This administration is about to push a 2008 style crash ALL OVER AGAIN!!! - GoFuckYourself.com

sperbonzo · 08-25-2011, 12:44 PM

What caused the Housing Bubble? 1.) The Fed kept interest rates way too low/printed money. 2.) Washington, DC encouraged home-buying by implicitly promising to bail out Fannie and Freddie (which they did) and by letting Fannie and Freddie buy up huge amounts of mortgages.

The exact same mistakes are being made again to re-inflate it:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44269404"

"President Obama's administration is weighing proposals to strengthen the housing market.

One proposal would allow millions of homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance them at today?s lower interest rates, about 4 percent, according to two people briefed on the administration?s discussions who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to talk about the information.

A wave of refinancing could be a strong stimulus to the economy, because it would lower consumers? mortgage bills right away and allow them to spend elsewhere. But such a sweeping change could face opposition from the regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and from investors in government-backed mortgage bonds.

Administration officials said on Wednesday that they were weighing a range of proposals, including changes to its previous refinancing programs to increase the number of homeowners taking part. They are also working on a home rental program that would try to shore up housing prices by preventing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding the market. "

ARE THEY FRICKEN SERIOUS!!!!!

.

.

Harmon · 08-25-2011, 12:46 PM

Listen jewbro... the board is getting tired of your political bullshit posts. Please stop. This isn't Facebook. Thanks.

Signed,

All of the GFY community

JamesGw · 08-25-2011, 12:46 PM

lol

That's all I have to say to that.

Ridiculous.

Relentless · 08-25-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

ARE THEY FRICKEN SERIOUS!!!!!

It is interesting that on a message board named Go Fuck Yourself you choose to avoid using the 'F' word by going with a facsimile of the actual word in bold large text.

sperbonzo · 08-25-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Listen jewbro... the board is getting tired of your political bullshit posts. Please stop. This isn't Facebook. Thanks.

Signed,

All of the GFY community

You're right. I'm sorry. I realize that I'm the only person here that makes political posts, and I know that there certainly not any other people here that may make 3 or 4 a day, every day, for weeks..... I am the true transgressor, and I am deeply ashamed. I will try not to do it again.

Please forgive me.

.

sperbonzo · 08-25-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

It is interesting that on a message board named Go Fuck Yourself you choose to avoid using the 'F' word by going with a facsimile of the actual word in bold large text.

I type like I'm speaking at that moment. When I'm posting and I'm drunk, I say fucking. When I'm not, I say frickin'.

What can I tell ya. I'm weird.

.

Sly · 08-25-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I type like I'm speaking at that moment. When I'm posting and I'm drunk, I say fucking. When I'm not, I say frickin'.

What can I tell ya. I'm weird.

.

Sounds like you need a drink!

sperbonzo · 08-25-2011, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Sounds like you need a drink!

Well sure, but when is that NOT the case?

.

.

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 01:07 PM

i read the article,

i don't see how allowing homeowners access to the same low interest rates big business gets, while saving $85 billion a year in interest payments for those homeowners is a bad thing.

could someone explain how that's wrong?

XSV · 08-25-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

What caused the Housing Bubble? 1.) The Fed kept interest rates way too low/printed money. 2.) Washington, DC encouraged home-buying by implicitly promising to bail out Fannie and Freddie (which they did) and by letting Fannie and Freddie buy up huge amounts of mortgages.

The exact same mistakes are being made again to re-inflate it:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44269404"

"President Obama's administration is weighing proposals to strengthen the housing market.

One proposal would allow millions of homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance them at today?s lower interest rates, about 4 percent, according to two people briefed on the administration?s discussions who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to talk about the information.

A wave of refinancing could be a strong stimulus to the economy, because it would lower consumers? mortgage bills right away and allow them to spend elsewhere. But such a sweeping change could face opposition from the regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and from investors in government-backed mortgage bonds.

Administration officials said on Wednesday that they were weighing a range of proposals, including changes to its previous refinancing programs to increase the number of homeowners taking part. They are also working on a home rental program that would try to shore up housing prices by preventing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding the market. "

ARE THEY FRICKEN SERIOUS!!!!!

.

.

The Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act of 1999 that repealed the Glass?Steagall Act of 1933 is what allowed it to be set in motion.

