Is The Stock Market Pointing To An Obama Victory?

[NJ Stinks]

Interesting article on the web today:
_______________________________

Can the stock market pick the next president?


By MATTHEW CRAFT, AP
34 minutes ago


NEW YORK — The number has been repeated so often by presidential prognosticators that it's an article of faith: No president has been re-elected since World War II with an unemployment rate higher than 7.2 percent.

But the stock market turns out to be a pretty good predictor, too.

The Dow Jones industrial average has soared 62 percent since President Barack Obama took the oath of office during some of the darkest days of the Great Recession. The Dow was just below 8,000 then and stands near 13,000 today.

If a recent study of stock markets and presidential elections is any guide, Obama can start preparing his second inaugural address.

"There's something to this," says Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors, the $370 billion investment firm.

More at the link below:
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/finance/20120217/US.Wall.Street.Week.Ahead/

[lamboguy]

i honestly don't think that the stock market or the economy will be the number 1 issue in november. i could be wrong, but i suspect we will be at war with IRAN. i am not sure of this, but i have heard today that BELGIUM has dropped IRAN out of the SWIFT SYSTEM. what that means is that IRAN will not be able to accept or receive bank wires. that looks like a first step to war.

[EvenSteven]

The fix is in.

[lamboguy]

right now gold has been in a 10 month consolidation period. the top of the range is an ounce of gold for $1900 US, the bottom is an ounce of gold for $1500 US.

my guess is that as long gold stays at the bottom of the range, OBAMA will get re-elected. if in November you see an ounce of gold of $2000, Romney will be a shoe-in.

i suspect that the very same bankers that have been manipulating LIBOR rates, are doing the same with gold. the world markets are crazy these days, you have things going on like you have never heard of, like 'LONDON TRADERS", whales, guys putting large institutions at risk of going broke in short periods of time like JON THE SLIME CORZINE, JP MORGAN traders. LEHMAN BROTHERS mortgage hedgers. MAZZILI from COUNTRYWIDE. i don't know all the rascal's, i just know there are plenty more that exist. imagine that one guy lost JP MORGAN $4 BILLION with a capital "B", and when its all said and done, he probably cost them more. CHASE already got public bailout money.

[Mike at A+]

To everyone who called me crazy for some of the things I've said regarding 0bama's effect on the stock market, my theories continue to make me money. And between now and November, I believe there is more money to be made by jumping in and out between fixed and equities. The cycle is very easy to identify. I use it to rebalance mutual funds. I've done it numerous times during the 0bama presidency and EVERY TIME I've ended up with more shares than I started with. And it looks like many of the pundits on the financial shows are finally starting to agree with me.

Here's how it works:

1.) Job numbers, unemployment claims and other negative economic news is announced.
2.) Stock market drops (time to buy).
3.) 0bama's poll numbers drop.
4.) 0bama directs Ben Bernanke to endorse the printing of money and QE.
5.) Stock market surges upward (time to sell).

It's as simple as "Lather, rinse, repeat".

[lamboguy]

judging by what you are saying, it looks like we are not going to have to much of an economy after the november election no matter who gets in.

i suspect that you are right on that one.

[Mike at A+]

Actually I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that this trend will continue through the election, big spikes up and down. At this point I have no idea who will win in November but if it's Romney, the market will soar because businesses know that he won't demonize them like 0bama has done and will begin to hire again. If 0bama wins, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near equities because he won't have to worry about anything political and will continue to put a damper on the economy and toss out entitlements to people who simply don't want to work.

[lamboguy]

the way i am looking at the gold market is that it has made plenty of tests on the bottom of the range in the last 10 months. it hasn't been able to break the downward range. sure gold can go down and retest the bottom of $1530 one more time, but the next big move looks like its going to take gold over $2000, and silver to $40.

[Valuist]

To everyone who called me crazy for some of the things I've said regarding 0bama's effect on the stock market, my theories continue to make me money. And between now and November, I believe there is more money to be made by jumping in and out between fixed and equities. The cycle is very easy to identify. I use it to rebalance mutual funds. I've done it numerous times during the 0bama presidency and EVERY TIME I've ended up with more shares than I started with. And it looks like many of the pundits on the financial shows are finally starting to agree with me.

Here's how it works:

1.) Job numbers, unemployment claims and other negative economic news is announced.
2.) Stock market drops (time to buy).
3.) 0bama's poll numbers drop.
4.) 0bama directs Ben Bernanke to endorse the printing of money and QE.
5.) Stock market surges upward (time to sell).

It's as simple as "Lather, rinse, repeat".

Yes that HAS worked but its been mostly to the QE and money printing. But how much more can they print? Most think the days of additional QE are over.

IMO it won't matter who wins in November because the market is in for a bad year in 2013.

[FantasticDan]

I love how Mike at A+ always types Obama using a 0(zero), instead of an O. It's just so damn cute! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Mike at A+]

Yes that HAS worked but its been mostly to the QE and money printing. But how much more can they print? Most think the days of additional QE are over.

IMO it won't matter who wins in November because the market is in for a bad year in 2013.
0bama is calling the shots on QE, not Bernanke. He will do ANYTHING to secure re-election. As for 2013, I believe it will be VERY bad if 0bama wins. If Romney wins AND Republicans take the Senate, the market does very well in 2013.

Fan Dan: I type his name with a zero not for "cuteness". It's purely symbolism. The guy is a big ZERO in my opinion.

[Saratoga_Mike]

0bama is calling the shots on QE, not Bernanke. He will do ANYTHING to secure re-election. As for 2013, I believe it will be VERY bad if 0bama wins. If Romney wins AND Republicans take the Senate, the market does very well in 2013.
Fan Dan: I type his name with a zero not for "cuteness". It's purely symbolism. The guy is a big ZERO in my opinion.

Just as the market has done well during Obama's first term, I guess.

[Dave Schwartz]

the Iowa prediction markets have Obama at 59% in the "winner take all" category.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_Quotes.html

[Mike at A+]

Just as the market has done well during Obama's first term, I guess.
"Hope and change" was a powerful little slogan, I guess. And if the market did so well during his first term, how does one explain the 2010 midterm elections? As for this market that has done so well, the bottom lines of businesses are quite large because they aren't hiring and thus not paying salary and benefits to new hires. Lots of businesses sitting on lots of cash keeping lots of stockholders very happy. But the trend I have seen over the past two years has rewarded me generously because the market not only reacts to the mathematics of the economy but in these times, the intangibles. I dumped a huge chunk of equity shares at last Tuesday's close and parked it into bonds that don't yield much but provide a safe haven as the market rides through this current down cycle. Toward the end of July when Uncle Ben takes center stage, it will be time to buy all those shares back and then some at bargain basement prices.

[lamboguy]

i have been watching these big funds as to what they are doing. i pay attention to Fidelity, Wellington Management Group, and State Street. their headquarters are all within a block of each other in Boston. they all seem to be buying home builders and home related stocks. before i entered the gold market 12 years ago i waited for them to make a move in the gold market. Fidelity was the only one to go in that market, they owned 12.2% of Goldcorp back then. the stock was under $5 and went to over $50 and has pulled back since then. the other institutions followed.

[Valuist]

0bama is calling the shots on QE, not Bernanke. He will do ANYTHING to secure re-election. As for 2013, I believe it will be VERY bad if 0bama wins. If Romney wins AND Republicans take the Senate, the market does very well in 2013.

Fan Dan: I type his name with a zero not for "cuteness". It's purely symbolism. The guy is a big ZERO in my opinion.

I believe if Romney wins the market will EVENTUALLY rally but that could take a year or two. There's still way too many excesses in the market and bloated valuations. We were in a borderline depression not long ago and was anything really fixed? Dodd-Frank did nothing to end to big to fail. The GM bailout was a big mistake; the stock price is well below the IPO price. The Europe problems have just deflected attention away from our own debt crisis. Fiscal cliff coming.

The problem is if Romney wins and we go into recession in 2013 the libs and media will blame him, when its just bad policy from recent years coming home to roost.

[NJ Stinks]

And if the market did so well during his first term, how does one explain the 2010 midterm elections?

Here's the simple yet undeniable truth. Only 37% of the country's eligible voters showed up to vote across the country in the 2010 mid-term elections.

As I have noted previously, Republicans do well when most people stay home on election day.

So pray for bad weather or pray for people to forget to bring their voter ID's come November, Mike. In fact, pray for anything that hurts voter turnout. It can only help the GOP. :rolleyes:

[Mike at A+]

Here's the simple yet undeniable truth. Only 37% of the country's eligible voters showed up to vote across the country in the 2010 mid-term elections.

