Saturday, February 14, 2009

HAUNTING MORAL DILEMMAS * WE'RE AS SICK AS OUR SECRETS


Jane Hamsher: DC Journalists Love GOP Obstructionists, But Americans Don't!

There appears to be a pretty big gap between what DC journalists think Americans think, and what Americans actually think. No better example of this can be found than the "winners" and "losers" that DC media are proclaiming in the wake of the passage of the stimulus bill, and what DailyKos/Research 2000 polling on the subject indicates. Read more at Huffington Post
_______________
We're as sick as our secrets...
THE READER is a film that will not stop haunting me. I often think about moral dilemmas, but this one is a puzzle. Below is my analysis of what I consider the best film of the year. Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen it yet, please do not read the review. But first a few items:
______________


"Some of the poorest people in the world will never know the name Barbara Lee, yet owe their lives to her determination in the fight against AIDS. Her sense of justice — and injustice — runs about as deep as it's possible to go." - Bono, lead singer of U2 and cofounder of the anti-poverty organization ONE.

On Monday February 16, 2009, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee will be the guest on the Basham and Cornell Radio Show at 8 am Pacific Time on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas.

Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote "No" on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president at a time when the facts regarding the situation were not yet clear.

Lee is the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and was the Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Her new book is titled “Renegade for Peace and Justice: Congresswoman Barbara Lee Speaks for Me.”

Ad: From the Las Vegas Review Journal

Basham and Cornell Radio Show at 8 am Pacific Time on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas and simulcast worldwide on the web.

______________
THE READER ... a review by Lydia Cornell

"There's an often-heard saying in the recovery community: “We're as sick as our secrets.” Over the years, I have met many people in abusive situations who have paid a great price to eventually extricate themselves from the vicious cycle of manipulation and recrimination. Sexual and physical abuse, in particular, scars the victim deeply. Often the victims falsely blame themselves. Recovery from abuse involves breaking the conspiracy of silence and deception perpetrated by abusers. Only the truth, however painful, can really set us free. Secrecy keeps us chained to our abusers.

At the heart of the ‘twelve steps’, in Step Four and Five, is the willingness to break the power of secrecy by admitting to God, yourself, and another person the exact nature of how you have wronged other people. Until we can open up and get such things off our chest, we are still stuck with guilt, recrimination, and self-doubt. We really are as sick as our secrets." The Rev. Ed Hird


If Hanna Schmitz, played by Kate Winslet, hadn't been so ashamed of not being able to read, she wouldn’t have preyed upon weaker people and manipulated them. Of course her pathology would have manifested in other ways — which goes along with my theory that many of us are controlled by our ancient wounds, our "woundedness" — and this perverts itself in devious ways. Our low self-esteem, our feeling "less than" others — results in various kinds of retaliation such as gun-shootings on school campuses.

There is another level of subconscious political jealousy going on here: Hanna was uneducated, and of a lower class than the very Jews in her prison camps, who had learned to read.

Hitler had brainwashed the Hitler Youth into believing that Jews were the ones taking away German’s rights, money and education. But to begin with, the mere fact that "not being able to read” is her deepest shame – deeper than murder – makes her a peculiar brand of sociopath. She blindly follows the party line, like any authoritarian follower. She either believed that Jews were less than human beings — or she didn't even think about it, as her indoctrination would confirm.

Is Hanna a sociopath? A pedophile/rapist? A cold-hearted narcissist? I was considering how I would feel about a loved one who had once been a Nazi prison guard and had allowed women to burn alive in a church. What if Hanna had been one of my relatives, who thought nothing of murdering Muslims and abortion doctors because she was brainwashed listening to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Michael Savage or Mark Levin (or Lou Dobbs) all day on right wing hate radio – and had been convinced that abortion is a sin and crime, and that she was doing the right thing in killing live human doctors in order to save innocent fetuses — and you had no idea of this years earlier?


Hana represents Germany itself. Survivor guilt and all the bad feelings toward Germany are contained in her resigned expression. In other words, Hanna represents all Germans, Christians and death-camp guards who were just there following orders without thinking too deeply. Germany itself is culpable for being so passive as a nation – in not stopping this evil. The boys’ family, everyone was responsible, not just a few guards.

The film reminds us that all the German people knew what was happening, yet they did nothing to stop Hitler. Even the Christian churches were complict. Except for a few courageous souls who hid Jews, protested or fled —  the German people were all guilty. This was their shame.

Again, we are only as sick as our secrets. Here is why "The Reader" is so profound to me:

1. If Hanna hadn’t has such shame about not being able to read, she wouldn’t have preyed on weaker people and manipulated them. Her shame ultimately did her in. If not for her secret, she wouldn’t have taken the boy under her wing. She did everything for self-serving interest of “being read to.” (Side note: Later, it would be one thing if the books he was sending to her in prison were books of the Holocaust or Anne Frank – or books that would make her sympathetic to the Jews whom she had killed, but he was reading her some very bourgeouise books.)
2. This is a striking character flaw of the alcoholic, who is ego-riddled: the tendency to hide a bad motive under a good motive. All for selfish interests.
3. Her shame ultimately did her in. But to begin with , not being able to read, being her deepest shame and longing – the only way she can live with herself and maintain the secret (either secret) is to remain aloof and cold. You must keep your distance from people if you want to keep your secrets.

But again, the author makes a point: everyone was doing it; everyone In Germany, especially the Christians in whose church we were meeting in.

The only way she could live with herelf was to be cold and aloof; to cut hersef off from human emotion. She could only move forward with the bad habits of the past, the survival habits. We don’t change that easily. It takes a while for our mind to match our actions. Old habits die hard. Okay, so let’s say Hanna shut a part of herself off from feeling the horrors of her past. Let’s say she has tried to numb herself, convince herself she was obeying orders, doing the right thing.

Why is she any more guilty than every other German during the war?

The grown-up lover played by Ralph Fiennes, was also guilty of judging Hanna. He did not freely forgive. Instead of redemption, he judged her. He had a chance to do what Christ did, and forgive her, love her, heal her. That’s all anyone ever needs anyway. We are all judging each other, but do we really know what kind of background or childhood the person has been through?

We are all judging each other, but what do we really know?

Ralph Fiennes couldn’t forgive he and wouldn’t hug her. In prison, when she was an old woman, he asked her accusingly , “What did you learn?”

“I learned to read.” She said very coldly after saying it didn’t matter what she said because "the dead were already dead." She showed no heart or feelings after 20 years in prison.

Ralf Fiennes stiffened; he judged her. He got up to leave and she tried to make a gesture to hug him but he withdrew his affection. By pulling away from her, he sealed her fate. The way she reached out with her shoulder in such small subtle moves, was humbling on her part. It was “acquiescence.”

Now, questions:

“I learned to read” she said, very coldly, without any remorse or compassion.
a. Did Hanna actually gain a conscience? Did she read any deep books on this -- or just bourgeiouse fluff?
b. Could she have deliberately said this to test him?

Okay – some choices:
A. His rebuff of her hug shows her that there was no purpose in life for her. She would be worse off in the normal, non-prison world. Everyone would hate her.

*** B. She loved him. Her love for him, their love — and his rebuff — ultimately made her see herself clearly – that she couldn’t live with herself. LOVE HEALED HER HEART. It made her see her crimes clearly because they caused her lover to hate her. She woke up and was able to kill herself as her final gesture of love. This action of killing herself was a gift to her lover. It validated him in the real world too. It made all his actions seem noble. By knowing him, she was changed and awakened.

Killing herself was her first and only selfless act: it was proof that she had learned by his love, that he had served a purpose and had not lived his life in vain. It was also a way to free his soul. And she knew it was the only way she could live anymore — without secrets, totally "seen."


C. Love had made her become whole, but ashamed, perhaps for the first time ever in real life. Perhaps she had never been loved or trusted to do the right thing before this man came into her life and messed up the compartments she had so neatly kept separate.

Perhaps as a Hitler Youth, she had never seen the world through another lens. She had her life kept in separate parts, pushing down feelings and conscience and moral certitude. Pushing down the truth and intuition. (As many neocons do.) That’s how she coped with life: her job as a guard was to protect prisoners from escaping; to prevent chaos at all costs. The German efficiency. Moral choices had no place here. Emotion and morality had no overlap. This was always respected in her youth and at work. She was so honest in the trial because she had nothing to hide. These were the facts and the laws of the time. You do not disobey orders.

Who knows? She may have been on of the Hitler Youth that ratted and turned on their parents.

But here’s the rub: "I think the big question in the book is how is it possible to love your parents, your pastors, your teachers or, indeed in the circumstance used in the book, your lover who has been involved in such a terrible past, whether as a direct perpetrator or as a bystander? How is it possible to love?" Daldry explains. "We were trying to be very clear about the degrees of her moral illiteracy, whether it is the relationship with a minor or what she was engaged in in the [concentration] camps. We tried to keep her ambiguous, not totally understood or understandable; but obviously we were very concerned about how to calibrate the sympathy towards her without ever allowing her to get off the hook."

Winslet believes the film neither condemns nor condones the Hanna Schmitz character, which puts the viewer in the position of deciding.

"We didn't want to give answers," notes Winslet. "We only wanted to ask questions and have an audience walk away questioning everything and possibly questioning their own morals if, even for one split second, they felt any empathy for Hanna Schmitz. I knew it wasn't my job to try to make an audience sympathize with her or humanize her or warm her up. I had to make her a person. I had to make her real."


But it makes one wonder: where was her moral conscience and heart? Why and how could it have been so hardened? How could she have locked those women in the church – and still gone to the church in the country and not be bothered by her conscience? Separate compartments.

On their country bike ride, “Love saves a soul.” Hana admitted she loved him. “Only love can save you.”

* Hitler Youth indoctrination made her cold, unfeeling, robotic, German
* It is possible, this cold aloofness is her way of being the counterpart or opposite to love.
* Because she has never felt love, or been treated with love, she doesn't know love.
* Out at the country church, Hanna sits down to hear the beautiful voices of children singing, never once letting on that she has another separate compartment where she puts "dead church people." She has not allowed her two sides to merge here.


We are all guilty – all of Germany is guilty – Do not judge one another. By Him judging her at the end, he has her fate in his hands. He is being the guard at that point. He has the power to end her life or make her live with his own brand of shame. He has manipulated her with reading gifts, just to try to get her to redeem herself and say she’s sorry. He was manipulative too – she was his first love. He kept hoping to save her, hoping she was redeemable. The moment she disappointed him by not answering the way he wanted, he closed the door on Love and withdrew his love. He judged her, He was not compassionate toward her.

NO MATTER how much Hanna “deserved” her fate and guilt and shame – it is still not the Christ idea - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The ultimate loving end to the circle of life would be to forgive your fellow man. He should not have had to force Hanna to take that test. To break the cycle of the Holocaust, he should have simply loved her. His love would have saved her life. But he couldn’t forgive her. He was not God and did not know the depth of her shame. But he demanded her to have the same sense of shame and regret he would have. He demanded her to have learned the lesson on his timetable and in his style. If he had wanted her to realize her sin, I wonder why he recorded so many tapings of frivolous books for her to listen to.

So, were as sick as our secrets. The Ralph Fiennes character breaks the cycle of secrets. With his daughter, he is guilty of being equally secretive, which could be fatal to them both. His secret shame of having been lovers with this Nazi guard has kept him distant and locked off from his daughter. He finally takes her to Hanna's grave and tells her the whole story.

We must not hold ourselves above others and separate from others in the human race -- because we are all ONE. Love is our unifying principle. We all have love as our true source, but we have forgotten. Love created us and we are here to love and accept ourselves and transfer that love and acceptance to others.

_______________________
I just have to congratulate ROBERT PLANT (photo below; in his heyday he was beyond gorgeous) ALISON KRAUSS and COLDPLAY for their Grammy wins. I have always loved Robert Plant, and Coldplay is my favorite!! I'm also glad Adele won for her brilliant "Chasing Pavements." Have you seen Adele's heart-wrenching video?

______________


Photo: Jim Hillis and me

Full Circle: My good friend Jim Hillis was in town last week. Once a male model, he's still stunning — and you can read some of his brilliant pieces on CNN.com. He's a humanitarian and amazing human being, who was in town to help a few homeless women get their benefits and restore their dignity. His partner Tommy is also a total sweetheart!
____________________________

319 comments:

  1. Can you believe this commerce secretary bowing out? It is because he couldn't dismiss the elitism clause...

    I mean the ENTITLEMENT CLAUSE....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lydia,

    Good review of the Reader. Substitute "revealed truth dogma" for Nazism and you've got a pretty good idea of contemporary ChristoFascism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lydia,
    that was the best review i have ever read...
    really
    Erika

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you missed it this was a good speech;

    Obama, Lincoln made my story possible

    MSNBC, CNN and CNBC ran the speech of our 44th president honoring our 16th president but for some reason fake noise thought bill-o's bloviating about his over extended ego was more relevant.

    It really was a good speech about why Obama is changing our nations direction from the failed policies of the last 2 1/2 decades.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's nice to have a president who can speak above the third grade level again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lydia, there is some word other republicans were talking to Gregg not to take the post because they really do want to obstruct the country into even a worse depression then the republican party caused last time.

    And of course Gregg being a republican said OK undermine the good of the country for the party.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Clif - I think you are correct about Gregg. He is making a huge mistake, and putting party before country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Erika - Uumomma,

    Thank you! I have to cut out some of the repetitive parts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The republicans are collectively working to make this president fail.

    And the country and the people be damned in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sept. 11 widow killed in Buffalo plane crash


    By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 46 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – One of the victims of the Buffalo commuter plane crash, Beverly Eckert, was a Sept. 11 widow who put her never-ending grief to good use to make the country safer.

    President Barack Obama, speaking in the White House's East Room, said Eckert "was an inspiration to me and to so many others, and I pray that her family finds peace and comfort in the hard days ahead."

    A week before her death, Eckert met with Obama at the White House as part of a group of 9/11 families and relatives of those killed in the bombing of the USS Cole, discussing how the new administration would handle terror suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's one of the widows Ann Coulter called a "money grubbing witch" for speaking out about her questions and concerns about what happened on 911 and our responses to it.

