You acknowledge that this is a big handout to the banking industry but it must be done because we forced them to give loans to bad borrowers? And if we ever want to see them giving loans to the poor again we need to bail them out now? And the sole cause of this whole problem is "bad loans to poor people" so if we want to stand true to that principle of helping the poor get loans then we have to be prepared to occasionally give massive handouts to wall street? Gotcha.

[sandnsea]

118. I thought everybody knew the rich didn't do anything for shits and giggles n/t

[ljm2002]

103. Can you say "Derivatives"???

Please see this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4144089

Then come back and tell us how this is all about loans to "poor people".

This is all about the bankers and their Ponzi schemes.

Geez.

[sandnsea]

115. Based on loans to poor people, yes n/t

[ljm2002]

157. So you didn't read the post...

...SOME of the bad loans were "based on loans to poor people".

But whoever the loans were to, they were packaged up with other things in "complex financial instruments" that seemingly can't be untangled again by the geniuses who thought them up in the first place -- nooo, that's left to the gummint to do. And on top of that they were leveraged up to hundreds of times the real value of the assets, and then sold to trading partners overseas. Who figured it out and called it in.

We are so screwn. But please stop trying to blame it on "loans to poor people". These loans could have been made without bringing down the financial house of cards. What is bringing down the house of cards is (a) it is a house of cards, (b) outright fraud, (c) the financial shell games associated with (a) and (b).

[Two Americas]

117. there is a script for a comedy film in this

So today's talking point is that by propping Reaganomics back up, we are helping the poor.

I think the Marx Brothers handled all of these pro-bailout arguments pretty effectively the last time the people were bombarded by them - as comedy. You have to laugh about it rather than crying.

[sandnsea]

121. This is about killing Reaganomics

A loan to Wall Street effectively kills Reaganomics-bam, over.

This is about saving FHA & HUD in the process.

[gopbuster]

126. It's amazing people don't undertstand this. I wonder if they understand

that a collapse of the system will also serve to put even more money in fewer peoples hands. A greater consolidation of wealth and may even lead to a global system. The Amero anybody?

One theory anyway

[Two Americas]

159. how?

How does this kill Reaganomics?

Define Reaganomics for me.

If you can make the case for this, you will win everyone over here.

[bigtree]

166. great. not only are they still at risk of losing those homes . . .

. . . but they will suffer even further by this action in the way of inflation and higher interest rates to assuage the added debt. Their plight is tied to the economy. This deal helps lenders offload those debts onto the government and will likely 'stabilize the market' but does virtually nothing to help those folks who already find themselves in debt and at risk of losing their homes.

Further, there is nothing in this legislation which will assure that these lenders will do more than just dump the debt. They are in absolutely no obligation under this bill to keep providing loans to lower income workers. They will likely dump their bad paper on the government and, so unburdened, will just move on to other investments.

[lelgt60]

177. There is nothing in this bailout which obliges them to provide loans to anybody...

Which means they will probably restrict them to extremely well-off customers and businesses for quite a while. That means not small businesses, not middle and low income people, not small municipalities, etc.

We need to provide competition in the form of a federal loan program for these cases. Or some other way of forcing them to loan.

[bigtree]

179. right

thanks for recognizing this

[galledgoblin]

180. pretty sure I could think of a few better ways

to spend 700 Billion dollars which would better benefit the poor!!

[Two Americas]

183. Reaganomics

You are going to win on the bailout, so I am not sure what all the melodrama is about, all of the angst and uproar.

Many of us are going to oppose this no matter what. We have that right. We also have the right to express our opinions without all of the hostility and the attacks. They are not persuasive arguments, but merely attempts at wounding, discrediting, intimidating and frightening anyone who does not agree with you or who is uncertain.

You win, we continue to express our opinion. What problem do you have with that? There seems to be something else you are looking for. Must we all agree? May we not disagree with you, and can we not be free to make our case? Are there things that you do not want said, or do not want people to hear?

Reaganomics is what has hurt the poor.

Reaganomics is what we are being asked to trust.

This should be very easy. Show us how this ends Reaganomics - the cause of this crisis - and we will all be on board.

If, on the other hand, this props back up and revives Reaganomics, many of us are going to oppose it. We have a right to be opposed to this, and we have a duty to be opposed to this. Our reasoning and motives are solid, well founded and unimpeachable.

Make the case. Don't merely spread fear and smear those who don't agree with you.

Very simple and easy, and no need for all of this drama.

Make the case.

[El Pinko]

186. A huge number of those loans were not to "poor people"

I support getting house prices low enough that working class people can afford homes again, not jacking them up with bubbles and government debt.