BlackCrayon · 08-25-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i read the article,

i don't see how allowing homeowners access to the same low interest rates big business gets, while saving $85 billion a year in interest payments for those homeowners is a bad thing.

could someone explain how that's wrong?

yeah, its not the same as the subprime mortgages that many dumb people got into.

sperbonzo · 08-25-2011, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i read the article,

i don't see how allowing homeowners access to the same low interest rates big business gets, while saving $85 billion a year in interest payments for those homeowners is a bad thing.

could someone explain how that's wrong?

that's exactly what everybody was saying in 2002, when they were "making it easier for people to buy homes", and "Fannie May and Freddie Mac are perfectly solid", and "low interest rates help the little guy afford a home", etc, etc, etc....

"sigh".... Never Mind.

I think it's time for that drink now.... a little early in the day maybe, but.... I'm just going to walk away.

.

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

yeah, its not the same as the subprime mortgages that many dumb people got into.

it also sure seems better than the alternative plan- the u.s. government loans investment firms (big business) more low interest cash to buy blocks of foreclosed homes and then renting them out.

this plan is debt free also. not sure if the loans to big biz program is.

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

that's exactly what everybody was saying in 2002, when they were "making it easier for people to buy homes", and "Fannie May and Freddie Mac are perfectly solid", and "low interest rates help the little guy afford a home", etc, etc, etc....

"sigh".... Never Mind.

I think it's time for that drink now.... a little early in the day maybe, but.... I'm just going to walk away.

.

no, it doesn't seem to be like that at all, it's a refinance.
there are no lower standards/fraud, etc. that was part & partial of that trend.

from the article

Quote:

A mass refinancing plan would spread the benefits of the Federal Reserve’s most important economic policy response, low interest rates, to more people. As of July, an estimated $2.4 trillion in mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie carried interest rates of 4.5 percent or higher.]

marketsmart · 08-25-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

that's exactly what everybody was saying in 2002, when they were "making it easier for people to buy homes", and "Fannie May and Freddie Mac are perfectly solid", and "low interest rates help the little guy afford a home", etc, etc, etc....

"sigh".... Never Mind.

I think it's time for that drink now.... a little early in the day maybe, but.... I'm just going to walk away.

.

this is a refi, its not new loan program..

you do know that as soon as the banks can get through all their foreclosure mess, we are going to have another flood of foreclosures on the market right?

if all the foreclosures hit in a tight time period, you will see housing prices fall even more and in a lot of cases, people that have continued to barely pay their mortgages and want to keep their homes, but have lost up to 50% of their home value, will finally decide to throw in the towel and get foreclosed..

the govt is trying to do its best to avoid another huge dip in the housing market which frankly i think is unavoidable...

.

wehateporn · 08-25-2011, 01:25 PM

Keep up the posts Sperbonzo, if people tell you to stop it's a sign you need to be posting twice as many

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Keep up the posts Sperbonzo, if people tell you to stop it's a sign you need to be posting twice as many

keep posting!

woj · 08-25-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i read the article,

i don't see how allowing homeowners access to the same low interest rates big business gets, while saving $85 billion a year in interest payments for those homeowners is a bad thing.

could someone explain how that's wrong?

What's wrong is that there is no "saving $85 billion a year"...
sure, the homeowners will save 85B/year...
but for that to happen some other party has to get fucked out of 85B/year...

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

What's wrong is that there is no "saving $85 billion a year"...
sure, the homeowners will save 85B/year...
but for that to happen some other party has to get fucked out of 85B/year...

i have zero problems with big business banks *getting fucked* interest rates on home loans in a time when they get ~0.0% short term fed rates.

homegrownmof · 08-25-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

What's wrong is that there is no "saving $85 billion a year"...
sure, the homeowners will save 85B/year...
but for that to happen some other party has to get fucked out of 85B/year...

didnt the big banks get "un-fucked" in the QE2 stimulus? Plus they dumped all their shit pools of loans on Fannie and Freddie.

then they get to fund at roughly zero % which they can park at the Fed for positive spread or loan out. This allows their equity to improve and pay out bonuses again.

So they get re-inflated but the "common man" doesnt- he cant get a decent refi and gets double whammied by low yields on hi savings.

I think the gov't should "force" the banks to free up the 100s of billions they have sitting around doing nothing by allowing easier access to 3.5-4% refis to qualified borrowers.

puts $$$ back into consumption (bulk of the economy), lowers household debt over time and makes people less apt to bail on their current mortgage

PornMD · 08-25-2011, 02:28 PM

As others have said, this is for refinances. You bet your ass on new purchases that they will continue to be clamped down. I'd be surprised if they'd give anyone a loan without 10+% down payment right now. As it is they even have limits on who they are willing to help on underwater mortgages - 125% LTV, which given a lot of people's homes went down a lot more than 25%, cuts a lot of people out.