    Well now I guess Ann Coulter's happy because the "witch" is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jackie - you are banned.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The stimulus bill passed, and with all the right wing lies and demagoguery, let us remember;

    Less than three weeks into the Obama presidency that the pundits, talking heads, and of course the GOPers bloviated for those three weeks had somehow already failed, the single largest public spending bill in history is about to become law: $787 billion dollars, $504 of it directly creating jobs and improving the lot of the many.

    It looks like the republican'ts have learned NOTHING from the elections of 2006 and 2008. They still thunk they controll the message with their reich-wing spin machine.

    They don't but let they thunk they do for a while longer, cayuse there is some more corrective action needed from the ruinous mis-administration of the worst pResident ever.

    To put things in some sort of perspective, remember, back in 1993 President Bill Clinton couldn't get a Democratic Congress to support a $16 billion Stimulus Bill.

    Today's is 49 times larger, and it passed.

    It may be not the perfect bill, but sure is much better then the GOPer alternative of handing more tax cuts to rich fat cat corporations and people to send more jobs off shore and close down more factories. Or waste money on failed military mis-adventures.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Clif -- I'm glad the bill finally passed, and today I spoke to Congresswoman Dina Titus who said the 40 billion the Republicans cut out of the bill which was for new schools and education/arts programs and teachers - is being put back in!! And they are retrofitting schools, making them into "smart classrooms" and putting solar panels on (instead of rebuilding entire schools.)

    This is good news.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lydia said: Jackie - you are banned.



    Ah, beautiful words to be sure

    ReplyDelete
  16. this from AP.

    "Millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks, starting around June, from a new $400 tax credit to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples would get up to $800.

    In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year."


    Wow.

    13 dollars a week.

    Man you can eat good on that, huh?

    What a windfall.

    With that 13 bucks a week in our pockets at least we will have some pocket change to buy ourselves a cup of coffee once a day at the McDonalds while we’re standing on the street corners with our “Will Work for Food” signs.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How many billions of our borrowed tax dollars did it cost to give us all that whopping 13 bucks a week I wonder?

    I’ll be looking for Geitners new book, “How I turned a 100 Billion in cash into 13 bucks a week”.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Every American should be outraged at this waste of money with this 13 dollars a week dole. It’s like a CHILDS ALLOWANCE! Heck most middle class kids get 20. 13 bucks? It’s an insult. As if it would make any difference to anyone other than a homeless person.

    The 100 billion or more that it cost out of the package to offer this nonsense tax rebate could have been put to good use. Like backing home mortgages or building infrastructure.
    Or better yet, putting back that 15,000 dollar tax credit for home buying. That’d actually do something, by getting middle class families to feel better about buying homes since the 15 k just happens to be the typical closing costs on a median priced home.

    But dividing it up into such a tiny, insignificant amount is stupid. Criminally stupid. And it disturbs me that no on is speaking up about it. 13 dollars a week won’t do anything other than waste billions, perhaps hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

    If they want to give a tax rebate to workers then fine. Make it something that counts. 1500. 2500. That’d make a difference.

    13 bucks a week is the worst example of stupidity as I have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lydia,

    I read your title thread.

    I've come to the conclusion you're right. If I truly love the world, the best thing I can do is remove myself from it.

    You've opened my eyes.

    Goodbye...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lydia...

    Thank you for all you do...and continue to do...

    You always do the "right thing"

    I want your readers to know that you...in the beginning of our xx years of friendship...that you started a healing process in me. I wouldn't be here to write this if it were not for you.

    You lit my pathway options a long time ago...and for that...you saved me.

    You are wise beyond your years...

    We've seen a lot. And we remain.

    Thank you...for a long time ago...and for our visits last week...and for today.
    Tomorrow never comes...you cannot undo the past...

    Today, I do my best to do the right thing. My past is full of lessons learned.

    No, I'm not paid to have my picture taken anymore. No, I don't have anymore roles in movies or TV offered anymore. It's ok. I did everthing I set out to do. Now I'm careful what I wish for or seek...You just might get what you never expected.

    Out of my whole "Beverly Hills" life back then...

    You are one of the most precious gems I've saved and will always treasure.

    Yes, we did come "Full Circle"

    Our hearts never changed...in fact, if anything...they are more open...

    With gained wisdom...from seeing what we've seen...we're still here.

    Thank you for starting all this...200 years ago.

    I, like you, are on a mission to heal the world.
    Love's blind...
    Approach someone as you want to be approached.
    All things come "Full Circle"
    Thank you for letting me give back...to those, like you...that loved me unconditionally...and never stopped believing in me...and always picked me back up

    I'm not jaded or broken...
    I maintain some kind of innocence.
    I've seen...and I believe.

    Miracles happen everyday...if you leave your heart open and vulnerable. Vulnerable is not bad...Life is all about taking chances.

    I'm not a saint nor an angel...I just believe.

    You were one of my "Divine Miracles"

    Thanks for believing in me...
    Never stop doing the right thing...

    And thank you for helping me along my way...
    I'm not just a face and body anymore. I'm Jim Hillis.

    And I love you...

    Now, lets go back to kicking the butts of those that commit crimes against the human race.

    Lets get back to the ones that work miracles.

    You are brilliant, funny, wise an honest.

    You have my total respect...

    On with "The Show" called our lives.

    ReplyDelete


  21. Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote "No" on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president at a time when the facts regarding the situation
    were not yet clear.



    Well tell her thanks for me. That vote took courage and moral character.

    ReplyDelete
  22. On Monday February 16, 2009, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee will be the guest on the Basham and Cornell Radio Show at 8 am Pacific Time on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas.

    Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote "No" on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president at a time when the facts regarding the situation were not yet clear.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No Fear Jim -- THANK YOU for your beautiful words and for staying alive all those years ago - to become one of the best people I know.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Sept. 11 widow killed in Buffalo plane crash


    By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 46 mins ago"


    Yeah, I've been just riveted to that Plane crash..........do you realize it happened 3 miles from where I grew up and only 3 miles from my friends house where i stay every summer when I visit Buffalo, also the father of a someone I grew up with and went through school with was on that plane. Clarence is a real upscale suburban area, kinda of the Beverly Hills of Buffalo I just couldnt stop watching what happened or talking to people from Buffalo, as I have a ton of friends and family REAL close to where the crash was........I can picture EXACTLY where the plane went down.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lydia, you've had some great shows the last 2 weeks..............I cant wait to read Will Bunch's book the Reagan Myth!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    The republicans are collectively working to make this president fail.

    And the country and the people be damned in the process."


    Well they are certainly TRYING but Americas not buying their dishonest rhetoric and BS propaganda.........they've been using the same tired talking points and slimy dishonest tactics for over 70 years and their legacy will be one of failure just as it was when FDR dismantled their failed ideologies during the Great Depression..........the repugs are so intellectually bankrupt all they have left is rooting for failure and economic collapse so they can point the finger at Obama and say "See Socialism Doesnt Work"...............even though it was GWB and the failed ideas and ideologies of the repugs that put us on the path we are now on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Every American should be outraged at this waste of money with this 13 dollars a week dole. It’s like a CHILDS ALLOWANCE! Heck most middle class kids get 20. 13 bucks? It’s an insult. As if it would make any difference to anyone other than a homeless person.

    The 100 billion or more that it cost out of the package to offer this nonsense tax rebate could have been put to good use. Like backing home mortgages or building infrastructure.
    Or better yet, putting back that 15,000 dollar tax credit for home buying. That’d actually do something, by getting middle class families to feel better about buying homes since the 15 k just happens to be the typical closing costs on a median priced home.

    But dividing it up into such a tiny, insignificant amount is stupid. Criminally stupid. And it disturbs me that no on is speaking up about it. 13 dollars a week won’t do anything other than waste billions, perhaps hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

    If they want to give a tax rebate to workers then fine. Make it something that counts. 1500. 2500. That’d make a difference.

    13 bucks a week is the worst example of stupidity as I have ever seen."



    Well I have very mixed feelings on this issue.........I personally would MUCH rather see more substantial and focused spending on renewable power, particularly solar and wind, as well as upgrading the grid, public transportation and hybrids.........I think Obama needs to think big and be bold and build a game changing legacy that ends our dependency on imported oil, dont get me wrong I think spending on roads, education, unemployment, help for the states. etc....are all good causes but little dribs and drabs everywhere acomplish little and dont convey the substantial longterm benefits that a few large focused committments do.

    That said we've tried the tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama made it a campaign promise to help the poor and lower middle class that were left behind, and I cant criticize him for keeping his word........while $13 a week is not significant to me and certainly insignificant to You. Lydia and alot of the people we know I think its condescending to say it is insignificant to EVERYONE.....it could mean the difference between having Internet access for the kids, or eating a little better or paying the car insurance or putting gas in the car for a person really struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck.

    That doesnt mean i'm against tax credits for homeowners or people buying cars.............I've been saying for months now 4% mortgages for EVERYONE and accelerating the depreciation allowance will get people buying houses and refinancing and get business buying cars, and other equipment to expand their business's..........throw in tax credits for houses and new vehicles particularly hybrids and for retrofitting solar panels and more efficient heating and cooling for houses and buildings and it will be a big boost to the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Any watching House of Cards on CNBC, its pretty good!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Voltron - you obviously missed the whole point. Or did you not see the film?

    In her warped mind, her "authoritarian goosestepping" mind -- the only act of sacrifice to atone for her sins was suicide. How deluded she was, not knowing that "sin" means separation from God, separation from love.

    Fundamentalists, like pharisees, are too focused on the body, the flesh, the robe, the hat, the right rituals (materialism) - the literal interpretation of laws. They fail to see the spirit because they are focused on the letter.

    The very thing Christ came to teach. The only thing that matters is how we treat one another.

    ReplyDelete
  30. David Faber; "The real housing boom began in 2002"

    Which means the reich wing lie it is all Clinton and the democratic party's fault.


    David Faber; "well over half of sub-prime wasn't low income mortgages BUT cash out refinancing"

    Which means taking cash out of the equity to put in a pool or buy a car.

    So the reich-wing fabrication it was the poor who got loans the govberment forced banks to make is another republican't sponsored LIE.

    Cash out refinancing isn't something fannie or freddie gets involved in since the people asking for a new mortgage already have bought the house and have a mortgage on it, they just want to go deeper in debt to buy some short term trinkets or take trips they couldn't afford otherwise.


    Watch House of Cards, it explains what happened, with out the reich-wing lies distorting the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Want a little more truth?

    Bill Clinton; "Some of the conservatives said that I was responsible because I enforced the Community Reinvestment Act, and they said that's what made all these subprime mortgages be issued. That's also false. The community banks, the people that loan their money in the community instead of buying these esoteric securities, they're doing quite well. "

    Hmmmm, now why would the reich-wing republican't party LIE so much when the nation's economy was in such dire straights?

    Well could it be because THEY never take responsibility for their screw ups?

    Or do they still think lying and selling reich-wing dishonest spin is their path to victory?

    2006 and 2008 should tell them NO.

    The republican'ts seem quite dull in their ability to learn they have to find a new message cause their old one is more bankrupted then Bear Stearns or AIG are.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mike said...

    .while $13 a week is not significant to me and certainly insignificant to You. Lydia and alot of the people we know I think its condescending to say it is insignificant to EVERYONE.


    Come on Mike. You know better than that.

    To whom is 13 bucks a week significant?

    Even a homeless person standing on the side of the road with a sign reading "Will Work for Food" wouldn't be significantly impacted by 13 bucks a week. He earns more than that in an afternoon of panhandling.

    13 bucks a week is the equivalent of 2 value meals at Burger King.

    And how exactly will that stimulate the economy.

    13 dollars a week is a childs allowance and its nonsense.

    It won't do anything to help anyone on any noticeable level.

    Its like throwing pennies from a Wall Street window and thinking it will help someone below.

    It won't.

    But what it will do is put us all 100 billion in hock for the next decade or two to pay for it.

    It's nonsense, and it should outrage every American.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mike said...

    it could mean the difference between having Internet access for the kids, or eating a little better or paying the car insurance or putting gas in the car for a person really struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck.

    Doubtful. If they're that poor I doubt they have a computer or a car.

    13 bucks a week is POVERTY money.

    But its costing MASSIVE WEALTH to provide it.

    If we focus on Poverty solutions then we'll have poverty results.

    We need to focus on STIMULUS. And that means creating middle class wealth, jobs, etc.

    And the way they could have done that is to take the 100 billion or so they're squandering on this nonsense and put it into either funding or backing mortgage loans.

    That would definitely stimulate the economy, overnight.

    But no one wants to hear that for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Mike said...

    .while $13 a week is not significant to me and certainly insignificant to You. Lydia and alot of the people we know I think its condescending to say it is insignificant to EVERYONE.


    Come on Mike. You know better than that.

    To whom is 13 bucks a week significant?

    Even a homeless person standing on the side of the road with a sign reading "Will Work for Food" wouldn't be significantly impacted by 13 bucks a week. He earns more than that in an afternoon of panhandling.

    13 bucks a week is the equivalent of 2 value meals at Burger King.

    And how exactly will that stimulate the economy.

    13 dollars a week is a childs allowance and its nonsense.

    It won't do anything to help anyone on any noticeable level.

    Its like throwing pennies from a Wall Street window and thinking it will help someone below.

    It won't.

    But what it will do is put us all 100 billion in hock for the next decade or two to pay for it.

    It's nonsense, and it should outrage every American."



    Bartlebee, i'm NOT disagreeing with you that we NEED to get lending going and revive the housing and auto markets.............I've stated all along we need to reduce interest rates to 4% for both refi's and NEW houses, accelerate the depreciation allowance so businesses start spending on cars, tucks and infrastructure and give tax credits for houses and cars..........that DOESNT mean we have to do an either or, 100 Billion is a spit in the bucket compared to what we need to pull out of this Paul Krugman stated that today..........I think we need to spend trillions, but spend it wisely.

    Obama made tax cuts for the middle class and poor the cornerstone of his campaign after they have been neglected for the last 8 years are you saying he should adopt the Bush policies and ONLY give tax credits to the wealthy and renig on a promise

    ReplyDelete
  35. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Mike said...

    it could mean the difference between having Internet access for the kids, or eating a little better or paying the car insurance or putting gas in the car for a person really struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck.

    Doubtful. If they're that poor I doubt they have a computer or a car.