As I have noted previously, Republicans do well when most people stay home on election day.

So pray for bad weather or pray for people to forget to bring their voter ID's come November, Mike. In fact, pray for anything that hurts voter turnout. It can only help the GOP. :rolleyes:
Actually I pray that the 95% of blacks who voted for 0bama wake up to the fact that their unemployment rate sits at 14.4%, a full 6.2% higher than the published rate. I pray that Republicans take the Senate so they will actually start to do what we pay them to do, VOTE ON BILLS.

[Valuist]

Interesting article on the web today:
_______________________________

Can the stock market pick the next president?


By MATTHEW CRAFT, AP
34 minutes ago


NEW YORK — The number has been repeated so often by presidential prognosticators that it's an article of faith: No president has been re-elected since World War II with an unemployment rate higher than 7.2 percent.

But the stock market turns out to be a pretty good predictor, too.

The Dow Jones industrial average has soared 62 percent since President Barack Obama took the oath of office during some of the darkest days of the Great Recession. The Dow was just below 8,000 then and stands near 13,000 today.

If a recent study of stock markets and presidential elections is any guide, Obama can start preparing his second inaugural address.

"There's something to this," says Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors, the $370 billion investment firm.

More at the link below:
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/finance/20120217/US.Wall.Street.Week.Ahead/

Can you connect the dots? The only reason the market went up was the huge money printing. It had to go somewhere. In Obama's thinking, if you have a brain tumor, you take a Tylenol. Mask the immediate symptom but don't fix the problem.

[Marshall Bennett]

Actually I pray that the 95% of blacks who voted for 0bama wake up to the fact that their unemployment rate sits at 14.4%, a full 6.2% higher than the published rate. I pray that Republicans take the Senate so they will actually start to do what we pay them to do, VOTE ON BILLS.
Considering 95% of blacks vote for Obama because he's black, little will change that. Unemployment or little else matters to them, really.

[Robert Goren]

If Romney wins and he does what he says he is going to do, then before his term is up we will have another year like 2008. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Romney and the republicans have learned nothing from the GWB years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Romney outraises Obama for the second month in a row:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/07/09/romney-outraises-obama-for-second-month/

Like the lefties said in 2008, follow the money if you want to know who might win.

[Mike at A+]

If Romney wins and he does what he says he is going to do, then before his term is up we will have another year like 2008. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Romney and the republicans have learned nothing from the GWB years.
Do we need to remind you (once again) who controlled the purse strings in Bush's last two years in office?

[Tom]

If Romney wins and he does what he says he is going to do, then before his term is up we will have another year like 2008. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Romney and the republicans have learned nothing from the GWB years.

Only is he listens to Barney Frank.

[OTM Al]

the Iowa prediction markets have Obama at 59% in the "winner take all" category.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_Quotes.html

Bar none the year in, year out best predictor in any political race they set markets for.

[lamboguy]

Romney outraises Obama for the second month in a row:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/07/09/romney-outraises-obama-for-second-month/

Like the lefties said in 2008, follow the money if you want to know who might win.
check out the greek.com. they will let you bet $50,000 on their election line. it seems that the favorite has been moving up in price. today they have the line obama -185 to win $100. the money seems to be following the incumbent according to this line.

[Robert Goren]

Do we need to remind you (once again) who controlled the purse strings in Bush's last two years in office?It was not the laws or budgets passed in last 2 years of GWB's term that caused it the melt down. Things don't happen over night. It was the banking laws passed and relaxing of banking regulations put in place during GWB's first term and in 2005 that led to the crash. That is what republicans don't get. The 2008 crash was a banking solvency problem that spread into the larger economy as all banking solvency problems eventually do. If the big banks had been solvent in 2008, the crash would have never have happened. Nothing democrats could have done in 2007 could have stopped the crash. I will give this. They did not even give it much of try until Obama came in. Even today, most the measures in place are pretty weak. Romney says he will remove even those weak measures quickly. If he does the results will be same as in 2008.

[Beachbabe]

It was not the laws or budgets passed in last 2 years of GWB's term that caused it the melt down. Things don't happen over night. It was the banking laws passed and relaxing of banking regulations put in place during GWB's first term and in 2005 that led to the crash. That is what republicans don't get. The 2008 crash was a banking solvency problem that spread into the larger economy as all banking solvency problems eventually do. If the big banks had been solvent in 2008, the crash would have never have happened. Nothing democrats could have done in 2007 could have stopped the crash. I will give this. They did not even give it much of try until Obama came in. Even today, most the measures in place are pretty weak. Romney says he will remove even those weak measures quickly. If he does the results will be same as in 2008.

It's Bush's fault !!! :lol: :bang:

I think he was responsible for Belmont closing because of the heat.

[Valuist]

[QUOTE=Robert Goren]Things don't happen over night. It was the banking laws passed and relaxing of banking regulations put in place during GWB's first term and in 2005 that led to the crash. /QUOTE]

You mean things like the Community Reinvestment Act, which happened long before GWB took office?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It was not the laws or budgets passed in last 2 years of GWB's term that caused it the melt down. Things don't happen over night. It was the banking laws passed and relaxing of banking regulations put in place during GWB's first term and in 2005 that led to the crash. That is what republicans don't get. The 2008 crash was a banking solvency problem that spread into the larger economy as all banking solvency problems eventually do. If the big banks had been solvent in 2008, the crash would have never have happened. Nothing democrats could have done in 2007 could have stopped the crash. I will give this. They did not even give it much of try until Obama came in. Even today, most the measures in place are pretty weak. Romney says he will remove even those weak measures quickly. If he does the results will be same as in 2008.

First, I thought GWB was a lousy president. But you don't think the Dems bear any responsbility for what happened at Freddie and Fannie? Sure, certain Reps protected them, but for the most part Dems protected them from reform. Anyway, the Fed's easy money policies are the true culprit behind the housing mania.

Name one measure he'll remove that matters. Please be specific.

[bigmack]

Bar none the year in, year out best predictor in any political race they set markets for.
Best get down a wager along with D. Schwartz. Easy money. Then again, I believe IEM had Carter over Reagan in July of '80. That worked out well.

[Mike at A+]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people don't possess the financial intelligence and/or the personal responsibility to be homeowners? But getting back to Romney/0bama instead of dwelling on the Bush years, don't you think it's easier to create jobs when we have a president who refrains from the trash talking and badmouthing of companies and individuals for being successful? The message 0bama conveys isn't giving anyone the warm fuzzies.

[Robert Goren]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people don't possess the financial intelligence and/or the personal responsibility to be homeowners? But getting back to Romney/0bama instead of dwelling on the Bush years, don't you think it's easier to create jobs when we have a president who refrains from the trash talking and badmouthing of companies and individuals for being successful? The message 0bama conveys isn't giving anyone the warm fuzzies. Did ever occur to you that a banker ought to be smart enough not lend money to those people or worse yet buy those loans from somebody who did? If you are dumb enough to lend money to a hobo, don't start crying when the hobo takes off for parts unknown. Don't you think think the economy would recover a lot quicker if the banks lent money to small businesses (espicially the Mom and Pop kind) instead of buying derivatives. Small businesses don't need warm and fuzzy from the president. They need the banks to start making small business loans like they did in 1990s (and before) before such things as derivatives and sub-prime mortgage backed securities became rage.

[Tom]

Did ever occur to you that a banker ought to be smart enough not lend money to those people or worse yet buy those loans from somebody who did?

That is exactly what the dems were forcing banks to do - from Kennedy through Frank. Did you not watch the famous PA video?

[Mike at A+]

That is exactly what the dems were forcing banks to do - from Kennedy through Frank. Did you not watch the famous PA video?
I also seem to recall Jesse Jackson being involved to the point where he threatened to picket in front of banks for their failure to loan money to minorities who did not qualify for mortgages under customary guidelines. That's how the Dems operate. When they can't win with facts they resort to that good old race card.

[Robert Goren]

That is exactly what the dems were forcing banks to do - from Kennedy through Frank. Did you not watch the famous PA video? From 1995 through the end of 2006 the republicans controlled the house. During that time, Barney Frank or any other democratic congressman did not have the power to force the banks to do anything. Even after they gained control in 2007, they did not have enough members to override a Bush veto.

[PaceAdvantage]

From 1995 through the end of 2006 the republicans controlled the house. During that time, Barney Frank or any other democratic congressman did not have the power to force the banks to do anything. Even after they gained control in 2007, they did not have enough members to override a Bush veto.Why even bother debating with you. You're actually going to bring Barney Frank into the discussion? How many times do I have to quote him from that September 11, 2003 New York Times article where he says there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he opposes any additional oversight that was being suggested by the Bush White House?