Low interest rates weren't the culprit. Stated income loans, certain ARMs and other shit they tried to specifically lure in people who couldn't afford a home with were the real culprits. It didn't help on the refi side that lenders were doing underhanded shit to get boosted appraisals done.

woj · 08-25-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homegrownmof

didnt the big banks get "un-fucked" in the QE2 stimulus? Plus they dumped all their shit pools of loans on Fannie and Freddie.

then they get to fund at roughly zero % which they can park at the Fed for positive spread or loan out. This allows their equity to improve and pay out bonuses again.

So they get re-inflated but the "common man" doesnt- he cant get a decent refi and gets double whammied by low yields on hi savings.

I think the gov't should "force" the banks to free up the 100s of billions they have sitting around doing nothing by allowing easier access to 3.5-4% refis to qualified borrowers.

puts $$$ back into consumption (bulk of the economy), lowers household debt over time and makes people less apt to bail on their current mortgage

I'm not familiar with specifics of what pools got unloaded to whom, etc, but in finance there is no us vs them... we are all in the same boat, everything is interconnected in ways you can't even imagine,
the 85B/year loss would trickle down "common man" anyway... we would all end up indirectly subsidizing those that can't afford a mortgage now...

BFT3K · 08-25-2011, 02:34 PM

One day I may post something political on this board too.... one day.

Porn and Politics - the perfect combo!

homegrownmof · 08-25-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I'm not familiar with specifics of what pools got unloaded to whom, etc, but in finance there is no us vs them... we are all in the same boat, everything is interconnected in ways you can't even imagine,
the 85B/year loss would trickle down "common man" anyway... we would all end up indirectly subsidizing those that can't afford a mortgage now...

i agree about it all being interconnected and economists will argue infinitely over the details

BUT at this point i see plenty of us vs them. They- the big money center banks- got access to virtually free capital (Fed "printing" money) and levered it to blow up commodities and gold. On top of that they froze lending

we cant lever like that, we dont have access to cheap refis, and we get hit with rising commodity costs.

The Fed indirectly chose the winner- big banks- thinking there would be a regular flow of capital to engines of growth- small biz.

And i never said go back to subprime standards- i can pay my 30yr fixed 5 3/4 loan like always, have plenty of equity. i just want to pay 3.5-4 %

give me the "bonus" not some high level Wall St exec or hedge fun guy.

I'm selfish like that

DaddyHalbucks · 08-25-2011, 03:05 PM

Woohoo!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM

Socks · 08-25-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

that's exactly what everybody was saying in 2002, when they were "making it easier for people to buy homes", and "Fannie May and Freddie Mac are perfectly solid", and "low interest rates help the little guy afford a home", etc, etc, etc....

"sigh".... Never Mind.

I think it's time for that drink now.... a little early in the day maybe, but.... I'm just going to walk away.

.

Sperger, let me ask you a question.

If you had a mortgage, which you may have, would you complain or refuse the lower interest rate if offered? Would you protest the macro effect of lower interest rates if it benefited you? Or are you only mad when someone else gets a break and you aren't affected by it?

Not trolling, just asking. My mom's mortgage was recently bought by a bank (not a problem mortgage or anything) and I guess they had to refinance them by law, so she surprisingly pretty much halfed her monthly payment. Can't say I ever thought to blame my government about that windfall.

Barry-xlovecam · 08-25-2011, 04:13 PM

So, what would you propose to dispose of all of the properties that banks have repossessed without further deflating housing values further?

I really don't care personally as my property is paid for free and clear.

However, I would like a market where I could sell this property (purchased in 1994) with it's value at least about 50% more than I paid to cover inflation.

The interest and taxes I paid would be a complete loss ...

And this is how government steals your money without raising taxes ...

Staged recessions and inflation ...

woj · 08-25-2011, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Sperger, let me ask you a question.

If you had a mortgage, which you may have, would you complain or refuse the lower interest rate if offered? Would you protest the macro effect of lower interest rates if it benefited you? Or are you only mad when someone else gets a break and you aren't affected by it?

Not trolling, just asking. My mom's mortgage was recently bought by a bank (not a problem mortgage or anything) and I guess they had to refinance them by law, so she surprisingly pretty much halfed her monthly payment. Can't say I ever thought to blame my government about that windfall.

