This may not be popular with the Dems....

[Royal Dragon]

...but then you might not want to be one anymore after watching.

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

[count]

um, not defending dems but, clearly one million or two million bad mortgages is not the problem. That could easily be paid for with a trillion dollars. The problem is with the FRB and the banks. That combined with huge government financed deficits got us here today. By a republican administration, BTW.

Plenty of incompetent government workers share the blame, Including John McCain, for the problems dragging down all of us. I doubt republicans can do anything to get elected in this election. Especially with the possibility of having Palin as commander in chief.

Shame nobody listened to Ron Paul.

[Walter Joyce]

The Republicans want to blame the current economic crisis on the Democrats by claiming that it was all their fault for allowing sub prime mortgages to become such a popular business practice in real estate financing, and the Democrats want to do the same with the Republicans.

If you look at the situation objectively, there have been enough actions from both sides to contribute to the problem in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. Saying that one party is more to blame than the other is more an indication of your political affiliation than a clear analysis of the record.

And as count pointed out, sub prime mortgages are only part of the economic crisis, and even in regard to the real estate bubble that is true. The securitization of mortgages through mortgage backed securities also played a large part, and that was a function of Wall Street.

Deregulation, long a republican theme, was also a favorite of the Clinton administration, and continued under Bush.

Simply put, there is more than enough blame for both parties to own up to by their policies and actions, finger pointing is self-serving and really doesn't help solve any of the economic issues we are facing.

[Michael]

Count and Walter naked short sell the truth.

[count]

...but then you might not want to be one anymore after watching.

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

If our looking for reasons to change parties, well...



Bush probably had that same smug look on his face after he whooped John McCains ass in 2000.

Say, here's mini me, the other Goldman Sach investor who will take our tax dollars and invest them in stocks. What's up with all bald heads? It only reminds me of the bubbleman.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3peAYJSJSg

[pujimeng]

Count and Walter naked short sell the truth.

Well, at least Walter.....

[Chris Fleming]

Count too.

[Joe L.]

Don't forget about Walter as well.

[count]

Count and Walter naked short sell the truth.

Well, at least Walter.....

Oh, I'm sorry. If you're bald, and I offended you, maybe that was over the top? But if you disagree with my points, enlighten me.

Don't you see that 1,000,000 homes out of 150,000,000 housholds in the US is a small percentage of people to be causing such major problems in the economy? When the derivatives shoe falls, that's 16 times the worlds GDP, look out.



Do you honestly think this video helps people understand the problem or is it another attempt to make Obama look bad and John McCain look competent? Because if you ask me, these guys stole a dire straits song and showed a lame slide show of lies and half truths. Which now that I think of it, that sounds a lot like the campaign John McCain has been running all along.

[meeks]

hmm... the video (aimed at placing all the blame on the democrats for helping the working class a few presidents ago) has a 1 line mention of 'and the oil prices shot up' (from 32 cents to 1.50 a liter in Canada - 500%). Make absolutely no mention of Bush's war of...uh.... war ON terror and the trillions taken away from the US to pay for the illegal occupation of foreign countries and how this has truly impacted the US economy.

[pujimeng]

Count and Walter naked short sell the truth.

Well, at least Walter.....

Oh, I'm sorry. If you're bald, and I offended you, maybe that was over the top? But if you disagree with my points, enlighten me.

Don't you see that 1,000,000 homes out of 150,000,000 housholds in the US is a small percentage of people to be causing such major problems in the economy? When the derivatives shoe falls, that's 16 times the worlds GDP, look out.



Do you honestly think this video helps people understand the problem or is it another attempt to make Obama look bad and John McCain look competent? Because if you ask me, these guys stole a dire straits song and showed a lame slide show of lies and half truths. Which now that I think of it, that sounds a lot like the campaign John McCain has been running all along.

Nope, not bald (although both my brothers are!) I do think the video gives some good information, but losses much because of it's obvious partisan message. The video only gave one side of the story, but it is "A" side of the story and shouldn't be ignored. Personally, I don't think Obama needs any help to look bad, but I don't watch/read mainstream media. It was obviously an attack on Obama, with some of it deservedly so, but would have been much more effective if the author admitted the mistakes of the Republican party as well. IMHO People that don't know the whole story will dismiss it as just another attack ad and the factual part of the video will be completely lost.