That's right, back in 2003 the Bush White House (as dumb as you thought they were) saw the writing on the wall, and ol' Barney Frank and his fellow Dems wanted nothing to do with it...for that bit of intellectual superiority, Frank was awarded a Chairmanship.... :lol: :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Here's how smart the Democrats were in sensing the crisis that would materialize less than five years later:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Did ever occur to you that a banker ought to be smart enough not lend money to those people or worse yet buy those loans from somebody who did? If you are dumb enough to lend money to a hobo, don't start crying when the hobo takes off for parts unknown. Don't you think think the economy would recover a lot quicker if the banks lent money to small businesses (espicially the Mom and Pop kind) instead of buying derivatives. Small businesses don't need warm and fuzzy from the president. They need the banks to start making small business loans like they did in 1990s (and before) before such things as derivatives and sub-prime mortgage backed securities became rage.

First, if you look at the Fed loan officer survey, standards have loosened and lending is underway. Second, it's a lack of loan demand for the most part, not the unwillingness to lend. But never let facts stand in the way of a good post.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why even bother debating with you. :

Facts don't matter to the good detective, just cheap partisan shots.

[ArlJim78]

First, if you look at the Fed loan officer survey, standards have loosened and lending is underway. Second, it's a lack of loan demand for the most part, not the unwillingness to lend. But never let facts stand in the way of a good post.
This is a key point that is almost never mentioned in the media or by politicians. They all make it out to be that it's the banks who won't lend.

[mostpost]

Did ever occur to you that a banker ought to be smart enough not lend money to those people or worse yet buy those loans from somebody who did?

Reply from Tom
That is exactly what the dems were forcing banks to do - from Kennedy through Frank. Did you not watch the famous PA video?

It's amazing how you cling to your little fantasies. The Community Reinvest Act had standards which the banks were supposed to adhere to. As long as they did, everything was OK. But then some bright boy got the idea that they could make more money by taking out insurance on mortgages that might fail. From there it was just a few steps to making sure that they did fail.

The main step in ensuring this was to offer mortgages to people whom you knew could not afford them. And to offer them in such a way that those people thought they could afford them. Sometimes you would even have a person sign a document that contained one set of provisions, then transfer the signature to a document containing a quite different set of provisions.

The problem was not democrats forcing banks to do anything. The problem was banks doing things that were immoral and illegal just so they could make more money.

[PaceAdvantage]

The main step in ensuring this was to offer mortgages to people whom you knew could not afford them. And to offer them in such a way that those people thought they could afford them. Sometimes you would even have a person sign a document that contained one set of provisions, then transfer the signature to a document containing a quite different set of provisions.Fantasy land.

The ol' SWITCHEROO and BAMBOOZLEMENT OF DUMBASSES theory at work there for you mostpost?

Let's never have people take responsibility for their own greed...let's blame the banks!

Where's my picture of man twirling handlebar mustache when I need it?

Oh, right, here it is:

http://www.moviespad.com/photos/dick-dastardly-dastardly-is-a-man-not-afraid-to-twirl-his-moustache-with-an-insidious-flair-it-might-be-played-out-in-2011-but-we-dont-really-care-and-neither-does-he-a77af.jpg

[mostpost]

Why even bother debating with you. You're actually going to bring Barney Frank into the discussion? How many times do I have to quote him from that September 11, 2003 New York Times article where he says there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he opposes any additional oversight that was being suggested by the Bush White House?

That's right, back in 2003 the Bush White House (as dumb as you thought they were) saw the writing on the wall, and ol' Barney Frank and his fellow Dems wanted nothing to do with it...for that bit of intellectual superiority, Frank was awarded a Chairmanship.... :lol: :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Here's how smart the Democrats were in sensing the crisis that would materialize less than five years later:

For at least the one billionth time, I will point out that what Barney Frank said is irrelevant. Republicans controlled congress. Republicans presented legislation that would have dealt with the problem. Did Democrats defeat that legislation in a vote on the floor of Congress? No. Did Democrats filibuster the bill in the Senate? No. It never even came to a vote in committee. No hearings were held on the bill. It simply died when that session on Congress came to an end.

Barney Frank was wrong in his assessment of the situation and he has admitted so. But one speech does not defeat a bill. If that were so, we would have no laws, because there is always one speech against everything. The Fannie/Freddie legislation died because Republicans wanted it dead.


I should probably safe this response somewhere, since I have no doubt that the next time this subject comes up, you will respond with the "It's all Barney Franks fault" tripe.

[PaceAdvantage]

My reply was in response to the good detective invoking the name of Barney Frank:

During that time, Barney Frank or any other democratic congressman did not have the power to force the banks to do anything. Frank's name should NEVER be invoked when discussing any matters relating to housing or the financial crisis of 2008, based on his complete and utter cluelessness displayed in full force back in 2003.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tell me mostpost, why did Barney Frank deserve to be given the Chairmanship of the Financial Services Committee based on his horrible foresight?

Was it a seniority thing like they do in unions? Is that the only reason he got the job? It couldn't have been for his economic acumen, that had already been proven by the New York Times years ago no less.

[Mike at A+]

The problem was banks doing things that were immoral and illegal just so they could make more money.
If there was anything "immoral" going on here it was the threat of using the race card against banks that wouldn't lend to unqualified minorities.

[mostpost]

Fantasy land.

The ol' SWITCHEROO and BAMBOOZLEMENT OF DUMBASSES theory at work there for you mostpost?

Let's never have people take responsibility for their own greed...let's blame the banks!

Where's my picture of man twirling handlebar mustache when I need it?

Oh, right, here it is:

http://www.moviespad.com/photos/dick-dastardly-dastardly-is-a-man-not-afraid-to-twirl-his-moustache-with-an-insidious-flair-it-might-be-played-out-in-2011-but-we-dont-really-care-and-neither-does-he-a77af.jpg

Merriam-Webster says greed is:
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

On the one hand we have a family that is looking to buy a house to live in. Just one house for their own use. Not ten houses to buy and sell. A house which they are willing to pay for with their money.

Then we have the banker*, whose picture you have posted above. He sees our family come into his bank and dollar signs lite up in his eyes. He knows about derivatives and credit default swaps and all that financial mumbo jumbo.

He also knows that our family does not qualify under CRA guidelines. But he wants that money. But he wants that money. He doesn't need the money. He just wants it. He deserves it. It's his, it just happens to be in someone else's pocket temporarily.

So he fudges some numbers, writes up a complicated contract and says, "Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your mortgage has been approved. All the details are here (Except for the balloon payment and the penalties for late payment and a lot of other stuff that will cause you to default.) Just sign here. (and get out of my office so I can count my money.

*banker refers to banks, mortgage providers, financial institutions etc.

[PaceAdvantage]

Merriam-Webster says greed is:


On the one hand we have a family that is looking to buy a house to live in. Just one house for their own use. Not ten houses to buy and sell. A house which they are willing to pay for with their money.

Then we have the banker*, whose picture you have posted above. He sees our family come into his bank and dollar signs lite up in his eyes. He knows about derivatives and credit default swaps and all that financial mumbo jumbo.

He also knows that our family does not qualify under CRA guidelines. But he wants that money. But he wants that money. He doesn't need the money. He just wants it. He deserves it. It's his, it just happens to be in someone else's pocket temporarily.

So he fudges some numbers, writes up a complicated contract and says, "Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your mortgage has been approved. All the details are here (Except for the balloon payment and the penalties for late payment and a lot of other stuff that will cause you to default.) Just sign here. (and get out of my office so I can count my money.

*banker refers to banks, mortgage providers, financial institutions etc.This, in a nutshell, is why you are the way you are. You absolve the family in this example of all responsibility for THEIR GREED, and try and redirect it completely towards the banker.

You make it sound so quaint...a simple family just trying to put a roof over their heads.

The reality is, the family is GREEDY, and they want to MAX OUT & OVER what they can afford, instead of buying a more modest home that fits their budget.

Exactly as you wrote, sums up the family perfectly:

a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as in a lavish home) than is needed

[elysiantraveller]

Merriam-Webster says greed is:


On the one hand we have a family that is looking to buy a house to live in. Just one house for their own use. Not ten houses to buy and sell. A house which they are willing to pay for with their money.

Then we have the banker*, whose picture you have posted above. He sees our family come into his bank and dollar signs lite up in his eyes. He knows about derivatives and credit default swaps and all that financial mumbo jumbo.