Of course you are affected by it, where do you think the $$ comes from?

Sounds like your mom made out great on that deal, but that saving had to come from somewhere... for example, for all you know her retirement fund invested heavily in mortgages, and so when she retires in 10 years, she will have $100k less accumulated there... or perhaps, your city or state invested in mortgage securities, guess what, they lost $$$, so to make up that loss, your taxes will get raised next year... etc...

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... if you are getting some deal, someone else is getting fucked on the other end... and with time it will trickle down back to you anyway...

DudeRick · 08-25-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Listen jewbro... the board is getting tired of your political bullshit posts. Please stop. This isn't Facebook. Thanks.

Signed,

All of the GFY community

I have never seen you call out BTF3K on his never ending stream of liberal bullshit posts!

directfiesta · 08-25-2011, 04:28 PM

They need to do that for refinance .

I sold in 2003 a condo ( high US $ value , High market value ) .
The buyer qualified for the under prime shit , but was short of 25 K .

I gave him a 2nd mortgage of 25K at 7.5 % .

He eventually defaulted in 2008 with the bank . He also did not pay me at the time.

Story short, I bought back the place, paying the first mortgage 35% of remaining value, cash . Made a very nice deal there ....

Bought another one this winter ... cash .

dyna mo · 08-25-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Of course you are affected by it, where do you think the $$ comes from?

Sounds like your mom made out great on that deal, but that saving had to come from somewhere... for example, for all you know her retirement fund invested heavily in mortgages, and so when she retires in 10 years, she will have $100k less accumulated there... or perhaps, your city or state invested in mortgage securities, guess what, they lost $$$, so to make up that loss, your taxes will get raised next year... etc...

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... if you are getting some deal, someone else is getting fucked on the other end... and with time it will trickle down back to you anyway...

do you really think it's a zero sum game?

and trickeldown works?

woj · 08-25-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

do you really think it's a zero sum game?

and trickeldown works?

yes, I would even say that with each new law / regulation / etc... the sum gets smaller, as new inefficiencies get introduced...

lets take Socks mom's for example: "I guess they had to refinance them by law"

So because of that new law, lets say his mom gained $500/month, investor lost $500/month, net sum = 0

BUT, to make the refinance process happen, probably 10 different people had to be involved in it... no productive work was accomplished, these people just wasted their time... it was just as productive as digging ditches, and then next day filling them back up...

woj · 08-25-2011, 05:04 PM

plus there are other subtle effects of this law...
obviously if there is more regulation, then working with mortgages becomes less desirable, bringing the prices down...
when the prices are down, then banks are LESS likely to lend...

so not only nothing was accomplished, the new law is actually causing banks to lend LESS...

Sly · 08-25-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Of course you are affected by it, where do you think the $$ comes from?

Sounds like your mom made out great on that deal, but that saving had to come from somewhere... for example, for all you know her retirement fund invested heavily in mortgages, and so when she retires in 10 years, she will have $100k less accumulated there... or perhaps, your city or state invested in mortgage securities, guess what, they lost $$$, so to make up that loss, your taxes will get raised next year... etc...

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... if you are getting some deal, someone else is getting fucked on the other end... and with time it will trickle down back to you anyway...

So then based on this, the US government should not attempt to cut expenses at all? Somebody, somewhere is getting cut.

garce · 08-25-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

...according to two people briefed on the administration?s discussions who asked not to be identified...

Translation: I'm just making this shit up.

porno jew · 08-25-2011, 05:44 PM

you are ridiculous and don't understand what you read.

porno jew · 08-25-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

yes, I would even say that with each new law / regulation / etc... the sum gets smaller, as new inefficiencies get introduced...

lets take Socks mom's for example: "I guess they had to refinance them by law"

So because of that new law, lets say his mom gained $500/month, investor lost $500/month, net sum = 0

BUT, to make the refinance process happen, probably 10 different people had to be involved in it... no productive work was accomplished, these people just wasted their time... it was just as productive as digging ditches, and then next day filling them back up...

the people that destroyed the global economy for the rest of this generations lives never dug ditches as well. your comparison sucks.

woj · 08-25-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

So then based on this, the US government should not attempt to cut expenses at all? Somebody, somewhere is getting cut.

Someone would indeed be getting cut, but government should cut expenses for a different reason. It's no secret that governments are inefficient. In private sector you get ahead by working hard, by being efficient, by making your company as profitable as possible. Same drive for efficiency doesn't exist in the government. In the government those with the most friends get ahead and so the game is played not by spending $$ / time efficiently, but by spending it in a way so that you make the most friends.
And so by cutting expenses you would at least partially squeeze this inefficiency out.

