Anyone swayed voting Obama after the 3 debates?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.

Jesus Christ on a fucking STICK jp, not every fucking thread needs to turn into "oh yeah, well McCain was involved with Keating!!!11"

We fucking get it. Are we allowed to talk about Obama without you getting all up in a tizzy that McCain isn't getting enough slam time?

You're like a broken fucking record.

That depends on if you're looking to talk about Obama or to slime him. If it's the latter, then jpeyton sliming McCain is just another broken record among dozens sliming Obama.
We could discuss the issues and legitimate merits of either candidate. But every time some tries that, some McCain supporter slimes Obama with yet another "he caused the subprime crisis" or "he pals with terrorists" or "he's a Chicago gangster" bullshit. So if someone like jpeyton turns it around and brings up the Keating 5 or one of Palin's many follies, I might not approve of it any more than I do the Obama slimes, but turnabout is fair play, now isn't it?


edit: and oh look, you're sliming that lie in your sig even. :roll:

In my opinion Vic, you're about a half-notch above JP, so I could give a shit what you have to say.

I'm not here doing PR for McCain. The guy is every bit as bad for our economy as Obama. But since Obama *IS* our next president, people want to discuss him, his policies, and his record. But instead, we have to tiptoe around dipshits like you and JP because at the drop of a hat, you want to smokescreen, deflect, and divert with absolute nonsense because you think the candidate that you've committed yourself to - mind body and soul - is being "slimed". Fuck that, and fuck you.

Piss off, both of you.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.

Jesus Christ on a fucking STICK jp, not every fucking thread needs to turn into "oh yeah, well McCain was involved with Keating!!!11"

We fucking get it. Are we allowed to talk about Obama without you getting all up in a tizzy that McCain isn't getting enough slam time?

You're like a broken fucking record.

That depends on if you're looking to talk about Obama or to slime him. If it's the latter, then jpeyton sliming McCain is just another broken record among dozens sliming Obama.
We could discuss the issues and legitimate merits of either candidate. But every time some tries that, some McCain supporter slimes Obama with yet another "he caused the subprime crisis" or "he pals with terrorists" or "he's a Chicago gangster" bullshit. So if someone like jpeyton turns it around and brings up the Keating 5 or one of Palin's many follies, I might not approve of it any more than I do the Obama slimes, but turnabout is fair play, now isn't it?


edit: and oh look, you're sliming that lie in your sig even. :roll:

In my opinion Vic, you're about a half-notch above JP, so I could give a shit what you have to say.

I'm not here doing PR for McCain. The guy is every bit as bad for our economy as Obama. But since Obama *IS* our next president, people want to discuss him, his policies, and his record. But instead, we have to tiptoe around dipshits like you and JP because at the drop of a hat, you want to smokescreen, deflect, and divert with absolute nonsense because you think the candidate that you've committed yourself to - mind body and soul - is being "slimed". Fuck that, and fuck you.

Piss off, both of you.

So you're hypocrite and don't like being called out on it. Got it. Ayers is an okay topic, Keating is not. Got it.

:roll:

And hey asshole, you don't have to tiptoe around any issue. My beef if that you're spreading lies. I just get sick and tired of debunking the same spoonfed crap over and over again. Eventually, after the 20th debunking, and these lies are still be spread by you and your ilk, I come to the opinion that you're not interested in the truth, but just in spreading lies so as it forwards your agenda in getting your precious McCain elected. Get it?

So how about you fuck off if you wanna use that kind of language.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.

Jesus Christ on a fucking STICK jp, not every fucking thread needs to turn into "oh yeah, well McCain was involved with Keating!!!11"

We fucking get it. Are we allowed to talk about Obama without you getting all up in a tizzy that McCain isn't getting enough slam time?

You're like a broken fucking record.

That depends on if you're looking to talk about Obama or to slime him. If it's the latter, then jpeyton sliming McCain is just another broken record among dozens sliming Obama.
We could discuss the issues and legitimate merits of either candidate. But every time some tries that, some McCain supporter slimes Obama with yet another "he caused the subprime crisis" or "he pals with terrorists" or "he's a Chicago gangster" bullshit. So if someone like jpeyton turns it around and brings up the Keating 5 or one of Palin's many follies, I might not approve of it any more than I do the Obama slimes, but turnabout is fair play, now isn't it?


edit: and oh look, you're sliming that lie in your sig even. :roll:

In my opinion Vic, you're about a half-notch above JP, so I could give a shit what you have to say.