    13 bucks a week is POVERTY money.

    But its costing MASSIVE WEALTH to provide it.

    If we focus on Poverty solutions then we'll have poverty results.

    We need to focus on STIMULUS. And that means creating middle class wealth, jobs, etc.

    And the way they could have done that is to take the 100 billion or so they're squandering on this nonsense and put it into either funding or backing mortgage loans.

    That would definitely stimulate the economy, overnight.

    But no one wants to hear that for some reason."



    What do you mean no one wants to hear that i've been in agreement with you on this for months........our only real difference was I KNEW the banks couldnt be trusted to do the right thing and use the money strictly for lending........to make matters worse they not only took eccessive boneses but actually CONSTRICTED credit not just by NOT lending but also by jacking up interest rates 10%-20% on GOOD CUSTOMERS which is criminal in a credit cris particularly AFTER they took tax payer money specifically to lend and provide credit.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Mike said...

    it could mean the difference between having Internet access for the kids, or eating a little better or paying the car insurance or putting gas in the car for a person really struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck.

    Doubtful. If they're that poor I doubt they have a computer or a car.

    13 bucks a week is POVERTY money.

    But its costing MASSIVE WEALTH to provide it.

    If we focus on Poverty solutions then we'll have poverty results.

    We need to focus on STIMULUS. And that means creating middle class wealth, jobs, etc.

    And the way they could have done that is to take the 100 billion or so they're squandering on this nonsense and put it into either funding or backing mortgage loans."



    BS Bart while $13 a week isnt the kind of money that will change peoples lives or spur spending on big ticket items it will most assuredly be spent by people living paycheck to paycheck which is most of America.

    $13 dollars a week is more money than people making $30,000 get for an annual raise where I work Bart and it will most assuredly make help in some way whether its getting Internet or going out to eat once a week, going out to the movies once a week, buying a better mean, etc..........the world doesnt only revolve around the wealthy, i'm sure restaurants, movie theaters, small business's, etc.....are looking forward to this.


    People where I work are really struggling and its hard for people making well over 100K to see that.......back in September I was at my uncles house and one of his friends was very arrogantly bashing Obama and stating that the poor dont deserve tax cuts and the wealthy "ARE THE ECONOMY" and the ONLY way to stimulate the economy is to give big tax cuts to the wealthy, well she had 38 MILLION invested with Madoff and lost 98% of that money and now has two 8 figure mortgages to pay for as well as 4 VERY expensive cars, wonder if she'll learn what its like to struggle and to have people look down on those who do?.......... my friend from Buffalo does very well like you do he makes $300K and he says the same thing essentially that tax cuts for the poor dont do shit and we NEED to give big tax cuts to people buying new houses and new cars..........while I dont disagree that we should ALSO do that you guys are validating the repug rhetoric if you state thats ALL we should do.


    Dont be offended I KNOW you have a good heart and are a generous person that helps the poor and those less fortunate and i'm not comparing you to that person I refered to above..........I just think when your successful its easy to become out of touch with those much less fortunate............that 100 billion you say is a waste will for sure get spent and stimulate the economy, albeit not the big ticket items.

    ReplyDelete
  37. That said You have a valid point that it probably would have been better NOT to give the $13 a week to people making over $50,000............I know I would rather it had been spent in better more stimulative ways that conferred longterm benefits.

    I think people making under $50,000 should have gotten it though.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mike, I'm all for helping the poor.

    But this is a stimulus bill, not a welfare or low income assistance bill.

    13 dollars a week is low income assistance, and not much of it. It won't do anything to stimulate the economy. It's just throwing crumbs to the poor and that's not going to stimulate the economy.

    The economy is stimulated by spending projects, investments, insuring investments and stimulating big ticket lending. This is poverty money that will only ensure more poverty.

    Its like the old saying Mike.

    Give me a fish and I will eat today.

    Teach me to fish and I will eat all the days of my life.


    We're handing out fish, ensuring that tomorrow people will need more fish.

    And worst of all, we don't have the money to pay for it. Meaning we're borrowing.

    Why do you think they're giving out these 400 dollar tax rebates over a period of a year?

    At least Bush gave us the money in one check. Why do you think they didn't give it out all at once but instead divided it up into tiny insignificant amounts so small that only the most indigent of persons would benefit from it, and even then, only minimally?

    Because we don't have it.

    They don't have the money this time nor do they have the loans secured.

    Did you think it was a coincidence that Hilary Clinton just happened to go to China the day after they announced they'd reached an agreement on the bill?

    Its because she's going cap in hand to borrow the money to pay for it. And obviously we're not getting all of it, because China's suffering too.

    The fact is they don't have the money, and thus giving it out in small 13 dollar increments is stupid.

    Just plain stupid.

    All it does is ensure that we'll need more. And more may not be available soon.

    The 100 billion they are SQUANDERING on this insulting, inconsequential dole could have been used to prop up mortgages, ensure new mortgages or even make mortgages.

    That 100 billion alone could bail out the Auto Industry TEN TIMES OVER, putting MILLIONS back to work.

    But taking it and dividing it up into 13 bucks a week, then handing it out, is stupid.

    Stupid stupid stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think its important as we move into this new era with a new president that we don't find ourselves defending every move he or the democratic congress makes simply because its them.

    This 13 dollars a week is indefensible from my chair. I agree giving the poor help. But that should come in a separate bill and should be real help. Not crumbs tossed in their direction that won't help anything.

    You talk of people "getting on the internet" or "eating a little better" with this pitiful 13 dollars a week.

    Well what that rosy defense ignores is that most of these people that poor are losing their homes, their apartments, their cars, everything.

    They're trying to hang on and we want to toss them 13 bucks a week? They need $1300 bucks a month to pay their mortgages. They need 400 bucks to pay their utility bills. They need 500 bucks a month to pay their car payments so they can go out and look for work that isn't there.

    100 billion dollars to make sure everyone gets 13 bucks a week is so stupid I can't even measure it. Its not just stupid. Its criminally stupid.

    That money could be used to create jobs, thus ensuring the indigent had work and some real money, instead of 13 bucks to buy themselves two extra value meals at Burger King while they stand on the street corners with their "WILL WORK FOR FOOD" signs.

    Why do you think they wanted to give it to non taxpayers and are removing taxes on the first 2400 dollars of unemployment? Because entire cities are being laid of. Been to Michigan lately?

    People need Jobs Mike. They need jobs and then they can feed themselves.

    Using money we don't even have to dole it out in tiny insignificant amounts instead of using it to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs is a crime of stupidity. We're supposed to be smarter than this.

    But smarts gone away.

    Politics now rules everything we do.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mike said...

    do?.......... my friend from Buffalo does very well like you do he makes $300K and he says the same thing essentially that tax cuts for the poor dont do shit and we NEED to give big tax cuts to people buying new houses and new cars..........while I dont disagree that we should ALSO do that you guys are validating the repug rhetoric if you state thats ALL we should do.

    Lol, I don't know where you guys get these ideas but if I made 300 k per year I'd have absconded to Zurich by now. I'm struggling like the rest of the country.

    And you know I'm not stating that's "ALL" we should do.

    But stimulating the housing market and the auto industry are the CRUX of what we need to do.

    As Alan Greenspan tried to warn us for years and years, our economy was "propped up" on the housing market.

    Hell he even wrote it in his book.

    He warned us that if we didn't see a resurge in other areas that we'd need to keep the housing market strong to keep the economy moving forward. Failure to do that would mean disaster.

    And he was right.

    Everyone wants to rip Greenspan but he warned all of us that exactly what is happening now would happen if we let the housing markets stall.

    This ain't rocket science. Stimulate the housing market, you bring back the economy.

    Ignore the housing market, or place it down on the list to our collective peril.

    I hate to put it this way and don't take offense because I'm referencing the old economy line, but when it comes down to it, I guess the new bumper sticker slogan needs to be "It's the housing market stupid".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bart said "The economy is stimulated by spending projects, investments, insuring investments and stimulating big ticket lending. This is poverty money that will only ensure more poverty.

    Its like the old saying Mike.

    Give me a fish and I will eat today.

    Teach me to fish and I will eat all the days of my life.

    We're handing out fish, ensuring that tomorrow people will need more fish.

    And worst of all, we don't have the money to pay for it. Meaning we're borrowing.

    Why do you think they're giving out these 400 dollar tax rebates over a period of a year?

    At least Bush gave us the money in one check. Why do you think they didn't give it out all at once but instead divided it up into tiny insignificant amounts so small that only the most indigent of persons would benefit from it, and even then, only minimally?

    Because we don't have it.

    They don't have the money this time nor do they have the loans secured.

    Did you think it was a coincidence that Hilary Clinton just happened to go to China the day after they announced they'd reached an agreement on the bill?

    Its because she's going cap in hand to borrow the money to pay for it. And obviously we're not getting all of it, because China's suffering too."


    Good points, I cant argue with that logic we dont have the money thats why I said we SHOULDNT have given this $13 to people making over $50,000 and that the bulk should have been spent on wind and solar and public transportation and that we NEED stimulus for big ticket items both accelerated depreciation for business and tax credits for homes and cars and solar panels and more efficient air conditiong and heating retrofits, but Krugman said that 800 Billion is a spit in the bucket compared to what we need, if we are going to spend trillions then spending tens of billions to give money to those making less than $50,000 isnt that significant.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think there WILL be things done to help resore the housing market in future bills and i'm willing to bet the solutions are many of the things we discussed in here the last few months.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mike said...

    but Krugman said


    Krugman is a profiteering buffoon who knows one thing and says another.

    ReplyDelete
  44. IF you remember I've NEVER thought those stupid tax cuts were a good idea I said from the day I came in here I would have rather not gotten the tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008 and this year........i would have rather seen the money better utilized............but at the same time I see people that have jobs struggling and they need help.


    I'll have to consider you theory that it was given out weekly rather than a lump sum because of financing problems........I assumed it was to insure the money was spent rather than saved or used to pay down debt.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike said...

    I think there WILL be things done to help resore the housing market in future bills


    Mike, what future are you referring to?

    The one where we're all dressed like Mad Max and living on Highway 10 in Winnebago's?

    Which news channel down there in Texas is not reporting that we're losing thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars daily?

    If this were the Titanic and we were going down by the stern, that statement would be the equivalent of the Captain coming on deck and declaring to the passengers that although there wasn't enough life boats for them the Ocean Line was making sure that future ships will be equipped with sufficient numbers of life boats.

    Mike, America is foundering.

    The stock market lost trillions today. People are losing everything.

    We don't have time for mistakes and half assed measured and we don't have time for cheerleaders.

    We only have time for solutions and this waste of money on the tax rebate is both a half assed measure, and a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mike said...

    I see people that have jobs struggling and they need help.

    Yes. And the help they need is to keep their jobs.

    Not some lousy thirteen dollar a week allowance.

    ReplyDelete
  47. See THIS is why I said back in September we should EITHER Nationalize ALL the banks OR have a banking holiday and close ALL the insolvent ones not worth saving and capitize the solvent ones so they can lend..............I KNEW the banks would hoard money, refuse to lend and price gouge consumers and actually RESTRICT credit by jacking up rates to obscene punatative levels.

    As for economists being buffons or blindly supporting Obama........i've criticized Obama just as much as you and I think Summers and Geithner are the buffoons...........summers was dead wrong about deregulation and was a fellow travelor with many of the repugs preaching reckless deregulation that caused this disaster.

    I dont like listening to people that were SO WRONG about key issues.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I agree. I can't understand the Geithner pick.

    ReplyDelete
  49. We wated almost 6 months and threw how many billions or trillions at banks and where has it gotten us.............its gotten us WORSE off than 6 months ago thats where.

    You dont do things half assed...........and you dont throw good money down the drain and thats EXACTLY what we've done.

    One thing we agree on is there isnt alot of time and we NEED to get this right and NOT waste the limited resources we have.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mike said...

    See THIS is why I said back in September we should EITHER Nationalize ALL the banks OR have a banking holiday and close ALL the insolvent ones not worth saving and capitize the solvent ones so they can lend..............I KNEW the banks would hoard money, refuse to lend and price gouge consumers and actually RESTRICT credit by jacking up rates to obscene punatative levels.


    We could have just returned oversight via regulation, insured loans and returned the sub prime market with regulatory oversight.

    Your plan was overkill and nationalizing the banks is a last ditch effort, one that once we do it confirms the death of capitalism.

    Lending was the key then and it is now. Return that and the economy returns.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I mean there was a good amount of people who were consistrenly right, who warned us and who were voices of reason like Volker, Brooksley Born, etc.......even Krugmasn and Sheila Bair have been right and have provided potential solutions that could work and Geithner and Summers get the key positions i've tried to bite my tongue but I flat out dont like either of them.

    ReplyDelete
  52. By the way, not to change the subject but since this threads about movie reviews allow me to toss my two cents worth in on "Changling".

    I just watched it and while I am not a big Clint Eastwood fan (The Unforgiven was Unforgiveable and Million Dollar Baby should have been named Million Dollar Booby), this time he got it right.

    This movie was a winner on every front and while the story is disturbing it does something most of Eastwoods stories does not do, and leaves us feeling better at the end of it than when it started.

    Angelina Jolie gives one of her best performances I've ever seen, and John Malcovich was brilliant as ever.

    Great movie. Big Thumbs up.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bart said"Your plan was overkill and nationalizing the banks is a last ditch effort, one that once we do it confirms the death of capitalism."


    No its not thats BS.......its the end of the banking elite sucking the lifeblood out of the economy..........A national bank that ACTUALLY loaned out the money instead of hoarding it and construicting credit by charging obscene punatative interest rates to good customers with stellar credit is EXACTLY what we need and we are wasting PRECIOUS time hoping the banks do the right thing while half a million jobs evaporate each and evey month we sit around with our thumb up our ass.

    A National bank that ACTUALLY loaned money to busineses and consumers without price gouging, nickel and diming them and refusing to loan would allow capitalism to survive just not the reckless predatory crony capitalism promoted by the Right wing that collapsed our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'll have to see it, I just saw Slumdog Millionaire last week.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thats not what happened Mike.

    You like most of the country are still under the influence of the great lie.

    One day you'll see what the democrats in congress did, but frankly I'm tired of repeating myself.

    It wasn't "predatory lending" that got us here. In fact there's no such thing.