Socks · 08-25-2011, 07:46 PM

Well I'm in Canada, so it's unrelated to whatever law is being talked about here, and I don't know if it's a "new" law here, I'm just figuring that the bank wouldn't have let her refinance for a better rate if they didn't absolutely have to, so there must be a law. What else would they let someone pay less.

The bank decided to buy her mortgage/debt as part of some package surely, so they didn't buy it thinking they'll lose money on it. Whoever they bought it from might be taking a haircut, but perhaps they had to in order to cover other losses or meet a debt obligation. Either way both sides came to a deal.

BFT3K · 08-25-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeRick

I have never seen you call out BTF3K on his never ending stream of liberal bullshit posts!

Yeah, you tell him!

Damned liberal hippies!

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1035365

nation-x · 08-26-2011, 04:48 AM

sperbonzo... you are clueless... first of all the housing crisis didn't cause the financial meltdown... fraud, risky financial products and speculation did...

conservatives are actually morons who can't fathom that their own bullshit caused this economy...

nation-x · 08-26-2011, 05:06 AM

I just thought I should follow up with this plain truth... the same shit that caused the S&L Crisis caused the financial crisis... do some reading...

BlackCrayon · 08-26-2011, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

So then based on this, the US government should not attempt to cut expenses at all? Somebody, somewhere is getting cut.

no doubt, and every drug bust is taking millions out of the economy.

but as for socks mom's example, wouldn't she spend that extra 500 somewhere and all the other socks mom's out there doing the same would put the money back, just somewhere else.

ajrocks · 08-26-2011, 06:08 AM

Hey what the hell. They have loads of exp. now.

iamtam · 08-26-2011, 06:10 AM

sallyrand, is that you posting?

12clicks · 08-26-2011, 07:07 AM

good post Michael.

what you other clowns failed to read and understand is the "government taking over fannie and freddy" part.

lets all jump up and down and praise the government for lowing mortgages for people with bad credit while saddling us with untold billions in fannie and freddy losses.

typical troll feeding time.

Barefootsies · 08-26-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Listen jewbro... the board is getting tired of your political bullshit posts. Please stop. This isn't Facebook. Thanks.

Signed,

All of the GFY community

12clicks · 08-29-2011, 06:58 AM

new way of spotting the industry trash easily is by watching the posters who attack sperbonzo

HOT/ICE · 09-01-2011, 01:07 PM

man so much drama

JFK · 09-01-2011, 01:07 PM

fitty...........Stylish Crashes

08-25-2011, 12:44 PM	#1
sperbonzo I'd rather be on my boat. Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 9,743	This administration is about to push a 2008 style crash ALL OVER AGAIN!!! What caused the Housing Bubble? 1.) The Fed kept interest rates way too low/printed money. 2.) Washington, DC encouraged home-buying by implicitly promising to bail out Fannie and Freddie (which they did) and by letting Fannie and Freddie buy up huge amounts of mortgages. The exact same mistakes are being made again to re-inflate it: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44269404" "President Obama's administration is weighing proposals to strengthen the housing market. One proposal would allow millions of homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance them at today?s lower interest rates, about 4 percent, according to two people briefed on the administration?s discussions who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to talk about the information. A wave of refinancing could be a strong stimulus to the economy, because it would lower consumers? mortgage bills right away and allow them to spend elsewhere. But such a sweeping change could face opposition from the regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and from investors in government-backed mortgage bonds. Administration officials said on Wednesday that they were weighing a range of proposals, including changes to its previous refinancing programs to increase the number of homeowners taking part. They are also working on a home rental program that would try to shore up housing prices by preventing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding the market. " ARE THEY FRICKEN SERIOUS!!!!! . . __________________ Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing [email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/ ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

08-25-2011, 12:46 PM	#2
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,000	Listen jewbro... the board is getting tired of your political bullshit posts. Please stop. This isn't Facebook. Thanks. Signed, All of the GFY community __________________ [email protected]

08-25-2011, 12:46 PM	#3
JamesGw Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,237	lol That's all I have to say to that. Ridiculous. __________________ Giggles.com has a huge selection of sex toys. Need backlinks? Ask to guest post on our adult blog.