He also knows that our family does not qualify under CRA guidelines. But he wants that money. But he wants that money. He doesn't need the money. He just wants it. He deserves it. It's his, it just happens to be in someone else's pocket temporarily.

So he fudges some numbers, writes up a complicated contract and says, "Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your mortgage has been approved. All the details are here (Except for the balloon payment and the penalties for late payment and a lot of other stuff that will cause you to default.) Just sign here. (and get out of my office so I can count my money.

*banker refers to banks, mortgage providers, financial institutions etc.

Where does the personal accountability for the family come in? They get no share of the blame? I find it amazing with you that it must constantly be someone's fault. The banks, the republicans, the businessmen, the rich, George Bush...

Are the meek and feeble people you are defending always absolved in just a single shred of guilt?

Have you ever opened a mortgage? Or bought a car? Or opened a loan for anything... you personally have to sign your name over and over and over and over again....

Apparently in your world that commitment is meaningless.

[lamboguy]

above poster is correct. when you get rewarded for being a failure instead of being penalized, there is a problem.

we have nothing but mediocrity that goes on these days. its really no fun watching what happens in this country and the rest of the world.

[Mike at A+]

Some people are destined to be RENTERS. We can't all be home owners. Some liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

[mostpost]

Tell me mostpost, why did Barney Frank deserve to be given the Chairmanship of the Financial Services Committee based on his horrible foresight?

Was it a seniority thing like they do in unions? Is that the only reason he got the job? It couldn't have been for his economic acumen, that had already been proven by the New York Times years ago no less.

Frank was clearly qualified to be chairman. Any honest reading of his record shows that. Basing your opinion on one article in the NEW YORK TIMES is like saying Henry Aaron does not deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame because more than 8000 of his at bats resulted in outs.

Frank did oppose greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie in '03. But the Republicans did not offer any serious legislation on the subject. I have mentioned this many times. What I did not know was that Frank sponsored legislation in 2007 that would do just what the Republicans claimed to want to do in 2003. (But never did)

In 2007, Frank sponsored the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007.
This legislation was sent to committee, underwent hearings, was passed out of committee, was debated on the House floor and passed the House of Representatives. It was sent to the Senate where the Republicans filibustered and would not allow it to come to a vote.

[PaceAdvantage]

In 2007, Frank sponsored the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007.
This legislation was sent to committee, underwent hearings, was passed out of committee, was debated on the House floor and passed the House of Representatives. It was sent to the Senate where the Republicans filibustered and would not allow it to come to a vote.Define "just what the Republicans wanted to do in 2003."

Something tells me it wasn't "just like" what Bush proposed in 2003, simply because in politics, that is an impossibility.

Also, by 2007, the damage was already done, wouldn't you say? All Frank was doing at that point was window dressing, or as you might like to say, rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

[bigmack]

iW5qKYfqALE

[mostpost]

This, in a nutshell, is why you are the way you are. You absolve the family in this example of all responsibility for THEIR GREED, and try and redirect it completely towards the banker.

You make it sound so quaint...a simple family just trying to put a roof over their heads.

The reality is, the family is GREEDY, and they want to MAX OUT & OVER what they can afford, instead of buying a more modest home that fits their budget.

Exactly as you wrote, sums up the family perfectly:

I continue to be astounded by your world view. People who are barely getting by are greedy. People who already have more money than they can ever use and are using shady means to acquire more are not.

Looking down from your PA ivory tower, does not give you a true view of things. The typical family looking to buy a home is not looking to buy a mansion. They are looking for something they can afford. No one goes into the housing market saying lets see much we can con the bank. They pick the kind of house they want and feel they can afford and they go to the bank and see if they can arrange a mortgage for that amount.

I don't think the problem lies in the bank trying to convince them they can afford a bigger mortgage. It lies in the bank not telling them they can't afford the mortgage they think they can.

[PaceAdvantage]

I continue to be astounded by your world view. People who are barely getting by are greedy. People who already have more money than they can ever use and are using shady means to acquire more are not.

Looking down from your PA ivory tower, does not give you a true view of things. The typical family looking to buy a home is not looking to buy a mansion. They are looking for something they can afford. No one goes into the housing market saying lets see much we can con the bank. They pick the kind of house they want and feel they can afford and they go to the bank and see if they can arrange a mortgage for that amount.

I don't think the problem lies in the bank trying to convince them they can afford a bigger mortgage. It lies in the bank not telling them they can't afford the mortgage they think they can.And again, therein lies your problem. I never said they were buying a mansion.

What I wrote was they were looking to buy something LAVISH. And LAVISH means all sorts of things to all sorts of people. To some, LAVISH may mean owning a two story home.

Nobody said anything about them buying a mansion. But you sure make it seem as though the bankers were putting them in mansions they could not afford.

I continue to be astounded by your world view as well.

People who are BARELY GETTING BY DON'T BUY HOMES.

If you're BARELY GETTING BY, are you going to go out and BUY A HOUSE?

Give your head a shake man. You sound absolutely ridiculous.

[bigmack]

I continue to be astounded by your world view. People who are barely getting by are greedy. People who already have more money than they can ever use and are using shady means to acquire more are not.

Looking down from your PA ivory tower, does not give you a true view of things. The typical family looking to buy a home is not looking to buy a mansion. They are looking for something they can afford.
Don't let Mosty know about the boatload of people who full well knew they wouldn't qualify for mortgages under normal circumstances. Mortgage brokers who knew it was an impending shitstorm. Those who were new homeowners went and got home equity loans 6 months later and bought flat screens, an Escalade & another condo.

Nothing to do with greed. Just 'workin' the system' like so many do.

[PaceAdvantage]

iW5qKYfqALEGreat exemplary video. He learned nothing between 2003 and 2005, but according to mostpost, turned into a genius in 2007, right when it was way too late to do anything about it...

Keep blaming those bankers though...selling mansions to people "BARELY GETTING BY"

[mostpost]

Define "just what the Republicans wanted to do in 2003."

Something tells me it wasn't "just like" what Bush proposed in 2003, simply because in politics, that is an impossibility.

Also, by 2007, the damage was already done, wouldn't you say? All Frank was doing at that point was window dressing, or as you might like to say, rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

Ignoring your typical hairsplitting, Frank sponsored a law that would have improved regulation of Freddie and Fannie. Bush proposed a similar, but not identical law in 2003. The difference was that Frank followed through and got his law through the house.

You're criticizing Frank for getting a bill through the House while the crisis was ongoing and yet you're not criticizing the Republicans for not even attempting to pass a bill before the crisis began and while they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. That is so typical of pick and choose style of debating.

[PaceAdvantage]

Do we have any videos or New York Times articles with prominent Republicans claiming there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2003 and 2007? Any videos or articles claiming there is no problem in the housing market?

Anyone claiming "Move along...nothing to see here...?"

I'm curious mosty...you're pretty good at looking stuff up...maybe you can find something to match Barney Frank's magic show.

[elysiantraveller]

Looking down from your PA ivory tower, does not give you a true view of things. The typical family looking to buy a home is not looking to buy a mansion. They are looking for something they can afford. No one goes into the housing market saying lets see much we can con the bank. They pick the kind of house they want and feel they can afford and they go to the bank and see if they can arrange a mortgage for that amount.

Yes because our current fiscal situation is because people all went out and bought stuff they could afford.... :bang:

You didn't answer mine or PA's question. Is your family not at all to blame for buying beyond their means? They did sign their name a couple of dozen times right?....

[NJ Stinks]

Yes because our current fiscal situation is because people all went out and bought stuff they could afford.... :bang:

You didn't answer mine or PA's question. Is your family not at all to blame for buying beyond their means? They did sign their name a couple of dozen times right?....

OK, Ely. Who do you think is the real problem when it comes to drugs? The user or the guy who made it possible?

[elysiantraveller]

OK, Ely. Who do you think is the real problem when it comes to drugs? The user or the guy who made it possible?

The user.

Do people with drinking problems blame bars...?

Seriously what planet are you on?...

I didn't even say it was entirely their fault just that they definitely should shoulder some blame... though I know that can't possibly fit into people like you or mosty's narrative.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who do you think is the real problem when it comes to drugs? The user or the guy who made it possible?And mostpost continues to be astounded by MY world view... :lol:

Look in the mirror MP and NJ...heal thyself...come into the light...

[NJ Stinks]

The user.

Do people with drinking problems blame bars...?

Seriously what planet are you on?...

I didn't even say it was entirely their fault just that they definitely should shoulder some blame... though I know that can't possibly fit into people like you or mosty's narrative.

Law enforcement goes after the supplier of drugs.

Obviously, people were wrong to accept mortgages they could not afford. But on the planet I live on no financial institution would offer a mortgage to someone with no shot at paying it off.