    Its a sham. Like "the war on terror".

    Just a phrase to make something seem real that is not.

    I've told you what caused this, and Paul Krugman is not someone you want to be listening to right now.

    Krugman was part of the problem. Krugman was nothing more than a yes man for the democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you havent seen it yet watch "House of Cards" on CNBC!

    ReplyDelete
  57. What got us here was permitting lenders to wiggle out of regulatory oversight so as to underestimate their default rates and not maintain sufficient capital to cover their losses based on the new higher risk sub prime....awwww, whats the use?

    :|

    Believe what you want.

    Everyone else does.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mike said...

    If you havent seen it yet watch"House of Cards" on CNBC!


    Is that good? I haven't seen it yet.

    I'm still trying to figure out what Janeane Garofalo is doing on 24.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Its a documentary on the Real Esate crisis........You would find it interesting it was on like 3 times yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I haven't seen it, but it its talking about "Predatory lenders" then its just more bullshit sold to a public willing to consume it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    What got us here was permitting lenders to wiggle out of regulatory oversight so as to underestimate their default rates and not maintain sufficient capital to cover their losses based on the new higher risk sub prime....awwww, whats the use?

    :|

    Believe what you want.

    Everyone else does."


    They said that in House of Cards.......they ALSO clearly showed examples of predatory lending where originators lied about peoples income claiming people made 4-5 times what they actually did and getting people making $40,000 a year into $750,000 houses they couldnt afford with negative amortization loans.........thats predatory and criminal in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You should REALY watch it before you form an opinion they interview people who used to ACTUALLY make the loans who would have no reason to lie to make themselves look bad.........You would find it interesting if you watched it........it wasnt a hack piece it looked like honest journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  63. In case you didn't notice at the Geithner hearings Mike, even he had to come out and admit that 99 percent of all US mortgages are good.

    The Realty Trac figures were presented in a distorted format, never drawing attention to the fact that the majority of US mortgages are good.

    If I tell you that "mortgage defaults doubled!", then you'd naturally be alarmed.

    But if I pointed out that they only "doubled" because lenders doubled the number of high risk loans they were making, then you wouldn't be so alarmed.

    And if I also pointed out that they still only comprised less than 2 percent of all mortgages written, then you wouldn't be alarmed at all.

    Realty Trac presented the data by declaring "mortgage defaults doubled".

    They left out the other two parts.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And the media took the message and repeated it.

    Over and over and over and over and ...

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mike said...

    You should REALY watch it before you form an opinion they interview people who used to ACTUALLY make the loans who would have no reason to lie to make themselves look bad.........You would find it interesting if you watched it........it wasnt a hack piece it looked like honest journalism


    I think I have seen it if thats it then. I've seen the one where the lenders talk about the loans.

    Its all bullshit Mike. One sided bullshit.

    They're talking with unscrupulous lenders and yes people.

    Nothing more.

    The numbers don't lie Mike and the numbers tell the real story.

    God I'm tired of repeating this.

    ONE PERCENT of Mortgages are in default.

    NINETY NINE PERCENT ARE GOOD.

    Do the math.

    You've been sold a bill of goods Mike.

    Wake up. Look at the numbers. Look at the facts. I'm not telling you this over and over because it feels good.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Do you have figures to support that 2% default claim............i'm not saying your wrong, I had heard last week the default rate is 7%..............now i'm curious what the real figure is since thats quite a wide discrepancy?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yea. I've posted them in here before.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Here Mike. Since you missed the Geithner hearings where he said that I'll provide you with the real figures right off Realty Trac's own website.

    Observe.

    U.S. FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY INCREASES 75 PERCENT IN 2007
    By RealtyTrac Staff

    More Than 2.2 Million Foreclosure Filings on Nearly 1.3 Million Properties Reported

    IRVINE, Calif. – Jan. 29, 2008 – RealtyTrac® (realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released year-end data from its 2007 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which shows a total of 2,203,295 foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 1,285,873 properties nationwide during the year, up 75 percent from 2006. The report also shows that more than 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some stage of foreclosure during the year, up from 0.58 percent in 2006.



    "more than 1 percent" (current figures about 1.19 percent).

    Note in 2006 the default rate was just about a half a percent.

    So yes, mortgage defaults DOUBLED.

    From half a percent, to ONE percent.

    Like I've been trying to get people to understand all along.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The media pushes the bad news because that's whats popular now. Anyone supporting bad news gets a blue star on their head.

    Why do you think Krugmans so hot right now?

    But when we look closer we see the dog and pony show is relying heavily on smoke and mirrors.

    The 7 percent figure you're thinking of is a relative figure, probably a specific monthly percentage shift or something in a given market.

    You have to look at the big picture. The overall numbers.

    And the fact is almost 99 percent of all US mortgages are GOOD.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This was a glass half full or half empty scenario, or more accurately, a glass 1 percent empty or 99 percent full.

    :|

    Realty Trac and the MSM chose to present those figures without putting them in context.

    Instead of saying most US mortgages are fine, they decided to say "the sky is falling the sky is falling, mortgage defaults doubled!!! the sky is falling".

    And thats what they said.

    And so did the news media.

    And so did Paul Krugman.

    They're playing America like a 2 dollar banjo and everyones dancing along.

    One day you'll read about what I am telling you and what I have been saying in here since October of 2007.

    Sure there was a problem.

    And Congress and the MSM took that problem, and turned it into a catastrophe.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Here's the rub Mike.

    That numbers going to keep increasing because we're making the problem a trillion times worse.

    We're hemorrhaging jobs right now. Badly.

    People without jobs cannot pay mortgage payments.

    Most peoples mortgages cost more than 13 bucks a week.

    :|

    So we need to stop the job losses now, otherwise that foreclosure rate will climb and climb and climb. NATURALLY.

    Because people without jobs cannot pay their mortgage payments.

    But the MSM and Congress, and Paul Krugman will tell you its because they're deadbeats.

    But don't you believe it.

    Its because deadbeats like Paul Krugman and Congress are destroying the economy and the average Americans chances by driving us off a cliff.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Give people work and they'll pay their mortgages.

    History has shown us that time and time again.

    So do the numbers.

    The fact that most US mortgages are good clearly demonstrates that Americans are good at paying mortgages.

    All that "Predatory Lending" crap and "deadbeat borrowers" is just baloney.

    The MSM goes out, finds a few of the worst cases of people who took advantage of the Sub Prime market to buy a home outside of their means, and puts them on television and say "HERE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS THE DEADBEATS".

    But the fact is when you look at the real numbers the real picture begins to emerge.

    This was a choreographed crisis. It was a problem that was turned into a much larger problem by a bunch of people with their own hidden agendas.

    There is no mortgage crisis, other than the fact that mortgage lending has dried up.

    THATS the crisis.

    Return lending, and return the economy.

    Simple as 1, 2 3.

    ReplyDelete
  73. What happened Mike was what you boys down in Texas call a good old fashioned "Stampede".

    Congress, along with the MSM successfully stampeded the herd.

    They along with some spurious "experts" got us to focus on the numbers they wanted us to see, never stepping back to see what was really going on.

    They buffaloed us.

    And we're still running.

    "It's like a finger pointing to the moon.

    Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory."



    Bruce Lee
    "Enter the Dragon"

    ReplyDelete
  74. Bush used words like "terrerist" and "axis of evil" to buffalo folks and get them doing what he wanted.

    The congress and the MSM use words like "deadbeat borrowers" and "predatory lenders" and of course my all time favorite, the dreaded "Toxic Debt".

    These media buzzwords red herrings designed to distract from the actual problems created by congress and placing the onus for them back on the heads of the people.

    They screw up but somehow its our fault.

    And whats so incredible, is that it works. We not only believe it, we repeat it.

    We help sell it.

    So Mike, if you've never trusted me before on anything then I beseech you, trust me on this.

    When you hear those buzz words know this.

    You're being lied to.

    ReplyDelete
  75. They say Predatory Lending what do you say?

    You say Bullshit.

    They say Deadbeat borrowers what do you say?

    You say Bullshit.

    They say "Toxic Debt", what do you say?

    You say BULLSHIT.

    Bullshit.

    Because thats all it is.

    Red Herrings designed to distract from what really happened, i.e. Congress and the Bush admin deregulating lending to the point that lenders were able to assess their own potential losses and necessary capital. They did this while simultaneously opening up the Sub Prime lending market (Sub Prime = fancy term for High Risk High Interest lending).

    Well Mike, if you're going to make more high risk loans whats going to happen?

    What does "high risk" mean?

    What does it equate to?

    It equates to a higher default rate.

    More high risk loans means more defaults (i.e. Foreclosures).

    And that means more capital is needed to be set aside and higher interest rates need to be charged to offset the NATURAL higher foreclosure rates.

    But since they deregulated oversight allowing lenders to speculate on their own potential losses, naturally greedy lenders like Countrywide decided to underestimate their losses.

    Why you ask?

    So they could make more loans, with less money.

    Lets say an average lender lending in the prime mortgage market makes 20 million in loans this year. Then, the subprime market opens up. So next year he makes 40 million in loans. Twice as many loans as before and now half of them in the subprime market.

    That means he's going to be looking at a much higher default rate. At least doubled if not more because now he's playing in the Sub Prime market.

    So whats he do to cover his new losses?

    Well, federal regulations require he maintain enough capital and charge sufficient interest to cover his anticipated losses. But since federal oversight of these regulations was removed, lenders could now speculate their losses based on their own figures.

    And left to their own devices, most lenders chose to drastically UNDER estimate their default rates for the Sub Prime loans, meaning when the actual default rates came in, ...(rates they should have been prepared for and would have been had federal oversight been still in place), they were suddenly unprepared for them. They had underestimated their projected losses so they retained insufficient capital to cover these losses, and that's why they went under. Countrywide being the first big one to go.

    This problem could have been fixed right there in October of 07 if Congress had just reinstated Federal Oversight and required any further lending in the Sub Prime market be regulated so that lenders project potential loss accordingly.

    But instead Congress cried wolf, and that had a chilling effect on the lending market, effectively freezing lending.

    That in turn led to a stalled housing market, which in turn led to a stalled building market.

    Which in turn led to a stalled retail and manufacturing market across the board from everything to Home Depot to Bath and Beyond.

    So that's what happened.

    Not this bullshit about people not paying their mortgages.

    What we did is known as "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

    The baby was the Sub Prime market.

    The "bathwater" was the deregulation of the Sub Prime market.

    We need to throw out the deregulation, and keep the Sub Prime market alive.

    We need to throw out the dirty bathwater, but keep the baby.

    Return widescale lending.

    Return oversight of that lending.

    That's how you right this ship midstream. That's how you get back on track.

    You throw out the bathwater, and you keep the baby.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Perhaps a parable would best summarize the deception played on the entire country by Congress and the MSM.

    Here. I'll call this the "Parable of the Hornswaggler".

    Behold there was a certain Husbandman who was master of a large vineyard. One day he was called away on a long journey, and he entrusted the vineyard to his oldest and most trusted steward.

    "Guard my vineyard well" he told the Steward "for I shall be gone for 3 years." He warned the Steward to handle things and not to trouble him while away unless in a case of emergency.

    So the first year went by and the master heard nothing from the Steward and assumed all was well. But on the second year the Steward wrote the Master and urged him to return. "we are in a crisis master, as we have lost twice as many vines this year, as we lost last year".

    Well hearing this news the Master canceled the remainder of his trip, and made the arduous journey home to his vineyards to investigate this emergency.

    When the Master arrived home he asked the Steward to show him the losses.

    The steward took the master to the edge of the field where he presented him with 3 dead grape vines.

    Seeing these three dead vines the master asked "where are the rest?".

    "This is all there is." replied the Steward. "Just the three".

    The master became outraged and declared "you wrote me that our losses had doubled! But you show me only 3 dead vines? ".

    "Yes master, replied the Steward. We lost 1 vine the first year.

    This year that number doubled.

    To 2."


    :|

    Well I'm sure you can guess the rest of the parable.

    The master obviously kicked the stewards ass all the way to the unemployment line, lol.

    But the moral of the story is clear.

    Congress and the MSM along with this firm Realty Trac started spouting foreclosure rates that had "DOUBLED".

    What they neglected to tell people was that they had doubled from only a half a percent, to 1 percent.

    Meaning 99 percent of mortgages were fine.

    Sure they doubled. But the facts were most mortgages were still good.

    They just conveniently left that part out.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Bart, i'm not trying to give you a hard time here but that article you posted was dated over a year ago and it was referencing a time period from 2006-2007.........2-3 years ago before things started REALLY accelerating..........i heard a repug, I believe it was Eric Cantor who was TRYING to downplay the housing and economic crisis to oppose the stimulus say the forclosure rate was 7%.I also read an article last week citing a similar figure today i read an article stating the forclosure rate is around 9% and could hit 16%.

    I'm sure those figures you cited were correct for 2 years ago but with all the jobs we have lost and still are losing and constricted credit I think things are MUCH worse than that.........consider that is close to 1 in 10 houses are in forclosure its a NATIONAL ENERGENCY if 1 in 10 are at risk of losing their home.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Obama unveils plan for troubled housing market



    MESA, Arizona (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Wednesday unveiled the next step in his multi-pronged efforts to lift the United States out of recession Wednesday, pledging up to $275 billion to help stem a wave of home foreclosures that sparked the U.S. financial meltdown.

    Obama, who Tuesday signed a landmark $787 billion economic stimulus bill mixing government spending and tax cuts, was set to unveil his housing plan formally at 12:15 p.m. EST/1715 GMT in Arizona, a state that has been especially hard hit by the housing crisis.

    "All of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis. And all of us will pay an even steeper price if we allow this crisis to deepen," Obama said in prepared remarks released Wednesday.

    The U.S. housing crisis has played a central role in the financial and credit turmoil now spread across the globe, with many U.S. homeowners now saddled with mortgages they simply cannot pay.

    The depth of the crisis was underlined by data released on Wednesday showing that new U.S. housing starts and building permits dropped to record lows in January, as builders shelved construction plans due to a glut of unsold houses and a slump in demand.

    The housing measures were meant to be a more politically popular aspect of Obama's plans to rescue the economy. His administration's measures to shore up the financial industry were met with a dive in stock prices last week.

