Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...

I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
....and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

wrote in message
...
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.
Tom

wrote in news:mvd1039k7ac2kv9al7hlcqqhr5pdlunoqk@
4ax.com:

I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

Yeah-- the S&L bailout was a bad precedent.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.

The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 21 Mar 2007 12:12:12 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:mvd1039k7ac2kv9al7hlcqqhr5pdlunoqk@
4ax.com:

I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

Yeah-- the S&L bailout was a bad precedent.

The way it was handled, it absolutely was - the waste was incredible,
all to bail out, at best unsuited and at worst, greedy and criminal S &
L "investors." And yeah, that includes Neil Bush and company, who
damned near managed a real hat trick - definitely unsuited and greedy
and probably criminal. But in the long run, at least that bailout was
good for the overall economy. I don't think this, given the facts thus
far known, would be, but it would depend on how large/bad it is.

TC,
R

On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, wrote:
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

Along the same lines why are we bailing out those idiots who built
houses where they know sooner or later a hurricane is going to wipe
the thing out. If you build a "McMansion" on the beach in
Mississipppi don't be looking for my money.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:35:02 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.
Tom

And it got better - someone mentioned "predatory" mortgage
lending...supposedly, one was left to guess, somehow "preying" on people
who were overborrowing on too-large houses at over-inflated prices...

So far, in this "subprime scandal" news coverage, I've seen couples
whining that the adjustable rate on the home equity loan on their
McMansion is already up so high they can only afford to go to Staryucks
twice a week, and if it goes up any more, they might lose their house,
as well as folks who were poor credit risks to begin with whining
because they can't afford the homes they bought...and most are claiming
it's anyone and everyone's fault but their own...

As to bailing out the companies, at least the subprime lenders, I'm not
so sure - several have already gone under, and most (real) analysts say
that it appears from the current data that the percentage of loans,
subprime or otherwise, likely to go to foreclosure isn't that large a
percentage of the total mortgage picture.

TC,
R

and they're not yuppies.




I think we need a new word to be used for people caught up in what is ....
to me.... an obvious cultural surge of consumption, for the sake of
consumption.

Sure, all humans have always liked nice things and comfortable surroundings
but, at least where I live and observe the world, there has been a big
change in the last couple generations.

IMHO, for large numbers of people in our culture, "owning" is replacing (
or an attempt to replace ) traditional spiritual and social aspects of human
life. That is, people are trying to buy things to fill the empty places
inside that real chats ( not cell phone stuck receiver stuck Borg-like to
ear or e-mails ) with other people and with "god" have filled for most
people in the past. It is very easy to find people now that can put no
deeper meaning on their own lives than what they recently bought. The
word "yuppie" never seems quite right for them but we need one as they are a
big and getting bigger part of our world and why that world is going the
current directions.

wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:47:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...
agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.
The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.

Uh, OK...and just how does any company, good, bad, or otherwise, force
someone into a mortgage, "usurious" or otherwise, on an overly-large,
over-valued/mortgaged, or otherwise
inappropriate-to-the-borrower's-situation home? Mortgages on "solid"
deals for folks buying appropriately were, and still are, easy to get.
Subprimes are, were, and always have been, well, subprime, and for a
reason. And keep in mind that much of the "in the news" cases are
folks with iffy credit (which in itself should make a point), limited
payback ability, and many were taking out home equity loans to pay off
other "shopping"/"lifestyle" debt.

And yeah, I'm sure that someone knows or read about some poor couple who
had to mortgage the house to pay for junior's heart transplant or
something, but that type of situation would be a _rare_ occurrence. The
great majority of this is, simply, people attempting to live wa-a-a-a-y
beyond their means.

I don't disagree with any of that but loans were made to people with
iffy credit and then those mortgages were sold as if they were loans
to people with good credit. As I understand it this was an aggregate
deal, that is the buyers thought they were buying, just for an example,
75% good credit mortgages and 25% iffy credit mortgages but ended up
with more iffy credit mortgages than good. And this was, and is, all
somehow legal. I don't believe an S & L type bailout is warranted, like
you say the percentage of the market involved with iffy credit mortgages
is small, but I do think it should be illegal to misrepresent what
you're selling.

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:47:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.

The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.

Uh, OK...and just how does any company, good, bad, or otherwise, force
someone into a mortgage, "usurious" or otherwise, on an overly-large,
over-valued/mortgaged, or otherwise
inappropriate-to-the-borrower's-situation home? Mortgages on "solid"
deals for folks buying appropriately were, and still are, easy to get.
Subprimes are, were, and always have been, well, subprime, and for a
reason. And keep in mind that much of the "in the news" cases are
folks with iffy credit (which in itself should make a point), limited
payback ability, and many were taking out home equity loans to pay off
other "shopping"/"lifestyle" debt.

And yeah, I'm sure that someone knows or read about some poor couple who
had to mortgage the house to pay for junior's heart transplant or
something, but that type of situation would be a _rare_ occurrence. The
great majority of this is, simply, people attempting to live wa-a-a-a-y
beyond their means.

TC,
R

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.