[Robert Goren]

Why even bother debating with you. You're actually going to bring Barney Frank into the discussion? How many times do I have to quote him from that September 11, 2003 New York Times article where he says there is nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he opposes any additional oversight that was being suggested by the Bush White House?

That's right, back in 2003 the Bush White House (as dumb as you thought they were) saw the writing on the wall, and ol' Barney Frank and his fellow Dems wanted nothing to do with it...for that bit of intellectual superiority, Frank was awarded a Chairmanship.... :lol: :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Here's how smart the Democrats were in sensing the crisis that would materialize less than five years later: Republicans Jim Leach(1995-2000) and Mike Oxley(2001-2006) chaired the house banking committee from 1995 to 2006.. It was Leach who helped pass (and yes, signed by Clinton) the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in 1999 which allowed banks to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services which led to to sub-prime mortgage mess. By the time Barney Frank took over as chairman of the house banking committee in 2007, the mortgages that were rolled into mortgage back securities which along with CDS caused the 2008 crash had already been made. In 2003, the republicans controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. They could have passed any legislation they wanted to and Barney Frank could not have stopped them.
As for Barney Frank, former Bush White House advisor Lawrence Lindsay wrote in Wall Street Journal in an April 2, 2008 op-ed piece (before the 2008 crash) that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters." That does not exactly make him the champion of sub prime mortgages that you paint him to be. It was Bush and the republicans who were pushing expanded home ownership in the the early and middle 2000s, not Barney Frank. Of course now that it has blown up in thier faces, they have changed their tunes. Barney Frank can be blamed for a lot things, but the sub prime mortgage mess is not one of them. The causes of it were in place long before he came to power as house banking chairman in 2007. There was nothing Frank could have done in 2007 because Bush would have vetoed it and even if Bush wouldn't have, it was already 2 or 3 years too late to head off the on coming crash.

[mostpost]

Yes because our current fiscal situation is because people all went out and bought stuff they could afford.... :bang:

You didn't answer mine or PA's question. Is your family not at all to blame for buying beyond their means? They did sign their name a couple of dozen times right?....

I thought I did. The family is not to blame because they acted in good faith.
The bank knew there was a problem, but ignored it because doing so benefited them financially.

Understand I am not talking about every bank or every family. But I think the majority of the time a family bought a home and could not pay for it because of hidden changes and costs, it was due to the bank.

[mostpost]

OK, Ely. Who do you think is the real problem when it comes to drugs? The user or the guy who made it possible?

Understand NJ, ET would blame you if you were mugged on your way home from the local OTB.

[mostpost]

The user.

Do people with drinking problems blame bars...?

Seriously what planet are you on?...

I didn't even say it was entirely their fault just that they definitely should shoulder some blame... though I know that can't possibly fit into people like you or mosty's narrative.

Bars are blamed if a person with a drinking problem gets in trouble with the law after drinking in their establishment. I think they are called Dram shop laws.

[mostpost]

The user.

Do people with drinking problems blame bars...?

Seriously what planet are you on?...

I didn't even say it was entirely their fault just that they definitely should shoulder some blame... though I know that can't possibly fit into people like you or mosty's narrative.

And I am not saying it is every bank. Just the ones who knowingly gave out mortgages to people they knew could not pay, then bought insurance on those mortgages and sold derivatives they knew were worthless.

Not every mortgage failed because someone bought a home that was out of their price range. Many people bought homes based on their income, and lost them when they lost their job.

[PaceAdvantage]

That does not exactly make him the champion of sub prime mortgages that you paint him to be. It was Bush and the republicans who were pushing expanded home ownership in the the early and middle 2000s, not Barney Frank. Of course now that it has blown up in thier faces, they have changed their tunes. Barney Frank can be blamed for a lot things, but the sub prime mortgage mess is not one of them. The causes of it were in place long before he came to power as house banking chairman in 2007. There was nothing Frank could have done in 2007 because Bush would have vetoed it and even if Bush wouldn't have, it was already 2 or 3 years too late to head off the on coming crash.I didn't paint him to be anything. He painted himself, with his own words, both in the 2003 New York Times article and that video of him on the House floor in 2005.

Of course there was nothing he could have done in 2007 (and yet, mostpost wrote a reply saying he DID do something in 2007...which is it?), the dye had already been cast after years and years of pandering to poor folk, making sure there were "homes for everyone!"

Yeah! Good move.

[bigmack]

But I think the majority of the time a family bought a home and could not pay for it because of hidden changes and costs, it was due to the bank.
Either you're far more stupid than you've ever let on or you're flat out lying.

[PaceAdvantage]

But I think the majority of the time a family bought a home and could not pay for it because of hidden changes and costs, it was due to the bank.What is this "hidden changes and costs" you constantly refer to?

There are no HIDDEN CHANGES AND COSTS.

Because if there were, it would trigger MASSIVE class action LAWSUITS.

There is nothing HIDDEN. It's ALL THERE. In black and white...in the mountain of paper one must sign when one purchases a home. Tons and tons of places you have to SIGN and/or INITIAL.

If you're too lazy to read and understand what you're signing, that's YOUR problem. It doesn't mean something was HIDDEN or CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Unreal.

[Robert Goren]

What is this "hidden changes and costs" you constantly refer to?

There are no HIDDEN CHANGES AND COSTS.

Because if there were, it would trigger MASSIVE class action LAWSUITS.

There is nothing HIDDEN. It's ALL THERE. In black and white...in the mountain of paper one must sign when one purchases a home. Tons and tons of places you have to SIGN and/or INITIAL.

If you're too lazy to read and understand what you're signing, that's YOUR problem. It doesn't mean something was HIDDEN or CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Unreal.Good lawyers are pretty good at coming good with legal ease that even half the lawyers don't understand. There are court cases all the time over what some contract said or didn't say.
You should not have to have graduated summa cum laude from Yale in order to understand a loan contract. State and federal government banking agencies have been wrestling this problem years. The Banks and their high priced lawyers have managed to stay one step ahead of the agencies. Just call your local state banking agency and have a talk to them about. Even in pro business Nebraska, the state legislature will hold hearings over this problem every 5 years or so. They have been doing it for decades. "Plain English" contracts have been the goal for many years now, but so far it has been an elusive goal.

[Robert Goren]

I will say this. I think very seldom does a mortgage go under water because of " hidden fees" as unpleasant as they might be to the home buyer.

I also refuse to believe that in the cases of a lot of the loans (#) that went under that the lenders did not know the buyer didn't have chance at making the payments. In this day of credit agencies that know where your last penny came from and how you spent it, they had to know. They just didn't care because they knew they were going to sell the loan and somebody else was going to be on the hook. They just collected their fees, sold the loan and moved on to the next loan. It was a great racket, as they say, as long as it lasted.
After the turn of century, the market for fixed income securities exploded and the mortgage back security came into its own. Certain banks bought up mortgages and and rolled them into those securities. They became very adept at structuring them so the rating agencies would rate them AAA. The thing that always has always amazed me was that the banks that were dong this were also buying the same type of securities that other banks had put together. Even the banks that were making the bad loans were buying them. What were they thinking?

[Mike at A+]

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? I know that saying those two words to a liberal is like showing a crucifix to a vampire but come on now. Anyone leaving a bank not knowing what their payments will be and any possible penalties should not be buying a house.

[sammy the sage]

"MR. DAVID STOCKMAN HAS SAID THAT SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS WAS MERELY A COVER FOR THE TRICKLE-DOWN APPROACH TO ECONOMIC POLICY—WHAT AN OLDER AND LESS ELEGANT GENERATION CALLED THE HORSE-AND-SPARROW THEORY: IF YOU FEED THE HORSE ENOUGH OATS, SOME WILL PASS THROUGH TO THE ROAD FOR THE SPARROWS."

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

yeah...hate the all caps...but thought the quote worthy...too lazy to re-type...50% of you think this sorta thinking is all good anyways.. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Was it a seniority thing like they do in unions?

Ooooo. Nice touch! :ThmbUp:
A Beer on me Toga Day.

[Greyfox]

If you're too lazy to read and understand what you're signing, that's YOUR problem. It doesn't mean something was HIDDEN or CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Unreal.

Just an aside here, because I don't want to sidetrack the thread.
1. But do you really believe that people read their mortgages before initialling and signing all of the parts that they ink in?

2. A large segment of the population is not bright enough to understand the contract they are signing even if they could read it.

3. Most mortgages were affordable until people lost their jobs.

[elysiantraveller]

What is this "hidden changes and costs" you constantly refer to?