    Obama, a Democrat who succeeded Republican George W. Bush on January 20, battled with opposition Republicans in Congress to pass the stimulus plan, his first major political victory in office.

    Leaders of both political parties have called for measures to address the housing crisis.

    9 PCT OF HOME LOANS BEHIND, IN FORECLOSURE

    At the end of last year, just over 9 percent of all home loans in the United States were in arrears or already in foreclosure, the Mortgage Bankers Association has said.

    A total of 8.1 million U.S. homes, or 16 percent of all households with mortgages, could fall into foreclosure by 2012, according to a report by Credit Suisse.

    An Obama administration official said the total plan commits up to $275 billion for housing, including $50 billion from funds already committed in the financial sector bailout plan. It aims to help up to 9 million American families.

    Mindful of critics who might charge that the scheme would help people who just took on far more debt than they could afford, Obama said his plan was aimed at "rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly," refinancing traditional mortgages for up 5 million homeowners who now are close to owing more than their homes are worth.

    It will also establish a $75 billion fund to reduce monthly payments for another 3 million to 4 million homeowners "stuck in sub-prime mortgages they can't afford as a result of skyrocketing interest rates or personal misfortune," Obama said.

    (Editing by Frances Kerry)

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mike said...

    Bart, i'm not trying to give you a hard time here but that article you posted was dated over a year ago and it was referencing a time period from 2006-2007.




    Wrong. It showed you figures FROM 2006, AND 2007.

    ALL OF 2007.

    Mike, 2007 is the period I was talking about because that' when it happened.

    Countrywide collapsed in 2007. That's when the congress and all its echo chamber friends, in here included, started crying doom and gloom and declaring mortgage defaults were doubling.

    I posted the 2008 figures for 2007.

    Those are year end compilations so in 2008 the 2007 figures come out.

    This is just the start of 2009 so the 2008 figures are next.

    Understand?

    We just crossed into 2009 so 2007 figures are the most accurate until the new figures are released.

    But when we are talking a 'fraction of a percent' we know they won't be much different.

    If the figures double again and rise to 2 percent, then we'll still have NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF ALL MORTGAGES that are good!

    If they QUADRUPLE, we'll still have NINETY SIX PERCENT OF ALL US MORTGAGES that are good!

    Do you get it yet?

    Are your eyes opening?

    You've been had.

    You've been played by the media and the congress like a 2 dollar banjo.

    But don't feel bad.

    So has pretty much everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Mike said..


    9 PCT OF HOME LOANS BEHIND, IN FORECLOSURE



    Not true.

    They're rolling in all sorts of numbers to come up with that 9 million figure.

    The main figure they are using is the fact that millions of homes are now undervalued, and homeowners who purchased these homes in good faith (who are paying their mortgages) suddenly find their properties worth much less than they owe, and some banks who relied on these ARM and Sub Prime packages to make those loans are now going under because they can't float the notes because they're undervalued.

    It was in 2008, the last year that everyone was decrying how people weren't paying their mortgages.

    Those figures were based on the figures I just presented you with (for the 20th time) from Realty Trac.

    God I'm tired of explaining this.

    For the last year you and everyone else have been whining about "TOXIC DEBT", and "DEADBEAT BORROWERS".

    For a SOLID YEAR everyones been crying about how people weren't paying their mortgages and borrowed "above their means".

    For a SOLID YEAR you've been saying THAT was the primary cause of the problem.

    Thats why I gave you the 2007 figures.

    Because in 2008, those are the figures we were using.

    Just like when Realty Trac comes out with new figures this year they'll be for 2008.

    The hype devalued properties across the board, which is why now, in 2009, we're now crying about 9 million Americans.

    9 MILLION homes are NOT in default.

    And thats not what your article states.

    At least the one I found on Reuters this morning.

    9 Million Americans is what the package is targeting, but that is not the default rate.

    Don't confuse default and foreclosure rates with their hype about undervalued properties.

    There are more this year obviously.

    I'm figuring around 2 percent. Maybe 3. That'd be around 2 to 3 million homes in actual foreclosure.

    We'll see when the actual figures come out for 2008.

    But don't get drawn into their stupid arguments. Of COURSE there will be more defaults this year than last. And next year than this year, etc.

    Of COURSE there will be.

    Until the JOBS COME BACK.

    DUH.

    How many people do you know who can pay a mortgage without a job?


    The number of defaults we'll see hence forth are directly tied to the number of JOBS being lost.

    Don't you see?

    JOBS being lost last year. Thats the figure you need to concern yourself with.

    Because people without jobs cannot pay mortgages.

    Don't get sucked into the lies about "deadbeat borrowers".

    Or "borrowing over their means".

    They lost their jobs last year Mike.

    They're not deadbeats, they're working class people who are now unemployed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Here Mike.

    Here are the ACTUAL foreclosure rates for 2008, direct from Realty Trac.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Foreclosure Rate Lookup Chart

    Foreclosure Activity Increases 81 Percent in 2008


    Nearly 3.2 Million Foreclosure Filings on More Than 2.3 Million Properties Reported

    A total of 3,157,806 foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 2,330,483 U.S. properties during 2008, an 81 percent increase in total properties from 2007 and a 225 percent increase in total properties from 2006, according to the RealtyTrac 2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™.

    The report also shows that 1.84 percent of all U.S. housing units (one in 54) received at least one foreclosure filing during the year, up from 1.03 percent in 2007.




    1 percent in 2007.

    1.84 percent in 2008.

    Not 9 percent Mike.

    That's whats called MEDIA HYPE.

    The actual figures are what they want to ignore, so they can drive those numbers up for next year.

    The fact is MOST US MORTGAGES ARE GOOD.

    I'll say that again.

    MOST US MORTGAGES ARE GOOD.

    THATS the truth.

    The rest is all hype.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Every year we'll see these rates increase, until we stop the hemorrhaging of jobs.

    When you consider 11 million Americans were out of work last year, seeing 2 million foreclosures is pretty much on track.

    You'll see more foreclosures as long as we're losing jobs.

    You need to stop the hype, stop the job losses, THEN the mortgage defaults will slow.

    Acting surprised this year that there are more than last year is nonsense and is designed to fuel the crisis.

    And even if your figures of 9 percent were accurate, which they are not, but even if they were true we'd still have more than NINETY PERCENT of US mortgages that were good!

    Don't you see?

    They're playing you Mike.

    Go look at the coverstory on AP.

    "WORST YET TO COME".

    :o

    oh no....doom and gloom. Wo is me.

    The end is near....blah blah blah.

    Its the media Mike. The media, the congress and everyone who can't see through what they're doing.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The truth is last year when everyone was helping Congress and complaining about "Deadbeat borrowers", the actual figures showed that only 1 percent of US mortgages were in default.

    In 2008, that number went up, 81 percent, to less than 2 percent.

    The overall numbers tell the real story.

    And they might hit 3 percent in 2009, IF we don't stop the job losses, and if we don't stop the HYPE.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I like President Obama's plans to stop mortgage defaults though. Those are good ideas and should actually do some good to slow the problem.

    But until he re-establishes lending (something I understand he's working on now) then nothing will slow the defaults.

    Lending must return for jobs to return.

    And jobs must return, across the board, for people to be able to pay their mortgages.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The truth.

    1.84 percent of all U.S. housing units (one in 54) received at least one foreclosure filing during the year, up from 1.03 percent in 2007.


    1 percent in 2007, just like I said.

    And just under 2 percent in 2008.

    Just like I said.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity jumped 45.7 percent to 875.3 in the week ended February 13. It was the highest reading since January 16, and coincided with a 0.2 percentage point drop in average 30-year mortgage rates over the past week to 4.99 percent, the MBA said in a statement."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE51H2N520090218

    There you go Bart...

    ReplyDelete
  89. So this all started in 2006?

    Hmmm.

    Something big happened that year. If only I could remember what it was...

    ReplyDelete
  90. WOW! From Putin no less...

    "Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

    “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

    Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”"


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html

    ReplyDelete
  91. Voltron said...



    There you go Bart...


    There I go what?

    I just laid out in painstaking detail for the ten thousandth time the actual statistics and what is happening.

    And you provide me a link to an article Mike and I already discussed?

    ReplyDelete
  92. And since you're numerically challenged, or just can't read, I pointed to the 2007 events as being the catalyst that brought us here.

    Here. Since you can't read I'll repost my words for you.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Voltron said...

    So this all started in 2006?

    Hmmm.


    Bartlebee said...

    2007 is the period I was talking about because that' when it happened.

    Countrywide collapsed in 2007. That's when the congress and all its echo chamber friends, in here included, started crying doom and gloom and declaring mortgage defaults were doubling.



    I'd try a Speak-n-Spell.

    It should help you distinguish between 6's and 7's.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Default rate for 2006

    .48 percent.

    Default rate for 2007.

    1.03 percent.

    Default rate for 2008.

    1.84 percent.


    There's the truth.

    The rest is just hype.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Oh I remember now!

    Democrats took over congress in 2006.

    And this all started shortly thereafter you say?

    What a co-inkydink...

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well if you were honest you'd acknowledge that I blame the democrats equally as hard as I blame the republicans for this.

    But you're not, and I don't have time to rewrite everything just so you can disappear after I do.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I can repost it if you like though, since apparently your scroll button is broken.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Sorry Bart.

    Your right, you have.
    At least on this one.

    I do like to underline the point though...

    ReplyDelete
  99. Wow. A modicum of truth.

    :|

    Perhaps there's hope for America yet.

    ReplyDelete
  100. There was deregulation on both sides. First with Clinton, then with the republicans. The difference was however when the republicans deregulated they removed oversight for lenders loss speculations, meaning lenders could assess their own capabilities to lend, instead of the government.

    That meant lenders could lend more with less, if they simply underestimated potential losses.

    And to make matters worse they did that while introducing the new Sub Prime market programs, which on face value was a good idea but coupled with the removal of oversight led to lenders naturally underestimating losses and thus it worked for a few years until the losses started piling up, and the cash flow wasn't there to keep the lenders afloat.

    First big one to go was Countrywide.

    And thats where the democrats role came in. Democrats, led by Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took the Countrywide collapse and used it to effectively shut down lending, particularly in the Sub Prime market, effectively "tossing out the baby with the bathwater".

    That took a serious problem and turned it into a catastrophe.

    That's what happened, and because neither party is interested in fixing the problem but instead they're just hell bent on making sure the other side gets the blame, nothing substantial is being done to address the problem.

    Because no ones actually acknowledged yet how it all started and what made it, and is making it, worse.

    ReplyDelete
  101. And I fear the democrats are so hell bent on not accepting any blame for this, they're going to continue to go out of their way to "poo poo" any ideas about widescale lending again.

    Thats why they're telling Americans to brace for the worst. Thats why they're telling Americans "its going to take time".

    Because they don't want to admit that their stifling of lending is what has snowballed the crisis and is continuing to snowball the crisis.

    They don't want to admit that their "knee jerk" reaction in the fall of 07 that shut down lending (whether intentional or not is a question for another time) is what took a bad problem, and turned it into the global disaster we have today.

    Its sort of like that movie I saw last night, "CHANGLING". The Police found the wrong kid, but they were so hell bent on not admitting they were wrong that they took extraordinary lengths to discredit the mother and assert that it was her child.

    The democrats are acting the same way now.

    They were wrong in the fall of 07 to shut down lending.

    And now, being unwilling to admit that, they're afraid of turning it back on, for fear it will fix the problem (which it will), thus drawing attention to their shutting it down in the fall of 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  102. America's in a bad place right now thanks to this two party system.

    We've got a major crisis which both parties are responsible for creating and or exasperating, and both of them are so busy trying to skirt blame and pin it on the other guy that there's simply no one left to actually fix the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Actually Bart, that's a pretty good attempt at bipartisanship on your part.

    The only place I can see where we might disagree is that the Bush administration DID try to impose stricter oversight on Freddie and Fannie several times but were rebuffed by the dems.

    Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in particular ripped apart anyone who dared suggest that Freddie/Fannie were in trouble.

    Maxine Waters went out of her way to rain praise on Franklin Raines.

    All while they were getting huge donations from Freddie/Fannie.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Voltron said...



    The only place I can see where we might disagree is that the Bush administration DID try to impose stricter oversight on Freddie and Fannie several times but were rebuffed by the dems.


    You're confusing two levels of deregulation and oversight.

    When you're talking about Freddie and Fannie you're talking about mortgage securities trading, which is a second component of this crisis, that I can discuss with you, but is not the focal point of my comments.

    I am talking about lender oversight.

    Back in the day, if a company wanted to lend money, federal regulators would be assigned to that lending institution who would regularly examine the books, assets, and projected losses.

    Removing that oversight permitted lenders to underestimate those losses, thus overvaluing their mortgage bundles managed by Freddie and Fannie, and thus investors (in some cases) bought bundled securities that were not as valuable as they had been led to believe.

    Had lenders had the strict oversight of the 90's, they would never have been able to underestimate their projected losses, thus the damage to the securities trading would never have occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  105. That's where the republicans screwed up.

    On the Fannie and Freddie front, you can argue that they should have provided better oversight of the lenders themselves but come on. Once deregulation occurred in the early 00's lenders started popping up left and right.

    Suddenly everyone was in the mortgage business, and no reasonable person could conclude that Freddie and Fannie would be able to oversee all of that.

    ReplyDelete
  106. But make no mistake about it. On the securities trading side there was a glut of hype that led to this problem as well.

    With Realty Trac out spouting doom and gloom foreclosure figures, focusing on increases in defaults without acknowledging the reasons for those increases (i.e. more higher risk loans means more defaults, duh...) so suddenly people started crying "the sky is falling".

    So it did.

    Foreign investors said "f$%k this" and pulled their monies out of US mortgage backed securities and walla.

    Catastrophe on the doorstep.

    ReplyDelete
  107. But make no mistake about it. On the securities trading side there was a glut of hype that led to this problem as well.

    With Realty Trac out spouting doom and gloom foreclosure figures, focusing on increases in defaults without acknowledging the reasons for those increases (i.e. more higher risk loans means more defaults, duh...) so suddenly people started crying "the sky is falling".

    So it did.

    Foreign investors said "f$%k this" and pulled their monies out of US mortgage backed securities and walla.