08-25-2011, 01:25 PM	#16
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Keep up the posts Sperbonzo, if people tell you to stop it's a sign you need to be posting twice as many __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

08-25-2011, 02:28 PM	#21
PornMD Mainstream Businessman Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 9,291	As others have said, this is for refinances. You bet your ass on new purchases that they will continue to be clamped down. I'd be surprised if they'd give anyone a loan without 10+% down payment right now. As it is they even have limits on who they are willing to help on underwater mortgages - 125% LTV, which given a lot of people's homes went down a lot more than 25%, cuts a lot of people out. Low interest rates weren't the culprit. Stated income loans, certain ARMs and other shit they tried to specifically lure in people who couldn't afford a home with were the real culprits. It didn't help on the refi side that lenders were doing underhanded shit to get boosted appraisals done. __________________ Want to crush it in mainstream with Facebook ads? Hit me up.

08-25-2011, 01:07 PM	#9
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,914	i read the article, i don't see how allowing homeowners access to the same low interest rates big business gets, while saving $85 billion a year in interest payments for those homeowners is a bad thing. could someone explain how that's wrong?

08-25-2011, 02:34 PM	#23
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	One day I may post something political on this board too.... one day. Porn and Politics - the perfect combo!

08-25-2011, 03:05 PM	#25
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Woohoo! https://youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM __________________ Boner Money

08-25-2011, 04:13 PM	#27
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	*So, what would you propose to dispose of all of the properties that banks have repossessed without further deflating housing values further?* I really don't care personally as my property is paid for free and clear. However, I would like a market where I could sell this property (purchased in 1994) with it's value at least about 50% more than I paid to cover inflation. The interest and taxes I paid would be a complete loss ... And this is how government steals your money without raising taxes ... Staged recessions and inflation ...

08-25-2011, 04:28 PM	#30
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Punta Cana, DR Posts: 29,585	They need to do that for refinance . I sold in 2003 a condo ( high US $ value , High market value ) . The buyer qualified for the under prime shit , but was short of 25 K . I gave him a 2nd mortgage of 25K at 7.5 % . He eventually defaulted in 2008 with the bank . He also did not pay me at the time. Story short, I bought back the place, paying the first mortgage 35% of remaining value, cash . Made a very nice deal there .... Bought another one this winter ... cash . __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

08-25-2011, 05:04 PM	#33
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	plus there are other subtle effects of this law... obviously if there is more regulation, then working with mortgages becomes less desirable, bringing the prices down... when the prices are down, then banks are LESS likely to lend... so not only nothing was accomplished, the new law is actually causing banks to lend LESS... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

08-25-2011, 05:44 PM	#36
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	you are ridiculous and don't understand what you read.

08-25-2011, 07:46 PM	#39
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,478	Well I'm in Canada, so it's unrelated to whatever law is being talked about here, and I don't know if it's a "new" law here, I'm just figuring that the bank wouldn't have let her refinance for a better rate if they didn't absolutely have to, so there must be a law. What else would they let someone pay less. The bank decided to buy her mortgage/debt as part of some package surely, so they didn't buy it thinking they'll lose money on it. Whoever they bought it from might be taking a haircut, but perhaps they had to in order to cover other losses or meet a debt obligation. Either way both sides came to a deal.

08-26-2011, 04:48 AM	#41
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	sperbonzo... you are clueless... first of all the housing crisis didn't cause the financial meltdown... fraud, risky financial products and speculation did... conservatives are actually morons who can't fathom that their own bullshit caused this economy...

08-26-2011, 05:06 AM	#42
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	I just thought I should follow up with this plain truth... the same shit that caused the S&L Crisis caused the financial crisis... do some reading...

08-26-2011, 06:08 AM	#44
ajrocks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: On Uranus Posts: 4,526	Hey what the hell. They have loads of exp. now. __________________ SEO Strategy - Digital Strategy - Cannabis Lead Generation Skype aj.durden1

08-26-2011, 06:10 AM	#45
iamtam So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,211	sallyrand, is that you posting?

08-26-2011, 07:07 AM	#46
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,781	good post Michael. what you other clowns failed to read and understand is the "government taking over fannie and freddy" part. lets all jump up and down and praise the government for lowing mortgages for people with bad credit while saddling us with untold billions in fannie and freddy losses. typical troll feeding time. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

08-29-2011, 06:58 AM	#48
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,781	new way of spotting the industry trash easily is by watching the posters who attack sperbonzo __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

09-01-2011, 01:07 PM	#49
HOT/ICE Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 60	man so much drama

09-01-2011, 01:07 PM	#50
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,382	fitty...........Stylish Crashes __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com