There are no HIDDEN CHANGES AND COSTS.

Because if there were, it would trigger MASSIVE class action LAWSUITS.

There is nothing HIDDEN. It's ALL THERE. In black and white...in the mountain of paper one must sign when one purchases a home. Tons and tons of places you have to SIGN and/or INITIAL.

If you're too lazy to read and understand what you're signing, that's YOUR problem. It doesn't mean something was HIDDEN or CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Unreal.

And then in some states even after you sign that mountain of paperwork legally binding you to the loan you still have three more days to change your mind and walk away....

This is his worst argument in awhile...

[highnote]

1. But do you really believe that people read their mortgages before initialling and signing all of the parts that they ink in?


Before I signed my mortgage my attorney and I sat down together and read every line of every document.

[bigmack]

Notice how after several people have mentioned Mostie is out of his gourd on his lame-ass argument, he just avoids the thread and moves on to another?

It's what we call the Mostie Shuffle.

[Tom]

:D He is machine-gun posting in the ACA thread as we speak!

[Robert Goren]

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? I know that saying those two words to a liberal is like showing a crucifix to a vampire but come on now. Anyone leaving a bank not knowing what their payments will be and any possible penalties should not be buying a house. Then nobody but top real estate attorneys would buy houses. Nobody else has clue what is in the loan documents. Even the guys signing for the banks don't know what they are signing. Neither does your run of the mill general attorney that you get to draw up your will.

[elysiantraveller]

Then nobody but top real estate attorneys would buy houses. Nobody else has clue what is in the loan documents. Even the guys signing for the banks don't know what they are signing. Neither does your run of the mill general attorney that you get to draw up your will.

Horse shit...

In the past 10 years I've sold cars, insurance, and bank contracts. I'm basically the walking trifecta of people you don't like and I can tell you point blank you don't know what the hell you are talking about....

[highnote]

:D He is machine-gun posting in the ACA thread as we speak!


He's going to need a Browning M2 or better to catch up with you, then. ;)

[wisconsin]

Then nobody but top real estate attorneys would buy houses. Nobody else has clue what is in the loan documents. Even the guys signing for the banks don't know what they are signing. Neither does your run of the mill general attorney that you get to draw up your will.


Whoa there mister. When you purchase a house or a car, they go over a truth in lending section in some form or another.

This is a simple page where it shows:

A)APR
B)finance charge
C)amount financed
D)sum of all payments.

This is then followed, usually right below, with:

E)number of payments
F)amount of payment.

There is NO mystery here. People know what they are signing for.

[elysiantraveller]

Whoa there mister. When you purchase a house or a car, they go over a truth in lending section in some form or another.

This is a simple page where it shows:

A)APR
B)finance charge
C)amount financed
D)sum of all payments.

This is then followed, usually right below, with:

E)number of payments
F)amount of payment.

There is NO mystery here. People know what they are signing for.

It's basically offensive to the millions of people that work in these industries.

They hear from their brother's, ex girlfriend's, mother's, cousin who knew a guy... Or they just watched Dateline... and now they "know."

[Robert Goren]

Horse shit...

In the past 10 years I've sold cars, insurance, and bank contracts. I'm basically the walking trifecta of people you don't like and I can tell you point blank you don't know what the hell you are talking about.... When I signed up for my health insurance when a new company took over, I asked what was covered and what wasn't. I was told somethings were covered, but when I used them, the company refused to pay. As I later found out a health insurance company does not have to pay even if it is stated directly in the policy that it is covered in Nebraska. If youn look long and hard enough you can find that on the internet. A couple of people who didn't believe me found it when they were trying to prove me wrong. Their postings are in one of the threads when Obama care was before congress. I knew it already because I lived through it. Obama Care changes that. It is you who doesn't know what you are talking about when it comes to legal documents. Like anybody here is going to believe car salesman anyway. Come clean, how many lemons did you pass off?

[bigmack]

It is you who doesn't know what you are talking about when it comes to legal documents. Like anybody here is going to believe car salesman anyway. Come clean, how many lemons did you pass off?
What a stone-cold moron you are.

Current percentage of PA members who think you're certifiable by your posts: 97.2% :jump:

[elysiantraveller]

When I signed up for my health insurance when a new company took over, I asked what was covered and what wasn't. I was told somethings were covered, but when I used them, the company refused to pay. As I later found out a health insurance company does not have to pay even if it is stated directly in the policy that it is covered in Nebraska. If youn look long and hard enough you can find that on the internet. A couple of people who didn't believe me found it when they were trying to prove me wrong. Their postings are in one of the threads when Obama care was before congress. I knew it already because I lived through it. Obama Care changes that. It is you who doesn't know what you are talking about when it comes to legal documents. Like anybody here is going to believe car salesman anyway. Come clean, how many lemons did you pass off?

Just so I'm clear you are now shifting gears from lending, an argument you've lost, to insurance, the one you are going to lose, right?

[mostpost]

Notice how after several people have mentioned Mostie is out of his gourd on his lame-ass argument, he just avoids the thread and moves on to another?

It's what we call the Mostie Shuffle.
Notice how bigmack
once again does not know what he is talking about. It was barely fourteen hours since I last posted in this thread to the time he made his inane comment. I do have a life outside this forum. I do sleep. You guys do post so much garbage that it is hard to keep up.

[mostpost]

He's going to need a Browning M2 or better to catch up with you, then. ;)
Tom leads in quantity. I lead in quality. ;)

[Robert Goren]

Just so I'm clear you are now shifting gears from lending, an argument you've lost, to insurance, the one you are going to lose, right? It is the legal ease draw up by the same high powered lawyers.
You do not want start with me on Health insurance. I have dealt with insurance companies, I talked with lawyers about health insurance and even talk to the state insurance agency. Unless you have been put on hold and then hung up on by an insurance company while hooked up to dialysis machine, you have no clue how they treat their customers. Until you have your boss tell you that they are threatening to drop his group plan unless he fires you, you have no clue. Been stuck with a bill for a month in the hospital (and all the doctor bills go with it) that was suppose to be covered, you have no clue. As usual you rambling on citing some conservative jargon that has no relationship to the real world. I guess I can excuse your ignorance because you haven't live through hell with an insurance company like I have. If you had, you would not saying the things you are.

[bigmack]

Notice how bigmack
once again does not know what he is talking about. It was barely fourteen hours since I last posted in this thread to the time he made his inane comment. I do have a life outside this forum. I do sleep. You guys do post so much garbage that it is hard to keep up.
One of two choices. 1. Back-up, with facts, these scores of people that were duped by banks' small print. 2. Admit you were talking out of your ass.

[wisconsin]

Like anybody here is going to believe car salesman anyway. Come clean, how many lemons did you pass off?


Get real. This is an insult to me as well, as this is my profession.

Off-handed comments such as this are so common. A true lemon is so rare in the car business today. Get a grip.

[acorn54]

at the end of the day it is the lenders who chose the risk to lend money to obtain a profit. if they profit from the loan, then they must assume the loss if the money is not paid back.

[mostpost]

Get real. This is an insult to me as well, as this is my profession.

Off-handed comments such as this are so common. A true lemon is so rare in the car business today. Get a grip.
If you recall, I told you at Arlington that my late brother-in-law was also a car salesman. We talked and I like your philosophy of salemanship. I would buy a car from you if I were in the market for a car and if your dealership was in Chicago's western suburbs and if you sold Toyotas. Sadly, none of those is the case.

Robert Goren made some good points which he diminished by that comment.

[mostpost]

Blaming people who have lost their homes for the housing crisis is not only wrong, it is despicable. The FBI publishes an annual report on Mortgage fraud.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mortgage-fraud-2010/2010-mortgage-fraud-report#Financial

The report states clearly that mortgage fraud is not committed by people seeking mortgages. It is committed by:
licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives.

The schemes for mortgage fraud are far too complex and require resources not available to your typical mortgage applicant.

Here are some examples of types of mortgage fraud.
Loan Origination Schemes
Mortgage loan origination fraud is divided into two categories: fraud for property/housing and fraud for profit. Fraud for property/housing entails misrepresentations by the applicant for the purpose of purchasing a property for a primary residence. This scheme usually involves a single loan. Although applicants may embellish income and conceal debt, their intent is to repay the loan. Fraud for profit, however, often involves multiple loans and elaborate schemes perpetrated to gain illicit proceeds from property sales. Gross misrepresentations concerning appraisals and loan documents are common in fraud for profit schemes, and participants are frequently paid for their participation.

