Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
WTF is going on (and other general WTFs)?
message 201:
by
Lobstergirl, el principe
(new)
Nov 18, 2010 04:59PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
So are you saying that no one is responsible?If you take out a loan you are responsible to pay it back.
If you were deceived in any manner then that is a different discussion. Type of deception, depth of deception etc.
. The mortgage companies [had a specific business model of pressuring borrowers] to take out dangerous option-ARMs instead of [more conservative loans]. They specifically trained their employees how to confront the consumer who said, "I want to take out a 30 year fixed loan."so then, who is to blame when a consumer takes the ARM? How much PERSONAL responsibilty is on the consumer to UNDERSTAND what the hell they are getting into and the consequences of what they are signing up for?
excellent discussion, everyone.
Predatory lending is also a factor here.But that part that's being ignored is that the rating agengies, such as Moody, pushed the bundled mortgage-backed securities as being AAA (the best of the best in terms of investment, which turned out to be an outright lie) with impunity. That's where the whole system went awry.
Sub-prime loans should have never been allowed to be seen as a low-risk, high-reward type of investment. These lenders fed the growth in consumerism with "cash out" refinancing (most of which were not for buying new homes) -- and no one cared what those who were running it all were doing until it all came crashing down.
These people want you to be outraged by little borrowers who shouldn't have borrowed -- but they were not the heart of the problem.
There's a special place in hell for predatory lenders.
Predatory lending is also a factor here. A huge factor. and as much as I enjoy "personal responsibility"... well, I bought my first home at age 19... and I could have been royally screwed. I had a small idea at the time what all those papers I signed really meant. I recall looking at the "truth in lending" page thinking, hmmm. with 30 years of interest my house will cost me THAT much?!?!
And I also recall within a few months, my mortgage was sold to another company and I was very confused. What? Why? I never signed up to do business with them!?!?
Regluations. Good.
Larry wrote: "There's a special place in hell for predatory lenders. "Agreed!
Good, we agree because I wasn't saying it caused the crisis either. My statements were all about the responsibility of the loans. Didn't mean to imply differently.As far as blame for the crisis we can all probably look in the mirror and share some of the blame.
At least I hope they go "what were we thinking?".
I think the answer has to do with Bush-era deregulation of the financial industry,I think you hit the nail on the head.
Jim wrote: "As far as blame for the crisis we can all probably look in the mirror and share some of the blame."Disagree.
I did not, nor did anyone in my family, take out high-risk loans, refinance to get cash out, or invest (knowingly) in that type of derivative bullshit.
Mod
Same here, LG. I live pretty darn responsibly most of the time. It's possible I voted for people who voted for deregulation, that, I don't know.
Lobstergirl wrote: "I also decline to take any responsibility for the collapse. I did not take out a high risk loan, refinance to get cash out, or invest in credit default swaps. I very intentionally bought less hom..."Were you proactive in writing or calling the bank when the ridiculous loans came out. Did you try to do anything about all the credit card applications/offers that came to your house? There are all kinds of things that could have been done.
Mod
1) No
2) I shredded them.
3) Unfortunately, to zero effect. Money was flowing in vast rivers toward the bundled-loan securities. Nothing could have stopped it, except what did stop it. Disaster.
Bethany McLean said that the point at which something could have been done to prevent disaster was pre-2005. After that, the momentum was too great.
Phil wrote: "Jim wrote: "As far as blame for the crisis we can all probably look in the mirror and share some of the blame."Disagree.
I did not, nor did anyone in my family, take out high-risk loans, refinance to get cash out, or invest (knowingly) in that type of derivative bullshit."
"Knowingly" being the key word. I don't have credit cards, my modest mortgage is a fixed-rate and has never been refinanced, BUT I did have IRAs and mutual funds with large investment companies, and I wasn't always sure what they were using my money to buy.
No, won't get ugly on my part. I have a small mortgage, and haven't had a balance on a credit card in probably two decades.The difference of opinion that we will have, and agree to disagree on is that I feel by not acting to stop something we are agreeing with it, and we let it escalate through non action. So I feel that I can look in the mirror and accept some responsibility for the mess we are in. If you feel differently, I can accept that.
I get you, Jim. I've done the same.Anyone want to talk about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Or has that already been done? If not, I have a question or two, and something to say.
DADT is an abomination. Perhaps it was the most the President could get at the time, but settling for that meant selling out on principle. It should be gone as soon as is humanly possible.
Same here (about DADT). Have fun, Mish.
Phil wrote: "DADT is an abomination. Perhaps it was the most the President could get at the time, but settling for that meant selling out on principle. It should be gone as soon as is humanly possible."Ditto!
We have talked about DADT, and I think we are almost all in agreement that it's just plain wrong.
How about talking about the "Arizona Death Panels". I know Olbermann is controversial but I'm just heart broken that this is happening in America.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/v...