    Catastrophe on the doorstep.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I did some work for Freddie Mac back in the early 90's and I can tell you it was one of the best run organizations I'd seen from the perspective of the work I was involved in.

    But that's what Washington does.

    They see an organization that's doing well, and doing a good job and they dump more and more stuff on them until they are eventually overwhelmed and can no longer be an efficient organization.

    Its the way of DC.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Oh and by the way.

    That wasn't an attempt at "bipartisanship".

    That was called the truth.

    I can't help it if it looks like Bipartisanship.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Agreed. Too bad it's spreading to the rest of the country.

    Interesting that we agree on much in this area.

    Nice chatting with you for once...LOL

    Gonna do a little surfing and turn in. Have a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  111. When I was a kid and even before that, we never talked about parties too much. My parents were of the "can do" crowd, and so was everyone we knew. America was about "getting things done", and that's what folks brought to the table.

    Oh sure it was there. The McCarthy hearings, Watergate. But most people were about how to get things done.

    When we as a nation can stop talking in terms of parties and start talking about how to get things done again we'll be on our way to recovery.

    But right now this entire country is gridlocked in partisanship, thanks to the worst congressional leadership this country has ever known.

    We need to end the talk of bipartisanship and just start talking about what works.

    ReplyDelete
  112. You know how we are always talking about being color blind.

    Well if we're going to solve the monumental challenges we face now, we're going to need to be party blind.

    If two members of opposite parties in congress get together and come up with a plan to do something, the news cycle needs to focus on the PLAN, and not the fact that they are in separate parties.

    Lets be the can do country again.

    Lets be the ones who get the job done.

    Lets make the world stand in awe of us again, instead of in "shock and awe".

    We can fix this problem if we want. It starts with returning lending, but the democrats are standing in the way of that. President Obama I think sees lending must return but he is fighting a bickering congress, and party leaders who don't want to admit they did anything wrong.

    If we can turn on lending, wide scale lending, federally insure it for the next 24 months, then foreign investors will like our securities again and home sales will return simultaneously, bringing back millions of jobs with it.

    That's what has to happen first.

    If we're going to stop the job losses and the economic losses then we need to bring back lending TOMORROW.

    WIDE SCALE lending.

    Federally insure it for the next 24 months and walla. Here comes the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Right now we have guys like Paul Krugman running around talking about all sorts of things, preaching doom which only further exasperates the problem, causing more losses across the board, and no ones addressing the core of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Its like we're on a ship at sea, and there's a hole in the hull and we're taking on water.

    Everyone's running around trying to find ways to keep the boat afloat, but no ones talking about patching the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Bart - this $13 a week tax credit -- I don't believe this is actual money he is handing out. I agree that it is a waste to hand out 100 billion divided into such small bits, but it's actually a tax credit, right?

    In other words, it comes from cutting middle class INCOME taxes, right?

    Forgive me if I'm wrong.

    And by the way, I believe Obama is LUBRICATING the economy. If you don't cahnge your oil in an 8-year-old car that is choking black smoke, you can't have an engine that runs clean.

    Obama is doing so much and he has a website up with every penny accounted for -- a live site that will report every penny. This is accountability.

    We should all have more faith and stop the negativity.

    Keith had an amazing show today. I have to do a blog about WINGNUT EXTRAORDINAIRE MICHELLE BACHMAN
    and that schmuck repug who claims he pixed the stimulus but then voted against it after he added what he wanted.

    These people are insane and severely damaged -- they don't want anything to succeed that will help the American people unless they can claim political power.

    ReplyDelete
  116. by "pixed" I meant "fixed."

    ReplyDelete
  117. We have all sorts of plans. Repairing infrastructure to create temporary jobs.

    Tax breaks to incite hiring.

    Tax breaks to incite home buying and auto buying.

    Tax breaks to help with bills.

    Rebates, business investment, spending, etc.

    We have all these wonderful ideas, but no ones talking about just plugging the hole.

    And the hole is lending.

    Restore lending and you plug the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Lydia Cornell said...

    Bart - this $13 a week tax credit -- I don't believe this is actual money he is handing out. I agree that it is a waste to hand out 100 billion divided into such small bits, but it's actually a tax credit, right?

    In other words, it comes from cutting middle class INCOME taxes, right?

    Forgive me if I'm wrong.



    Right. They'll see 13 bucks a week more in their paychecks.

    And its a waste of money we don't have.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Lydia Cornell said...

    by "pixed" I meant "fixed."


    lol, I knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Don't confuse what I'm saying here Lydia. I'm not attacking President Obama.

    I'm talking about Congress.

    Read closely what I've written in this thread. I've spelled it out pretty clear and I'd be willing to call into your show and say the same thing to Paul Krugman if you have him on. Or any other financial expert.

    I think President Obama is taking strides in the right direction, but remember. He's being advised on this by congress, and its congress writing the bills.

    He's spoken of lending a lot recently, and I think he's getting it but congress is standing in his way, and confusing him, mostly because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't want attention drawn to the fact that it was their knee jerk reactions to the collapse of Countrywide in fall of 07 that took a bad problem and made it a thousand times worse.

    ReplyDelete
  121. It's like Obama is the captain of a ship, and Congress is the crew.

    The ship hits an iceberg and the ice punctures the hull, and now the ship is taking on water through the hole in the hull.

    Everyones running around in a panic, and the captain is being advised by his crews damage reports and assessments to try all sorts of stuff to keep the ship afloat.

    One crewmen suggests closing off the section where the hole is at.

    One crewmen suggests inflating pontoons and strapping them to the sides of the ship.

    One crewmen suggests beaching the ship in shallow waters.

    Other crewmen are suggesting abandoning ship via the lifeboats.

    But NO ONE, is suggesting they simply patch the hole.

    :|

    We need to patch the hole, and the hole is lending.

    But congress doesn't want it patched, because if we do, it will put the spotlight on their role in freezing lending, which is something they do not want.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Everyone's got great ideas on how to keep our little ship from sinking.

    Unfortunately, none of those ideas includes simply patching the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  123. We need to patch the hole FIRST.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I propose in 2010 we vote every single incumbent member of congress out of office.

    Every single one who is up for reelection.

    Vote them out, and the remaining ones might wake up and take the hint.

    We're tired of partisan politics hurting this country. We're fine with a little partisanship but at the end of the day we're all Americans and there are bigger problems on our plate other than making sure the other side doesn't win.

    If the party members would just focus on getting things done and forget about the partisan crap, then they wouldn't have to worry about being reelected because people will vote for them based on their successes.

    In 2010, don't leave one incumbent in office who's up for reelection.

    Vote everyone of them out, and THEN we'll see change.

    ReplyDelete
  125. But as for right now we need to patch the hole.

    We're losing jobs, trillions in wealth and we're going down by the stern.

    We need to PATCH THE HOLE.

    And the hole is lending. Mortgage lending. Auto lending. Commercial lending.

    Patch the hole or go down with the ship.

    Thats our choice.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Lydia Cornell said...

    Bart - this $13 a week tax credit -- I don't believe this is actual money he is handing out. I agree that it is a waste to hand out 100 billion divided into such small bits, but it's actually a tax credit, right?

    In other words, it comes from cutting middle class INCOME taxes, right?


    Right. But where do you think the money's coming to pay for it?

    He's taking billions from the stimulus package to pay for it.

    So he's taking 100 billion or so, dividing it up and handing it out, in the form of tax breaks.

    We don't have the money to spend on it and so if we're going to borrow then we need to borrow smart.

    I'm not being negative. I'm being specific and frank.

    His 75 billion dollar lifeline for mortgages is a good plan. I'll have to look closer at the details but it sounds like a good move.

    But until he patches the hole, i.e. returning lending, all these things are just band aid approaches. They won't stop the hemorrhaging.

    If we want to stop the hemorrhaging then we need to patch the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Look YOU KNOW i'm no fan of Pelosi or Reid i've made that clear over a HUNDRED times but honestly i'm not seeing what your seeing and not buying what your selling here............sure I think there are some demacrats at fault too like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin who helped push reckless deregulation, BUT this problem was mostly repugs, probably 90% of the blame is repugs like Phil Graham, Allan Greenspan etc who preached reckless deregulation and repealed Glass Steagal and pompously ridiculed and marginalized ANYONE saying the CTFC should be regulared.


    I'm just not buying that ANYONE would be afraid of Pelosi or Reid after the last 2 years........i mean if the banks were the least little bit afraid of those spineless jellyfish in Congress they wouldnt be flagrantly taking tax payer money and using it for bonuses or to buy up zombie companies for tax deductions..........further that BS repug idiots like Voltron keep spewing about Frank and Dodd "FORCING" banks to make reckless loans is just that a BS repug talking point..........the Dem Congress of the last 2 years couldnt force an 8 year old boy to do what they wanted no less an arrogant greedy CEO.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Lydia Cornell said...

    Bart - this $13 a week tax credit -- I don't believe this is actual money he is handing out. I agree that it is a waste to hand out 100 billion divided into such small bits, but it's actually a tax credit, right?

    In other words, it comes from cutting middle class INCOME taxes, right?

    Right. But where do you think the money's coming to pay for it?

    He's taking billions from the stimulus package to pay for it.

    So he's taking 100 billion or so, dividing it up and handing it out, in the form of tax breaks.

    We don't have the money to spend on it and so if we're going to borrow then we need to borrow smart.

    I'm not being negative. I'm being specific and frank.

    His 75 billion dollar lifeline for mortgages is a good plan. I'll have to look closer at the details but it sounds like a good move.

    But until he patches the hole, i.e. returning lending, all these things are just band aid approaches. They won't stop the hemorrhaging.

    If we want to stop the hemorrhaging then we need to patch the hole.

    8:09 PM
    Delete
    Blogger Mike said...

    Look YOU KNOW i'm no fan of Pelosi or Reid i've made that clear over a HUNDRED times but honestly i'm not seeing what your seeing and not buying what your selling here............sure I think there are some demacrats at fault too like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin who helped push reckless deregulation, BUT this problem was mostly repugs,


    Then you're not seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Take off the partisan blinders, and then you'll see more clearly.

    You'll know you've taken them off when you stop saying things like 'it was the repugs".

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mike said...



    I'm just not buying that ANYONE would be afraid of Pelosi or Reid after the last 2 years........i mean if the banks were the least little bit afraid of those spineless jellyfish in Congress they wouldnt be flagrantly taking tax payer money and using it for bonuses or to buy up zombie companies for tax deductions


    Are you kidding me? In 2007 Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were the two leaders of Congress. Still are.

    And Congress controls the purse.

    Of course they were afraid of Pelosi and Reid and of those who would listen to them. Congress controls lending.

    And it was Reid and Pelosi the rest of congress who shut down lending in the fall of 2007.

    And its Reid and Pelosi and those who support them both in and out of congress who are perpetuating that shutdown, with lies like "Predatory lending", "People borrowing above their means", and other lies and red herrings designed to put the onus of the problem on the heads of Americans.

    And the reason they want to put the onus of the problem on the heads of Americans is because they're worried that if Americans knew what really happened, they'd be calling for theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  131. And because Americans are partisan themselves, they buy into it, and help them sell their lies.

    This wasn't people not paying their mortgages.

    I've proven that.

    And it wasn't Predatory lending.

    It was what I said it was, deregulation coupled with the simultaneous opening of the Sub Prime markets that precipitated the crisis.

    And it was and is Congress shutting down lending that perpetuates it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Also your not addressing the Credit Default Swaps that are making the banks insolvent like Clif has been saying for months.........I'm not disagreeing with you on the need to get lending going.

    But I do think that this buying in to repug talking points that Congress mysticly had the power to "FORCE" lenders to lend or "FORCE" them not to lend is riddiculous........further I think buying into the repug talking point that Nationalizing the banks will destroy capitalism and is socialism is whats keeping lending from happening.

    This isnt rocket science banks ALWAYS WITHOUT fail hoard cash and refuse to lend during a Depression its historical fact......your attributing WAY TOO MUCH power and credit to buffoons like pelosi and Reid if your saying they have the power to stop banks from lending.

    Consider this "IF" we would have Nationalized Banks back in September when I said we should have those banks would have been loaning money and NOT constricting credit by jacking up interest rates on the people with good credit to push us into a depression and half a MILLION jobs wouldnt be evaporating into thin air each and every month........so consider that when you lend credence to Right Wing talking points and mantras like Saving capitalism and jobs is socialism............Bush did a half assed job of nationalizing the banks purposely so Obama would HAVE to be the one to actually to it completely and they could point the finger and say he's a Socialist and against capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  133. There was most definately predatory lending..........The mortgage originators lied about peoples income so these people would qualify and they could collect fat origination fees..........they inflated peoples income by 500% in many cases and got people into negative Amortization loans so people were losing equity and going deeper into debt every year.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Reid and Pelosi are spineless its riddiculous to think ANYONE would be scared of them...........answer me this if those CEO's were so scared of those idiots then why did they have the balls to take their bailout money and use it for bonuses and to hoard and buy up zombie companies.......theres no fear of those idiots and i'm far from partisan i've critized Reid, Pelosi, Summers Clinton for years the majority of the blame is the repugs they have preached dereg and tax cuts like mindless zealots for eons thats a fact not partisanship.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I havent seen one scintella of evidence to show HOW Reid or Pelosi mystically FORCED or PREVENTED lending not one!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Mike said...

    Also your not addressing the Credit Default Swaps that are making the banks insolvent like Clif has been saying for months.........I'm not disagreeing with you on the need to get lending going


    Mike you're talking about something completely different now and not the core of the problem.

    Clif warns about trillions of potential losses from these CDS's but that's just more hype. (sorry Clif).

    While the numbers appear staggering at first the fact is most businesses do not end up leveraging these. Lehman brothers brought attention to these because it held 400 billion of CDS protection written on the bank, so the losses were staggering.

    But this is a not the norm, and the reason Lehman when under was not due to the CDS but due to other areas. The CDS issue was an aftershock issue, not the issue that led them down. They failed in the same way most banks failed. Because foreign investors pulled out their moneys of US mortgage backed securities which they were highly divested in like everyone else, and thus the problem once more is traced right back to the mortgage lending industry.

    You're talking about symptoms and effects Mike.

    I'm talking about the cause of the problem, and the way to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    But as for right now we need to patch the hole.