Loan origination fraud schemes remain a constant fraud scheme. These schemes involve falsifying a borrower’s financial information––such as income, assets, liabilities, employment, rent, and occupancy status––to qualify the buyer, who otherwise would be ineligible, for a mortgage loan. This is done by supplying fictitious bank statements, W-2 forms, and tax return documents to the borrower’s favor. Perpetrators may also employ the use of stolen identities. Specific schemes used to falsify information include asset rental, backwards application, and credit enhancement

Loan origination schemes sometimes have the knowledge and participation of the borrower, but they are often carried out without his approval or knowledge.
Why? So that the perpetrator can provide a mortgage that would not pass regulatory muster. Then he can sell that mortgage, bundle it with others and collect insurance when it fails.

Backwards Application Scheme

In a backwards application scheme, the mortgage fraud perpetrator fabricates the unqualified borrower’s income and assets to meet the loan’s minimum application requirements. Incomes are inflated or falsified, assets are created, credit reports are altered, and previous residences are altered to qualify the borrower for the loan.

Fraudulently Inflated Appraisals

Mortgage fraud perpetrators fraudulently inflate property appraisals during the mortgage loan origination process to generate false equity that they will later abscond. Perpetrators will either falsify the appraisal document or employ a rogue appraiser as a conspirator in the scheme who will create and attest to the inflated value of the property. Fraudulent appraisals often include overstated comparable properties to increase the value of the subject property.


Short Sale Schemes

A real estate short sale is a type of pre-foreclosure sale in which the lender agrees to sell a property for less than the mortgage owed. Short sale fraud consists of false statements made to loan servicers or lenders that take the form of buyer or seller affirmations of no hidden relationships or agreements in place to resell the property, typically for a period of 90 days. One of the most common forms of a short sale scheme occurs when the subject is alleged to be purchasing foreclosed properties via short sale, but not submitting the “best offer” to the lender and subsequently selling the property in a dual closing the same day or within a short time frame for a significant profit. Reverse staging and comparable shopping techniques are currently being used by fraud perpetrators in the commission of short sale frauds. The fraud primarily occurs in areas of the country that are experiencing high rates of foreclosure or homeowner distress.

There are a lot more. You can read about them at the link.
In 2010 $10B worth of mortgages originated through false data on applications. Fig. 1 at the link. That means that "licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives," in concert with or independent of mortgage applicants presented false or misleading information designed to obtain a mortgage approval. Armed with that approval these same people used financial chicanery to make money on worthless mortgages.

[Tom]

Earth to mostie.....earth to mostie.

[bigmack]

Earth to mostie.....earth to mostie.
They don't teach 'em at the postal union how to man-up and admit when they're talking out of their asses.

[elysiantraveller]

It is the legal ease draw up by the same high powered lawyers.
You do not want start with me on Health insurance. I have dealt with insurance companies, I talked with lawyers about health insurance and even talk to the state insurance agency. Unless you have been put on hold and then hung up on by an insurance company while hooked up to dialysis machine, you have no clue how they treat their customers. Until you have your boss tell you that they are threatening to drop his group plan unless he fires you, you have no clue. Been stuck with a bill for a month in the hospital (and all the doctor bills go with it) that was suppose to be covered, you have no clue. As usual you rambling on citing some conservative jargon that has no relationship to the real world. I guess I can excuse your ignorance because you haven't live through hell with an insurance company like I have. If you had, you would not saying the things you are.

Okay, so we are now dropping lending...?

Who was the provider that dropped you?

[elysiantraveller]

You can read about them at the link.
In 2010 $10B worth of mortgages originated through false data on applications. Fig. 1 at the link. That means that "licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives," in concert with or independent of mortgage applicants presented false or misleading information designed to obtain a mortgage approval. Armed with that approval these same people used financial chicanery to make money on worthless mortgages.

:lol: :lol:

Thats it?...

In 2010 total dollars in originations was:

$1.572 Trillion!

But thanks for the useless fact that 00.6% of Mortgages were fudged...... :bang: :bang:

See how dangerous Dateline can be? How is the narrative now?

[Robert Goren]

Okay, so we are now dropping lending...?

Who was the provider that dropped you?Coventry was the insurance company. They did not drop me. They just refused to pay the bills related to hospital stay and the premium was still taken from my check. The city of Lincoln with whom my employer had the contract to provide parking management services stood up for me and they did not fire. The insurance company did not drop my employer in the end. They would pay for small bills until I went disability after a year. I was left holding the bag for over 200k in medical bills from the hospital stay. I had to cash out my 401 k to pay them, even then not all them got paid. I did the best I could. This has been gone over several times before here and I am not going to go over all the gory medical details again at this time. When the company's contract was up in two years later and was renewed by the city, its local employees went on the city's insurance.
You run your mouth a lot about things you have no experience with. This is an internet forum and you are allowed to do it. But you come off as a fool to people who have had to actually had deal with things you write about in the real world. You are just plain sad. All I can say to you is that is easy to spout the conservative mantra on health care (and other things) when you have never had to fight with an insurance company(or anybody else) over a large amount of money. Now that we have Obama care(which you probably oppose), you won't ever have to deal with I dealt with. You don't know lucky you are. I wouldn't anybody to be put through the hell they put me through.

[bigmack]

I wouldn't anybody to be put through the hell they put me through.
Why are you chewing his head off? You're the one coming in here saying no one knows what's on their mortgage agreements or in their insurance policies.

Look. You had an unfortunate experience with an insurance carrier as a result of a major illness. End of story. Why are you going off on some cockamamie jag about small print in documents?

[barn32]

Considering 95% of blacks vote for Obama because he's black, little will change that. Unemployment or little else matters to them, really.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4820/sracist.gif

[Robert Goren]

Why are you chewing his head off? You're the one coming in here saying no one knows what's on their mortgage agreements or in their insurance policies.

Look. You had an unfortunate experience with an insurance carrier as a result of a major illness. End of story. Why are you going off on some cockamamie jag about small print in documents? I get it. Conservatives don't think they will ever get screwed by a bank or an insurance company, so they have no understanding for those who are. I used to be a conservative when I was young and naive. I know all your arguments backwards and forwards. Then the real world came crashing down on me and I got an education from the school of hard knocks.
These companies are in business of making money. If you get between them and them making money, you lose despite all their fancy promises when they sign you up. In the conservative dream world, Companies keep their promises and when they don't , it is the customer's fault because they didn't read and understand the fine print. That is until until it happens to you and you find out otherwise. That is why so many conservatives become cynics in their old age like me.

[elysiantraveller]

You run your mouth a lot about things you have no experience with. This is an internet forum and you are allowed to do it. But you come off as a fool to people who have had to actually had deal with things you write about in the real world. You are just plain sad. All I can say to you is that is easy to spout the conservative mantra on health care (and other things) when you have never had to fight with an insurance company(or anybody else) over a large amount of money. Now that we have Obama care(which you probably oppose), you won't ever have to deal with I dealt with. You don't know lucky you are. I wouldn't anybody to be put through the hell they put me through.

Not to be rude but GFY...

You are the one that started the whole mantra of people, like me or wisconsin, always being out to rip people off. As far as not knowing what i'm talking about, Newsflash jackass I DO this stuff everyday and resulting to ridicule and namecalling is a pretty easy example of you haven't got shit. We all get you got screwed over by a provider... none of us know the whole story and certainly none of us with get the objective version of it from you so we don't talk about it.

I find it funny though that your dumbass is quick to hop on the Democratic band wagon that is going to make the insurance company who ruined your life 10's of millions more in money... but hey... I actually know what the **** I'm talking about.... because again I do this shit everyday.

Maybe you are a person who through no fault of their own got dealt a shit hand and if thats the case I really do feel bad for you... it happens. But your story is far and away the exception and gives you no right to imply anyone in any profession is out to rob you...

[barn32]

Not to be rude but GFY...

You are the one that started the whole mantra of people, like me or wisconsin, always being out to rip people off. As far as not knowing what i'm talking about, Newsflash jackass I DO this stuff everyday and resulting to ridicule and namecalling is a pretty easy example of you haven't got shit. We all get you got screwed over by a provider... none of us know the whole story and certainly none of us with get the objective version of it from you so we don't talk about it.

I find it funny though that your dumbass is quick to hop on the Democratic band wagon that is going to make the insurance company who ruined your life 10's of millions more in money... but hey... I actually know what the **** I'm talking about.... because again I do this shit everyday.

Maybe you are a person who through no fault of their own got dealt a shit hand and if thats the case I really do feel bad for you... it happens. But your story is far and away the exception and gives you no right to imply anyone in any profession is out to rob you...

Pot, kettle black.