My issue was with your first post was the not supporting the Dems, BUT message you put forth. I know the urge to keep ones political party out of the mix is overwhelming. You are right that there is plenty of blame to go around (although Dodd and Frank need to be in prison). Each party contributed in there own special way, once again selling us all down the river.

Didn't mean this as a personal attack, by the way.

[pujimeng]

aimed at placing all the blame on the democrats for helping the working class a few presidents ago

No, not the working class, but the poor. I'm working class and have no problem paying my mortgage. The dems helped people without the means to purchase a home by doing away with pesky requirements like income, or credit score. The government opened the floodgates by not only giving banks permission to write bad loans, but actually demanding it as well. The greedy banks, and politicians apparently could not stop themselves once the ball got rolling.

[Steve James]

Well, the problem with that argument is that there are scores of people who are working, but have lost their homes. Up until recently, the housing market was booming. Why is it that a house that went for 250K when the owner could pay the mortgage suddenly sells for 80K after it's foreclosed by the bank? How about the credit companies?

I don't think that it's quite far to characterize the problem as one caused by a particular party. And, the effects of the problem is across the board. Ed McMahon's house went into foreclosure. If you watch tv, much of the "paid programming" is devoted to credit repair and how to get rich quick with real estate. There are loads of cable tv shows about people fixing up and "flipping" homes. The people who are suffering the most are the people who have lost their jobs because of the situation. That just means that they need as much social support now as they did in earlier times.

The people who have lots of money in the market are losing, sure. It has less effect on the unemployed poor. If anything, it is creating more unemployed poor. That's why I don't think that it's logical to blame them.

[pujimeng]

Steve,

Not blaming the people (well, not much), but the politicians (both parties) that set them up for failure, the banks for jacking up the price of homes, and both for making it possible. The people that bought homes they could not afford obviously share in the blame and the responsibility, and except in cases of fraud or preditory lending, well, they were all adults and made their own decisions. I feel for the people that lost jobs, suffered injury or illness, or other unforseen problems and lost their homes. I have less empathy for those that knew they couldn't afford a home or were trying to get rich quick, and for the banks that were trying to do the same thing. Again, except for the victims of fraud, etc.

As an agent I can tell you the housing market stopped "booming" about 2.5 years ago, around the time that Fannie and Freddie started buying up bad paper in order to artificially keep it going. It's been declining ever since.

There is nothing wrong with the credit repair (the shows yes, the act, no), and flipping houses. People make good money doing that despite the market. The shows about getting rich in real estate are another story, but most are paid infomercials and that should warn the public that something is amiss. Let the buyer beware and all that. People will make their own decision, and will have to suffer the consequences just as they would revel in the rewards if there are any. It is not the governments job to babysit, or hand hold. For the people, or for Wall Street. We are not a socialist country, or at least we're not supposed to be.

[Steve James]

Well, I agree that people who borrow beyond their means should pay back what they owe. That goes for the big guys as well as the little guys; for the investment banks that made bad loans, and for the small business owner whose store fails; as well as for the home owner. However, as I said, the interest rate on an ordinary guy's mortgage is one thing today, but he misses a payment and the interest skyrockets, or he gets a mortgage when interest is low but then it goes up 3x. Now, he can't pay the increased payments, and they begin to multiply. The bank takes back his house, though, and then sells it for 1/3 of what it's worth. The guy, who's still working, now pays a little extra in tax to shore up the bank that loaned him the money.

We all agree that people shouldn't cheat, lie and steal. But, the "dream" of owning a home was (and is) one of the only ways for a family (any family) to create wealth. Lots of people bought homes assuming that there was no better investment.

Anyway, my essential point is that there were reasons other than greed that got people into the housing market. It doesn't matter whether they were poor or rich, many of them are hurting now. The only question, imo, is what we are ging to do about it. Nationalizing the banks that need funds is, imo, a brilliant idea. Well, as long as the public gets shares in it, among other things. Allowing people to stay in their homes and pay back their loans at reduced interest rates.

Government doesn't have to be social, if the people are social.