    We're losing jobs, trillions in wealth and we're going down by the stern.

    We need to PATCH THE HOLE.

    And the hole is lending. Mortgage lending. Auto lending. Commercial lending.

    Patch the hole or go down with the ship.

    Thats our choice."


    Now your talking i've used the EXACT same anology since September........THATS why I opposed the TARP bailout because I KNEW it wouldnt work UNLESS it included a component to insure lending and to help ALL homeowners not just the lenders or the reckless ones that are losing homes but ALL homeowner........I said just throwing money at the banks with no oversite or help to homeowners was like trying to bail water out of a sinking ship in the middle of a lake with an 8oz cup instead of trying to patch the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  138. And as for what happened in fall of 2007 where Reid and Pelosi called for a halt to lending, if you don't get that I don't see how I can explain it any further.

    I've posted probably millions of words on the subject in here already, and each time you try to find a way to frame it back into "its the repugs!".

    Well Mike. Its not the repugs. Its not the dems.

    Its BOTH.

    And until you take off the partisan blinders and start focusing on the source of the problem, you just won't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Mike said...

    Now your talking i've used the EXACT same anology since September........THATS why I opposed the TARP bailout because I KNEW it wouldnt work UNLESS it included a component to insure lending and to help ALL homeowners not just the lenders or the reckless ones that are losing homes but ALL homeowner........I said just throwing money at the banks with no oversite or help to homeowners was like trying to bail water out of a sinking ship in the middle of a lake with an 8oz cup instead of trying to patch the hole.

    Right. And I agreed with you there.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Bart if the liabilities exceed the assets of these banks NO ONE is going to provide capital the major banks all have major CDS liabilities thats why I said to let em fail and either capitalize the ones worth saving or let em all fail and start a National Bank that we KNOW will actually lend and not choke of credit by raising interest rates to 20%-30%.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Bart Prove to me its Pelosi and Reid.......You KNOW I dont like Pelosi or Reid and I like and respect you so i'm not invested in protecting them or proving you wrong.........I just need evidence and I havent seen any!

    ReplyDelete
  142. But only up to a point. You are still buying into the "predatory lending" bull and thats what needs to change.

    People need to understand what happened here and frankly I'm tired of repeating it.

    If you can't see that lenders closed their pocketbooks right after Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi made their "parties over" speeches then I don't think I can help. You need to understand what happened, and I have been more than diligent in taking my valuable time to spell it out, in painstaking detail.

    Go back over my words. They are clear and consistent.

    This problem started with the republicans, and continued with the democrats.

    So we need to take off our partisan blinders and focus on patching the hole.

    And the hole is lending.

    There is no "but" there.

    There is no "yea but" there.

    There is just the hole, and the patch it requires.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I KNOW you want lending to return and the economy to stop imploding as much as I do so explain to me why you are so opposed to nationalization of the banks..........the way I see it its the ONLY way to insure that lending returns and credit is not choked off by greedy banks hoarding cash and jacking interest rates and nickeling and diming consumers with punitative fees.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Mike said...

    Bart Prove to me its Pelosi and Reid....


    How?

    Prove what? You didn't pay attention when it happened and there ain't any MSM flunkies out there broadcasting it for you.

    What more can I say to you Mike than I've said?

    I've spelled it out. Go back and look at when lending dried up.

    You'll see it coincides with the collapse of Countrywide and Congresses "gotcha" speeches to the lending industry.

    If you didn't watch the speeches and if you didn't pay attention, then go back and research it.

    You'll see. And if not, then I can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Bart look at past Depressions and banking crisises Banks ALWAYS hoard money and refuse to lend.......they saw things going south and tighened credit themselves and that exacerbated the collapse......I just cant see any evidence of those spineless idiots being able to control banks from lending THEIR OWN MONEY but not using tax payer bailout money for excessive bonuses or buying up zombie companies or hoarding.......it just doesnt make sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Mike said...

    I KNOW you want lending to return and the economy to stop imploding as much as I do so explain to me why you are so opposed to nationalization of the banks


    Because America is a capitalist society and nationalization of the banks means the end of capitalism as we know it. It means we failed.

    And I don't think we failed.

    I think we've stumbled, but I don't think we've failed.

    Yet.

    And if you want the government deciding who gets to buy a home and who doesn't, or if you want the government monitoring every cent you spend (not that they don't already, lol) then ok. Do it.

    But it won't stop the hemorrhaging unless they restart wide scale lending.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I watched the speeches and the Dems rode the poor economy into the WH and mpre control of Congress.....sure they played it for all its worth.......but i just dont see them having that kind of power.......theres nothing to support that thesis that I can see.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Mike said...

    Bart look at past Depressions and banking crisises Banks ALWAYS hoard money and refuse to lend.


    Well gee, thanks Mike, but I've only written about a BILLION words on that already.

    That's a "duh".

    And if you go back and read what I've written to you time and time again on this, you'll see that each time that happens the only thing that's brought back the economy was the government bringing back lending, usually in the form of massive injections of capital, and insuring loans.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Mike said...

    I watched the speeches and the Dems rode the poor economy into the WH and mpre control of Congress.....sure they played it for all its worth.......but i just dont see them having that kind of power.......theres nothing to support that thesis that I can see.


    Well then you don't understand the relationship of big ticket lending to the federal govt and regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Well it doesnt look like banks are going to lend anytime soon and we are losing half a million jobs each and every month it might be the only way to insure lending and prevent job loss.

    Student loans are are quasi federal, the telecoms used to be and Fannie and Freddie used to be......I dont seem to remember any blackouts or brownouts when I was a kid or price gouging and electricy and telecom were not deregulated.


    If banking is critical to national security and we cant trust the banks to run things themselves maybe it is neccessary for capitalism to survive.........would you rather have 3 or 4 banks either choking off credit for their own selfish interests or sucking the lifeblood out of the economy by nickeling and diming their customers and charging excessive interest.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Mike said...

    .I just cant see any evidence of those spineless idiots being able to control banks from lending THEIR OWN MONEY but not using tax payer bailout money for excessive bonuses or buying up zombie companies or hoarding.......it just doesnt make sense at all.


    Well I didn't say "control".

    I said they "frightened" them into clamping down their wallets.

    Congress threatened lenders, and lenders in turn responded by closing up shop.

    I've got a 792 credit rating and made over 6 figures last year and I got turned down for an auto loan.

    When you can understand what is happening here you'll see what I am saying. In the meantime you need to go back and seriously ponder what I've written, and read it again. I'm not writing it for my health.

    I know you agree with me lending needs to return.

    Where our paths diverge is in the urgency of that return. And the importance of it.

    I understand that it is the FIRST issue to be dealt with.

    I understand that every cent we throw at this problem is simply throwing good money after bad, UNTIL lending returns.

    I understand that the millions of Americans who's jobs rely on the housing market will not return to work until mortgage lending returns.

    I understand that more than half this countries industries rely in some way on the housing market. From the carpenter building the house, to the logger cutting the wood for the house, to the trucker transporting the building materials for the house, to the cashier selling the materials, to the realtor selling the house, to the title company, to the underwriter, to the inspectors, to the termite guy, to the landscapers, to the ......

    I understand the relationships.

    And because of this I understand that lending, IS the "hole".

    And I understand that before we worry about running for the lifeboats, we might want to try to patch the hole first.

    When you understand this, then you'll see what I see.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Blogger BARTLEBEE said...

    Mike said...

    Bart look at past Depressions and banking crisises Banks ALWAYS hoard money and refuse to lend.

    Well gee, thanks Mike, but I've only written about a BILLION words on that already.

    That's a "duh".

    And if you go back and read what I've written to you time and time again on this, you'll see that each time that happens the only thing that's brought back the economy was the government bringing back lending, usually in the form of massive injections of capital, and insuring loans."


    Well if banks ALWAYS hoard money and refuse to lend then how is this Pelosi's fault.......and we've already tried the masive capital injections and banks are STILL hoarding money and refusing to lend so what now?


    Look i'm not some big government socialist........I dont think theres anything else that will work........are you willing to risk throwing MORE money at the banks and "HOPING" they do the right thing and loan while 3-5 million more jobs evaporate?

    It might be two late if we keep trying halfassed measures hoping things work out we need to do something drastic and decisive and move swiftly.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Mike said...

    If banking is critical to national security and we cant trust the banks to run things themselves maybe it is neccessary for capitalism to survive.........would you rather have 3 or 4 banks either choking off credit for their own selfish interests or sucking the lifeblood out of the economy by nickeling and diming their customers and charging excessive interest.



    Mike. We don't need to federalize the banks to get them to lend.

    You keep referencing the great depression.

    We didn't federalize them then, and we got them to lend.

    And Reagan didn't federalize the Savings and Loans in 1989 to get them to lend again.

    The way to get banks to lend is to inject the lending capital.

    And the way we make sure they lend it is to stipulate what its for.

    Not just hand it to them like we've been doing, and crossing our fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  154. How did Congress "frighten" them?

    ReplyDelete
  155. No, I believe lending needs to return as well IMMEDIATELY I stated a year ago that over 50% of jobs were in some way tied to housing..........I have friends in the auto industry and those jobs are in trouble theyve been on 1 week furloughs for 4 months now and it seems layoffs and massive job losses are inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  156. We've discussed this before and we both agreed.

    Either inject lending capital or set up a lending fund.

    Thats all it takes.

    When congress writes the spending bill they simply stipulate what the funds are for. Thats all they had to do but instead Bush handed it to them and they SQUANDERED it.

    President Obama is working on getting them capital I think WITH strings attached, and thats a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Mike said...

    How did Congress "frighten" them?


    Mike.

    How many times are you going to make me rewrite this?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Just give me a round number.

    10?

    20?

    1000?

    ReplyDelete
  159. They "frightened" them with federal investigations and crackdowns.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Mike said...

    Look i'm not some big government socialist........I dont think theres anything else that will work........are you willing to risk throwing MORE money at the banks and "HOPING" they do the right thing and loan while 3-5 million more jobs evaporate?



    No.

    And for the ten millionth time, I'm suggesting the complete opposite.

    Give them the money, just STIPULATE what its for.

    :|

    STIPULATE.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Bart said "We didn't federalize them then, and we got them to lend.

    And Reagan didn't federalize the Savings and Loans in 1989 to get them to lend again.

    The way to get banks to lend is to inject the lending capital.

    And the way we make sure they lend it is to stipulate what its for.

    Not just hand it to them like we've been doing, and crossing our fingers."


    Which is what I said back in September and why I opposed the bailout back then............look i'd be fine if we did EXACTLY what you just stated above I said that back in September..........my only worry now is what if we try that and it doesnt work and MORE jobs are lost.........if we lose a few million more jobs it may be too late to come out of this in a year or two and we might have another lost decade like the Great Depression or the 1990's in Japan..........Thats why i'm leaning towards Nationalization i'm just worried that if these guys bungle this for another few months it might be too late to pull out of this in a reasonable amount of time.

    ReplyDelete
  162. STIPULATE:

    From Latin stipulatus, past participle of stipulari (“‘to demand a guarantee’”)

    Wiktionary

    ReplyDelete
  163. Mike said...

    .my only worry now is what if we try that and it doesnt work and MORE jobs are lost.

    It will work.

    It's science Mike.

    Return lending and there will be a glut of home sales almost overnight.

    This in turn will require LOTS of people to go back to work, overnight, to deal with these transactions.

    MILLIONS.

    And then builders, once they see homes are actually selling again, will start building again.

    Its proven science. There's no speculation here.

    Builders right now are CHOMPIN AT THE BIT.

    So are REALTORS.

    Title Companies.

    Mortgage companies.

    Home inspection companies.

    And on down the line.

    They are waiting to go back to work.

    Once homes start selling again, they will.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Mike said...

    No, I believe lending needs to return as well IMMEDIATELY I stated a year ago that over 50% of jobs were in some way tied to housing......


    And you said right.

    ReplyDelete
  165. So how are we going to get the banks to start lending?

    Are Obama's economic advisers on this track that you are speaking of I HOPE???

    I am so sick of these greedy banks.

    ReplyDelete
  166. We need to stop the hemorrhaging. Hemorrhaging of jobs, money, mortgage defaults, etc.

    And to do that we need to plug the hole.

    And the hole is frozen lending.

    No ones going to buy a home without a mortgage.

    So giving out tax incentives for home buying is nonsense, at least until home lending returns.

    THEN you give out the tax breaks for buying homes.

    Once people can actually BUY the home.

    :|

    Not before.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I'm not trying to be right here Mike.

    And I'm not debating.

    I'm just a passenger on this sinking ship and I happen to be standing near the hole.

    So, I want to call the crews attention to it, so they can patch it.

    I think you see that and get it, but your visions still a little clouded by your partisanship. And I admire your partisanship. In most circumstances.

    But when we're in trouble we need to put it aside, and focus on solutions and cause and effect.

    Understanding that both parties played a key role in creating and or perpetuating this crisis is critical to its resolution.

    Until we do that then Congress will continue to play games with themselves, pushing the ball back and forth into each others courts trying to make the other party look bad, and ruining the economy in the process.

    But when the people begin to realize that it was BOTH parties in Congress that helped create and fuel the crisis, and both parties are currently damaging the economy because of their own partisan agendas, then we'll be able to put the pressure on them to fix it or get out of dodge.

    The republicans are busy tossing in all sorts of nonsense and restrictions on the bill in an attempt to make it ineffectual.

    And the democrats are busy trying to keep the ship afloat without actually addressing the problem of lending, because they know that if lending returns, so will the economy. And when that happens, people are going to begin to take a long hard look at why they helped shut it down.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Anyway thats it for me.

    I'm all typed out.

    Chow 4 now.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Lydia Cornell said...

    So how are we going to get the banks to start lending?

    Are Obama's economic advisers on this track that you are speaking of I HOPE???

    I am so sick of these greedy banks.


    Oh wow, I didn't see you there Lydia.

    Sorry.

    We restart lending by doing one of three things I've spelled out in here.

    1. Inject the lending capital directly into the banks with stipulations that it all must be used for making home and auto loans.

    2. Set up lending a federal lending fund and permit lenders to draw on that fund to make loans with.

    3. Insure all big ticket loans for the next 24 months with federal funds.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Either of those three things will return lending.