[Dahoss9698]

They don't teach 'em at the postal union how to man-up and admit when they're talking out of their asses.

Oh, the irony here.


You run your mouth a lot about things you have no experience with. This is an internet forum and you are allowed to do it. But you come off as a fool to people who have had to actually had deal with things you write about in the real world. You are just plain sad.

Well, congrats. It wasn't easy, but you topped Bigbigot's post. No one and I mean NO ONE runs their mouth more than you about stuff you are totally clueless about.

[lamboguy]

i think the gold market is pointing towards a Romney victory these days. if by chance the gold price is over $2000 per ounce, that will bring an easy victory for Romney. it looks to me like gold is just about ready to make a move out of this consolidation that its been in the last year. $2000 gold should bring a Romney victory, $2500 a landslide. silver to $38 this year is very possible as well.

since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, and i don't think anything is going to change, Romney will take advantage of letting the gold price move up instead of the manipulations that this head of the federal reserve is doing to it now keeping the price down. there is nothing to be scared about high priced gold. in my mind its the greatest thing for this country now. all this works providing there is all this gold in the United States treasury that they claim there is. Ron Paul has his doubts and wants a complete inventory of all the gold that is being held by the treasury in place like the Republic National Bank, West Point, and Fort Knox.

[Valuist]

i think the gold market is pointing towards a Romney victory these days. if by chance the gold price is over $2000 per ounce, that will bring an easy victory for Romney. it looks to me like gold is just about ready to make a move out of this consolidation that its been in the last year. $2000 gold should bring a Romney victory, $2500 a landslide. silver to $38 this year is very possible as well.

since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, and i don't think anything is going to change, Romney will take advantage of letting the gold price move up instead of the manipulations that this head of the federal reserve is doing to it now keeping the price down. there is nothing to be scared about high priced gold. in my mind its the greatest thing for this country now. all this works providing there is all this gold in the United States treasury that they claim there is. Ron Paul has his doubts and wants a complete inventory of all the gold that is being held by the treasury in place like the Republic National Bank, West Point, and Fort Knox.

I would think an Obama victory would be better for gold. I am however, assuming that if Romney wins, he would get rid of Bernanke. Bernanke isn't going to stop printing money. He and other central bankers are going to try and print their way out, which won't work.

[lamboguy]

in my opinion, i think that if Romney becomes president, you will go to bed one night with gold at $2000 or any number and wake up and see it at $5000 in the morning. he supposedly has enough guts to pull a move like that one. what Bernanke is doing to gold and this country is nothing short of criminal. he is allowing the chineese to illegally send beard out in the open market and buy gold cheap. the fact that gold is only $1600 now is a complete joke to start out with, it should be at least $3000.

[Steve R]

And again, therein lies your problem. I never said they were buying a mansion.

What I wrote was they were looking to buy something LAVISH. And LAVISH means all sorts of things to all sorts of people. To some, LAVISH may mean owning a two story home.

Nobody said anything about them buying a mansion. But you sure make it seem as though the bankers were putting them in mansions they could not afford.

I continue to be astounded by your world view as well.

People who are BARELY GETTING BY DON'T BUY HOMES.

If you're BARELY GETTING BY, are you going to go out and BUY A HOUSE?

Give your head a shake man. You sound absolutely ridiculous.
Even those "barely getting by" live somewhere. If they don't own, they rent. If they pay $500 in rent and that's all they can afford, why would a bank grant a mortgage for more? If they were truly qualified up to $500/mo then that should be the limit of their mortgage. It's certainly a better option than pouring that $500/mo down the toilet by renting. The blame gets spread around. The renter/buyer believing the banker who tells them they can afford it (implicit in granting the loan) and the banker for believing the buyer will be able to afford it because the housing market can never go down. Mutual greed has been the modus operandi for decades now and its consequences are coming to fruition.

[Greyfox]

Before I signed my mortgage my attorney and I sat down together and read every line of every document.

Most attorney's will go through the mortgage document with their client explaining what each section means and what is being initialed and signed.
Most attorney's do not go through every line of every document.
Many purchasers consider this part of the mortgage process as "legalese yada yada yada" and do not listen attentively.

[Saratoga_Mike]

in my opinion, i think that if Romney becomes president, you will go to bed one night with gold at $2000 or any number and wake up and see it at $5000 in the morning. he supposedly has enough guts to pull a move like that one. what Bernanke is doing to gold and this country is nothing short of criminal. he is allowing the chineese to illegally send beard out in the open market and buy gold cheap. the fact that gold is only $1600 now is a complete joke to start out with, it should be at least $3000.

Given Romney has professed to be a hard money guy (e.g., no interest in re-appointing BB), this post really doesn't make sense to me.

[lamboguy]

Given Romney has professed to be a hard money guy (e.g., no interest in re-appointing BB), this post really doesn't make sense to me.lots of times political leaders have to act based on reality not what they claim they want to do. time will prove what he will do should he get in. even if he doesn't win, i would expect gold to move vs. paper assets. the same people have been calling gold a bubble over the last 10 year's, probably will call it in a bigger bubble for the next 10.

[PaceAdvantage]

in my opinion, i think that if Romney becomes president, you will go to bed one night with gold at $2000 or any number and wake up and see it at $5000 in the morning.I love this guy lambo...I really do...$2K one morning, $5k the next. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What it would take to produce such a move is something you and I would dare NEVER think about...and the election of Romney isn't one of them.

[lamboguy]

i have been calling the gold market correctly for the last decade. if i remember correctly you had your doubts about my calls since it cost $600 to buy an ounce of the stuff.

your expertise seems to lie in calling court cases involving trainer R. Dutrow. if i were you i would try to find a way to make money on those great calls.

[PaceAdvantage]

i have been calling the gold market correctly for the last decade. if i remember correctly you had your doubts about my calls since it cost $600 to buy an ounce of the stuff.

your expertise seems to lie in calling court cases involving trainer R. Dutrow. if i were you i would try to find a way to make money on those great calls.Whatever man. Even a nuke over a major city wouldn't send the gold market from $2k to $5k overnight...much less a Romney victory.

And no, it hasn't been since $600...so once again, you are a bit in err. And how have your calls been lately?

"Tall tale lambo" is your new nickname.

[lamboguy]

my last move was going long @$1620, so i guess it doesn't look to good so far, and could get worse if it goes to test out the bottom of the range.

thanks for your interest

[highnote]

Most attorney's will go through the mortgage document with their client explaining what each section means and what is being initialed and signed.
Most attorney's do not go through every line of every document.
Many purchasers consider this part of the mortgage process as "legalese yada yada yada" and do not listen attentively.


I am going to be at the attorney's office tomorrow for refinancing my mortgage. I think rates are going lower, but I'm going to lock in now in case I'm wrong.

I will make sure the attorney goes over every line of every document -- otherwise, someone is not getting paid tomorrow -- and it won't be me.

[Greyfox]

I will make sure the attorney goes over every line of every document -- otherwise, someone is not getting paid tomorrow -- and it won't be me.

Good on you. You might get home by Monday. :lol:

[highnote]

Just got home from the attorney's office. We did NOT close on the refinance!

Last week I told our loan officer that the interest rates had dropped since we signed our letter of intent and that we should get the lower rate. He said he'd look into it.

Today, we arrived at the attorney's office and I asked if the mortgage docs had the new, lower interest rate. We looked and they still had the older, higher rate.

So I called the loan office and he gave us the runaround. We talked to the underwriter and she said the loan officer had to put in a request. The loan officer said the underwriter had to initiate it.

So we refused to sign. The difference is only 0.125%, but a lower rate means more money in our pocket each month. Our bank is sitting on billions in cash and is trying hard to make loans but they claim there just aren't enough good customers to loan to.

Long story short, we stuck to our guns and now they are drawing up new documents. It's funny that once we threatened to walk they jumped through hoops to close today.

The longer version is that the loan gets sold on the secondary market. So now that our bank went public a couple years ago they have to make the numbers every quarter so management puts pressure on their loan officers to make loans. Then the loans are packaged and sold on the secondary market. Our bank doesn't own or service the loans. So every percentage point they make is extra money in their pocket.

We may as well have the money in our pocket. Unfortunately, my wife and I are not sitting on billions in cash like our bank. :(

Our bank is also more stringent now about reversing fees for overdrafts. I've had an account there for 30 years. In the past, when I paid a bill from a wrong account or forgot to transfer funds from a savings account to a checking account to cover the funds they would remove the overdraft fee on request. Now that they are a publicly traded company they have stopped doing those small personalized things that are customer friendly. Now they are like a big bank. So I may close the account and move my money to a big bank.