I want to jump back into the real estate/foreclosure conversation a bit. Listen. I'm proud that I've made what I consider good financial choices, for the most part, and didn't buy more house than we needed/wanted (and remember, from what I understand, the average house size has more than tripled over the last thirty years...we're living in more space for no good reason of which I can identify. Still, other factors are at play here. First off, yes, I know people with many financial advantages who, frankly, were just irresponsible financial dumbasses. One of my best friends bought WAY too big of a house, takes his family out to eat seven days a week, etc., then complains about how he has no money. And once he starts to get out of the hole he goes and buys, I don't know, a leather couch or something. Stupid. But not everyone who lost a house is like that. I have to acknowledge that when I got married we got some money from the wedding that helped with the down payment of our house. Not everyone has that advantage. Also, I went to decent schools, had a college education, made a little more money, etc. So for someone who came up through a shitty neighborhood, bad schools, and no financial help at all, maybe some of those high-risk mortgages seemed like a pretty good risk at the time for a shot at a house. I know you have to play the scenario you've given, and I like to think all of us would have made wise financial choices all the time, but I want to acknowledge the playing field is not always level.DADT is one of the weirdest, most confusing guidelines I've ever encountered.
I think a lot of good stuff has already been said in this thread, but I just want to echo what RA said that not everyone who lost a house bought too much house because they were being greedy. Just to piggyback on what RA said, I know a lot of families who were doing fine with their mortgages until they lost their jobs in the current financial crisis. And a lot of families who lost their jobs or homes because services for people with developmental disabilities were slashed, and they suddenly found themselves without funding to care for their children with special needs.
Also, since this is Baltimore, I have to say: Let's say you're a single working mother living in a neighborhood where your windows regularly got shot out, where drug dealers were propositioning your kids to become lookouts. Let's say you can't get enough cash together to pay for a security deposit, first month's rent AND last month's rent to move into a new rental apartment in a better neighborhood. And then you get a flier in the mail saying you can buy a house in a better neighborhood without putting together all that cash. Would you do it? I would have.
I think sometimes we like to look for a reason to blame people for their misfortunes because it makes us feel safer. If they did something wrong, then clearly it won't happen to me, because I can just avoid doing whatever it was they did and I will be safe.Yes, I agree with this.
Things often follow the old attribution pattern, whereby the misfortunes of others are obviously due to their character flaws -- while our own bad events are due to things beyond our control. On the flip side, other people's successes are attributed primarily to good luck. Our own are the result of hard work and persistence.
Agreed. I can't see this economic crisis as being the fault of the defaulting homebuyers. Who lost out plenty. They lost the money they did put down, and the mortgage payments they did make, while the banks got the houses back. No, I see this as a failure on a much larger scale, because of not enough regulation in the banking system, and those credit default swaps that keep getting explained, and yet make no logical sense.
It was very high stakes gambling, as I see it. One thing that is often overlooked is that most of the money (billions) from TARP used to keep the larger banks afloat has been repaid to the government.
On the other hand, very few individual homeowners have received any benefit whatsoever from bailouts.
I have a friend who, several years ago, took out a home equity loan that put her back to zero in paying off her house. She used the money for a vacation to Hawaii and put the rest toward a down payment on a new car. Now she owes more on her house than it's worth, and she's feeling that it's someone else's fault.
Mod
For a lot of people who are underwater with their mortgages, it is someone else's fault. The collapse of the housing market, the plummeting of house values, was caused by Wall Street greed. In some situations this blame can be shared side by side with buyer stupidity. But not in all situations.
Scout, in purely capitalist economic terms your friend’s behavior was highly commendable. The bank could securitize her loan and sell it off. Her spending in Hawaii boosted the retail and tourist economy there, and her car purchase helped the struggling auto industry and saved a couple of auto worker jobs. If unscrupulous appraisers over-valued her house initially or external economic factors caused the value of her house to decline, then the fault indeed lay someplace other than with her.On one hand you believe well-intentioned voters are regularly betrayed by those who represent them, and on the other hand lay the blame for society’s ills at the feet of an apparently large group of character-flawed voters. I’m genuinely curious why you almost seem to go out of your way to avoid available analysis that identifies the systemic failures or the genuine bad actors in the body politic. Because I can’t really get a bead on the underlying philosophy or set of facts upon which you base your evaluations and judgments.
way back when the economy started to crash and wall street was collapsing, my 1st thought was: let it! maybe then we would see meaningful reform. But I grew up with my parents telling me how terrible the depression was. how hungry they were. my dad rode the rails. it is why he did not finish high school. my grandmother could not afford to feed him. He started high school in Sept.1929. His grammar school principal had told him if my dad finished high school he would put him through Keene Normal (now Keene/UNH). But there was no food to eat. my mom took work where she could find it (she was 15). Did not want to see that again.
Lg, Ken - I'll think about what you've said and be back later.
BunWat wrote: "Not to mention that there were people who ended up upside down on their mortgages - ie owing more than the house is worth, not because of anything they did, but because the property values in that ..."Bun your getting the facts a bit twisted here. Banks are not calling in loans that are under water. The problem comes up when the people must sell (due to a death/divorce/relocation) or when they simply want to refinance.