    ReplyDelete
  171. And of course we return the Federal oversight, so that lenders properly structure their projected losses and retain sufficient capital to cover those losses.

    Hence if you're going to make twice as many sub prime loans in 2009, then they'd better be prepared for twice as many defaults as they had in 2008.

    Federal oversight will ensure they do this.

    It should have never been taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Lydia Cornell said...

    Are Obama's economic advisers on this track that you are speaking of I HOPE???

    That's a good question and I honestly am not sure how committed to it they are.

    President Obama however has spoken of lending several times now, and has said the magic words I wanted to hear, i.e. "lending must return for the economy to return", so I am confident HE gets it.

    But he's a new President and he is going to be manipulated and shoved in every direction conceivable, so we'll have to wait and see where he goes with it.

    Nancy Pelosi wrote the current stimulus package, and President Obama was smart enough to understand that we had to get SOMETHING out there, now.

    The republicans deceived him though, and stripped tons of good things out of the package, trying to neuter it out of the gate. And of course Pelosi, partisan that she is had to go and write the bill in private, showing a blatant disrespect for the congressional process and ensuring republican opposition.

    But at the end of the day I agree with President Obama that we needed to get it passed, primarily to keep things afloat while we work on other things.

    I am so encouraged by his approach that the stimulus was just "part of the program" that I am hopeful today that we will see things begin to turn soon. But everytime he talks about it being a "long time" before things turn around I lose a little of that faith. He can turn it around quicker than he thinks, if he can just get lending off the ground again.

    His 75 billion dollar program that he's working on now is a great step to stop the mortgage defaults and I believe will really help.

    If he can now jumpstart lending, after doing all this, then there is no doubt we'll see the economy return, and return with a vengeance.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Just understand this Lydia. Everything thats being done now are "stopgap" measures.

    Nothing more.

    As much as you may hate to agree with the republicans they are right that infrastructure jobs are temporary in nature.

    They can help, for sure. But they are not a solution. They are stopgap measures.

    Extending unemployment benefits, removing taxes off the first 2400 dollars of unemployment insurance, 13 dollar a week tax breaks for the working class (I hate that one), tax breaks for corporations, these are all "stopgap" measures. Designed to slow the problem until something better can be put in place.

    An immediate return to lending is not a stopgap measure, but a long term solution that will restart our economy and put Americans back to work.

    If President Obama takes 100 billion of the stimulus and makes it available for either making mortgage and auto loans, or insuring them, then he'll bring back the housing market overnight.

    And the economy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Just take a drive out to LA one day Lydia, to that Parking lot we all read about last year.

    You know the one.

    Where hundreds (probably more by now) of women are sleeping in their cars, because they lost their jobs due to the housing market crash.

    Most of them mortgage company workers, title company workers and realtors.

    They lost their jobs. Lost their homes, and so the parking lot owner lets them sleep in their cars there.

    Take a drive out there one day, introduce yourself, and ask them if I'm right.

    ReplyDelete
  175. If President Obama takes 100 billion of the stimulus and makes it available for either making mortgage and auto loans, or insuring them, then he'll bring back the housing market overnight.

    And the economy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Lydia Cornell said...


    I am so sick of these greedy banks.


    Me too.

    We gave them 350 BILLION dollars last year, supposedly to start making loans with. At least a portion of it.

    Instead they took it, and used it to buy up failed banks and corporations to use as tax shelters.

    :|

    So if Mike's idea of nationalizing the banks involves firing these CEO's and tarring, feathering and running them out of town on a rail, then I'll have to take another look at it, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  177. But don't forget, it was Congress that gave them that money without any stipulations.

    Congress handed them the money and they could have stipulated how it was used, but they didn't.

    This was probably because the CEO's threatened to tell the public how much they've funneled into their campaigns through the back door over the last decade or so.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Same with the auto industry.

    I made over 6 figures last year but I don't have 25,000 lying around to buy a new car.

    Do you?

    Does anyone?

    People need loans to buy cars.

    We can throw as much welfare at the auto dealers as we want, but all that will do is ensure they need more.

    Make auto loans available however, and you'll see them pull themselves out.

    Almost overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Remember when they were selling all those SUV's over the last several years?

    Remember how high SUV sales were?

    It wasn't because they made such good SUV's. They made rotten SUVs. Rotten cars and trucks.

    So why did they sell so many?

    Simple.

    Ample available credit.

    Make the credit available, and people will buy cars again.

    And if people buy cars again, then the big three won't need our welfare bailouts.

    And they won't have to lay off 3 MILLION people.

    ReplyDelete
  180. And here's how to do it slick, so the economy return brings along with it the ecology.

    Make the loans available for only highly fuel efficient vehicles.

    :D

    Do that, and guess what?

    People will buy fuel efficient vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Meaning the big three will start making more fuel efficient vehicles.

    Just make financing available for fuel efficient vehicles.

    If you want a gas guzzler, you'd better have some bucks on hand.

    Make the loans available for fuel efficient vehicles and we'll help fix the environment along with the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  182. From Newspaper:

    Instead of lending out the money, banks -- under pressure from shareholders and, apparently, some federal regulators -- have been using it to shore up their balance sheets.

    And they are completely within their rights to do so because of a virtual complete lack of restrictions placed on banks as to how they can use the taxpayer dollars they receive.

    The Obama administration did not appear amused. White House officials told the Journal they plan an overhaul of the program.

    But banks defended their actions.

    Some pointed out that a lack of capital on hand is what led to problems in the first place and called their decision to horde TARP funds fiscally responsible.

    Others pointed to the difficulty of finding good lending opportunities in an era when many businesses are troubled and overall demand for loans is down.

    As BB&T Chief Executive Kelly King said eloquently during a recent conference call, "We're not going to make a bunch of bad loans."

    ReplyDelete
  183. Lydia said...

    From Newspaper:

    The Obama administration did not appear amused. White House officials told the Journal they plan an overhaul of the program.

    But banks defended their actions.



    Yea, I'm sure they did.

    But it sounds like Obama's got their number.

    He knows what happened I think, and that is an encouraging thought.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Lydia said...


    As BB&T Chief Executive Kelly King said eloquently during a recent conference call, "We're not going to make a bunch of bad loans."



    This is a great quote Lydia. You see the problem. I know you do.

    See the lie here CEO King is trying to sell?

    He's selling the same lie Congess is trying to sell.

    He's trying to blame US!

    ReplyDelete
  185. Both Congress and the Banking execs are trying to seed the notion that it is "deadbeat borrowers" who are the root of their problems.

    US. Regular Americans.

    Never mind they underestimated their losses in the Sub Prime markets, while overvaluing securities based on their underestimated foreclosure rates.

    Never mind we gave them 350 BILLION dollars and they squandered it, doing nothing to help the economy.

    Never mind that they with the help of the media and congress overhyped the foreclosure rates, convincing some Americans that we were experiencing default rates in the double digits, when in fact, just a little over 1 percent of all US mortgages actually went into foreclosure.

    Never mind all that.

    They want to blame their failures and their corruption and greed, on US!

    Don't let em.

    ReplyDelete
  186. You've got the microphone Lydia. You've got the pulpit. You can reach so many more people than me or any of us in here.

    Don't let the Congress and their fat, greasy corporate banking executives (who are also their contributors) convince people that this problem was somehow caused by deadbeat borrowers.

    Its not regular Americans who caused this problem.

    THEY caused the problem. Congress caused he problem. And with no leadership in the White House the problem snowballed into what it is today.

    Don't let them pin this one on us, and escape their responsibilities.

    They're the deadbeats.

    We gave them 350 BILLION dollars, and they used it to throw parties and to buy fancy jets and to purchase tax shelters so they could keep their ridiculously fat bonuses.

    They're the deadbeats.

    Tell your listeners.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Blogger Lydia Cornell said...

    From Newspaper:

    Instead of lending out the money, banks -- under pressure from shareholders and, apparently, some federal regulators -- have been using it to shore up their balance sheets.

    And they are completely within their rights to do so because of a virtual complete lack of restrictions placed on banks as to how they can use the taxpayer dollars they receive.

    The Obama administration did not appear amused. White House officials told the Journal they plan an overhaul of the program.

    But banks defended their actions.

    Some pointed out that a lack of capital on hand is what led to problems in the first place and called their decision to horde TARP funds fiscally responsible.

    Others pointed to the difficulty of finding good lending opportunities in an era when many businesses are troubled and overall demand for loans is down.

    As BB&T Chief Executive Kelly King said eloquently during a recent conference call, "We're not going to make a bunch of bad loans."


    Tarp Funds SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED ONLY for lending.........if these idiots dont have enough capital on hand its their own fault if they would ACTUALLY do their job and loan money to people the multiplier effect would kick in and they would have plenty of capital........that crap about them not wanting to loan to deadbeats is a dishonest repug talking point.

    If these IDIOTS arent competent enough to know the difference between good and bad loans then they need to close the doors and step aside and let more competent people take over who put the public good over their own greedy self interests.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Lydia said...

    Others pointed to the difficulty of finding good lending opportunities in an era when many businesses are troubled and overall demand for loans is down.

    They lie.

    The demand for loans, ESPECIALLY business loans is WAY, WAY UP.

    Small businesses often rely on credit to make payrolls.

    Everyone knows that. They know that.

    Without access to that credit we are seeing small businesses fold left and right, because they can't make their payrolls.

    Small businesses often have to wait months and months to get paid, but they have to pay their workers. So small businesses across the board often rely on credit to meet with payroll demands.

    BB and T is LYING.

    Tell people. Don't let them get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Mike said...


    Tarp Funds SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED ONLY for lending....


    Exactly.

    It was downright criminal to hoard them.

    They abused the system at the worst possible time. To me its akin to war profiteering. Its downright criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  190. When bondholders or private capital companies take over a company in bankruptcy they USUALLY get ridof the incompetent CEO's and management that ran the company into the ground and install their own people they deem more competent to head the company..........if the government is essentially taking over these bankrupt companies as debt holders they need to get rid of the incompetent management if its impeding the economic recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Bart said "To me its akin to war profiteering. Its downright criminal."

    I couldnt have said it better.......its not ONLY they are taking excessive bonus money, hording money and buying zombie companies for tax deductions.......they are ACTUALLY constricting credit by jacking rates up to 20%-30% on people with perfect credit and that is CRIMINAL!

    ReplyDelete
  192. Mike said...

    When bondholders or private capital companies take over a company in bankruptcy they USUALLY get ridof the incompetent CEO's and management that ran the company into the ground and install their own people they deem more competent to head the company..........if the government is essentially taking over these bankrupt companies as debt holders they need to get rid of the incompetent management if its impeding the economic recovery.

    True but we don't have to nationalize them to accomplish that. We can place any demands we want on federal assistance and even federal insurance if necessary.

    The trick is just knowing where to squeeze.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Bart said "True but we don't have to nationalize them to accomplish that. We can place any demands we want on federal assistance and even federal insurance if necessary.

    The trick is just knowing where to squeeze."


    I if they can do it quickly and do it right then we probably dont but every month we lose an additional half million jobs makes it more difficult to pull out of this..........I know its crying over spilled milk but if we had put REAL oversite on the bailout in September so they had to lend and also helped ALL homeowners we could have been pulling out of this possibly by Summer.............THATS why I was so negative on this being a normal quick recession because I SAW the incompetence and kneejerk failed policies and halfassed solutions they were putting forward and KNEW they didnt have a prayer of working.


    Throwing money at a bunch of failed banks willy nilly without MANDATING they loan and and providing oversite and without helping homeowners to prevent FUTURE foreclosures and a component like low interest rates and tax credits to quickly get rid of the built up inventory of allready forclosed homes was a recipe for failure and thats why I opposed Bush and Paulsons flawed bailout not because of who proposed it or was running it.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Tell em you can have the money on the condition you lend it out, and fire that asshole who bought the 30,000 dollar trash can with the last bailout funds, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Mike said...

    I if they can do it quickly and do it right then we probably dont but every month we lose an additional half million jobs makes it more difficult to pull out of this..........I know its crying over spilled milk but if we had put REAL oversite on the bailout in September so they had to lend and also helped ALL homeowners we could have been pulling out of this possibly by Summer.


    No, you're right and you were right.

    They should have put oversight on it last year when they handed it out. I agreed with you then on that, but not to the point of not passing it if they didn't. The funds did keep lots of banks from folding, so while it didn't stimulate the economy, it was, as is this bill now, a "stopgap" measure.

    I believe it needed oversight, it just wasn't likely to get it with Bush. He was WEAK. He was lame.

    And worse, he didn't care.

    President Obama however seems to really get the importance of accountability and control of the funds, and that is very encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  196. President Obama seems to be all about accountability on this, and even better he's focusing on lending now I think.

    The 75 billion he's pulling from the old bailout from last year is a brilliant move to save mortgages from foreclosing, which is similar to insuring them, and that will go a long way to slowing the hemorrhaging of foreclosures.

    If he can do the same thing with another 75 to 100 billion for lending, then he will have won.

    He will turn the economy by Christmas, and ensure his reelection in 2012.

    People won't forget he saved us early on, as long as he doesn't screw up after that, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Remember what I am always saying.

    Hoover didn't lose to Roosevelt because he created the RFC to inject capital into failing banks to keep them solvent and keep lending capital flowing.

    He lost, because he waited to long to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  198. If Hoover had created the RFC back in 29, instead of waiting a couple of years, he would have slowed the crash and saved fortunes in the process.

    People would have remember that, and FDR would have had to wait 4 more years to be President.

    Instead he dragged his feet, believing like many republicans in congress are saying that we should do nothing. That it wasn't the governments problem.

    So he waited, the country foundered, and he got his ass handed to him in 32.

    Along with his hat and walking papers.

    ReplyDelete
  199. If President Obama announces any sort of plan with teeth to restart lending on a reasonably wide scale, then he will see immediate gains in the stock markets.

    Even before jobs return, which will happen practically overnight, but even before that he will see the stocks turn around overnight, as banks start making interest revenue again.

    After all, thats how banks make money. Off interest revenue and investments.

    So without interest revenue we've removed half of their cash flow source.

    So when you return lending you return one of he two main components banks use for making money.

    Immediately.

    It all comes down to lending. Lending is the hole.

    Everything else is secondary.

    Return lending and it all comes back to life.

    ReplyDelete