A lot of people are choosing to stop paying on loans for which the principal is much greater than the market value of the property -- just moving out and sending the keys to the mortgage holders. They are basically waving the white flag before the foreclosure process even starts.
Pentagon report says that gays don't make a difference in the military.http://jezebel.com/5702544/pentagon-c...
Except for the Marines. They're more macho, and so they have more resistance - 40% are against repealing DADT. They had similar issues with admitting women, and worrying about it disrupting operations.I think they're worrying too much. They're Marines, they should be able to handle anything, right? :)
Myles wrote: "But what if some dude starts checking them out in the shower?"I see a whole new interpretation of the Marine motto, “First in, last out.”
I've not had any experience in the military, so I'm probably missing the point when it comes to DADT. What is the terrible result if gays have the choice of revealing their sexual preference? As long as they're subject to the same rules as heterosexuals (no hanky-panky, sexual harassment, or pdas -- I'm assuming there are such rules), then what's the problem? There's no law against looking - even Jimmy Carter admitted to doing it.
Because gays are too sexed up and can't control themselves!McCain is now arguing with the Pentagon. He's such an asswipe.
Woops! Put on the shoe too fast.
Scout I'm working on a response for you...since you brought up "rules" (which coincidentally, are part of the problem), I thought I should reference and quote from the UCMJ . I was a marine wife for almost 8 yrs...and the DADT policy pisses me off so much it makes it hard for me to articulate a coherant response sometimes, but I will try. Stay tuned, this could take a while...
Alecia, I have no experience with DADT. I've said that I don't see a problem with people coming out in the military, as long as they follow the rules that apply to heterosexuals. But I don't know what those rules are. You obviously have something to say about that. You'll get no flak from me, whatever you have to say, so go for it whenever you're ready.
I think they should make interest payments on credit cards or other puchases tax deductible to stimulate spending again.
I finally managed to track down the info I was looking for to form a response for Scout, or anyone who’s interested really. Scout wrote: ”As long as they're subject to the same rules as heterosexuals (no hanky-panky, sexual harassment, or pdas -- I'm assuming there are such rules), then what's the problem?”The problem is the rules. Right now DADT actually protects gay and lesbian military members. The laws are going to have to be changed before or along with the repeal or repealing it will only cause more problems.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/puniti...
UCMJ Sect. 925 Article 125: Sodomy
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.
Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
Explanation.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that persons mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
Other laws that also can/do pertain to this are:
Sect. 920 Article 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct
Sect. 933 Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
Sect. 880 Article 80. Attempts
All that makes for some very dry reading and it’s scary how much of it is open to interpretation.
Okay, now that I’m done with the legal jargon I want to respond to a few other comments.
Jackie wrote: "Except for the Marines. They're more macho, and so they have more resistance - 40% are against repealing DADT. They had similar issues with admitting women, and worrying about it disrupting operations.
I think they're worrying too much. They're Marines, they should be able to handle anything, right?"
While there are some really fantastic open minded people in the Marine Corps, in my experience, the majority are not. You are correct about the Marines being "more macho", I would've said arrogant, but then again I am not known to be PC very often. Marines are a breed apart from any other branch of the military, they are trained to be the best of the best, and to do more with less. And while this is a good thing when it comes to combat, it doesn't really translate well into everyday life. Marines have a tendancy to display their prejudices just as proudly as their rank.
Here's the thing though, in a combat situation is someones sexuality even a factor? Gay people can shoot just as well as straight people. Isn't it more important to know whether your fellow marine/sailor/soldier/airman has your back in a fire fight as opposed to whether or not he thinks your ass looks good in cammies...I mean come on! I don't know anyone who would be thinking "damn, I'd like to get me some of that", while bullets are flying...you?
Ummm...okay, I'm done with my little rant now. I'm going to respond to one more comment and then I'll shut up...for now :)
Bun Wat wrote:"The point of DADT is to accomodate bigotry. Homosexual service members are required to conceal their sexual orientation in order not to make any bigots or ignoramuses who might be serving with them feel uncomfortable."
Once agian Bun proves she's a genius in under 40 words!
Last week, John McCain said,"We send these young people into combat. We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."
Really? So if I don't want to serve with someone of Japanese descent, or perhaps next to a brown-skinned Marine, I don't have to? I get to choose?
Fuck you, John McCain. Say what you mean ("I don't like them homos and they freak me out"), then step down and let people get some work done.
Mod
That was Secretary Gates who said that. McCain says the views of subordinates should be taken into account. Gates responds that he's studied a lot of history, and not once in American history have we done a referendum in the armed forces on a policy issue. Do they want to be a part of the surge? Do they want 15 month tours of duty? That's not how our military works - the enlisted folks don't get to make the decisions.
Here's video - first Admiral Mullen speaks, then McCain, then Gates. The whole thing is just a couple minutes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Terminalcoffee
Books mentioned in this topic
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (other topics)Room (other topics)
Mockingjay (other topics)
Catching Fire (other topics)
El cuaderno de Maya (other topics)
More...