I'm not here doing PR for McCain. The guy is every bit as bad for our economy as Obama. But since Obama *IS* our next president, people want to discuss him, his policies, and his record. But instead, we have to tiptoe around dipshits like you and JP because at the drop of a hat, you want to smokescreen, deflect, and divert with absolute nonsense because you think the candidate that you've committed yourself to - mind body and soul - is being "slimed". Fuck that, and fuck you.

Piss off, both of you.

I agree with you 100%
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
The bottom line on the debates:
The only real impact was to point out that Biden was qualified to be vp and Palin wasn't. The actual debate didn't do anything, it was just seeing Palin on the tv screen for an hour got people talking about her as actually, possibly having to take over the Presidency. And most people said she was unqualified and then they talked about McCains age and health and got concerned.
THAT was the reason Obama got a bump from the debates.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: techs
You know, when people post about something they hear on FoxNews, and it is so wacky as to be clearly propaganda, we should just keep repeating:

YOU HEARD IT ON FOXNEWS. ITS A PROPAGANDA CHANNEL. YOU SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE BY POSTING IT.

you show your ignorance by slinging insults and pounding your chest like a 5 year old boy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.

Jesus Christ on a fucking STICK jp, not every fucking thread needs to turn into "oh yeah, well McCain was involved with Keating!!!11"

We fucking get it. Are we allowed to talk about Obama without you getting all up in a tizzy that McCain isn't getting enough slam time?

You're like a broken fucking record.

That depends on if you're looking to talk about Obama or to slime him. If it's the latter, then jpeyton sliming McCain is just another broken record among dozens sliming Obama.
We could discuss the issues and legitimate merits of either candidate. But every time some tries that, some McCain supporter slimes Obama with yet another "he caused the subprime crisis" or "he pals with terrorists" or "he's a Chicago gangster" bullshit. So if someone like jpeyton turns it around and brings up the Keating 5 or one of Palin's many follies, I might not approve of it any more than I do the Obama slimes, but turnabout is fair play, now isn't it?


edit: and oh look, you're sliming that lie in your sig even. :roll:

In my opinion Vic, you're about a half-notch above JP, so I could give a shit what you have to say.

I'm not here doing PR for McCain. The guy is every bit as bad for our economy as Obama. But since Obama *IS* our next president, people want to discuss him, his policies, and his record. But instead, we have to tiptoe around dipshits like you and JP because at the drop of a hat, you want to smokescreen, deflect, and divert with absolute nonsense because you think the candidate that you've committed yourself to - mind body and soul - is being "slimed". Fuck that, and fuck you.

Piss off, both of you.

I agree with you 100%

Really, do you? Oh, you're not here doing PR for McCain, you just so happen to be spreading lies and character attacks against Obama that are can only be found on pro-McCain sources and can be disproven as easily as looking up Snopes. Why it's just a coincidence!!

:roll:

If you have a rebuttal to what I posted above in regards to your FUD, then post it. If you have countering facts or arguments, don't tip-toe, I want to hear them.

But you don't have shit, you're not actually discussing him, his policies, and his record, you're just spreading partisan hackery. Hell, you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, and that's why you're now resorting to personal attacks against me.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
So you're hypocrite and don't like being called out on it. Got it. Ayers is an okay topic, Keating is not. Got it.


This is where you lost me you ignorant ass. No one said Ayers is okay and Keating isn't. The problem is that whenever you two fuckjobs hear Ayers, Wright, INSERT ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA HERE, you want to start talking about McCain. NOTHING can be discussed with regard to Obama because the moment his name comes up in anything less than shining light, you two fucktards start crying "but McCain but McCain".

Get it through you dense idiot skulls that McCain and Keating have SHIT to do with Obama and XYZ. McCain and Keating are NOT a defense for Obama. EVER. Two totally unrelated topics.

Got it?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
No. McCain showed his true sellout colors in 2000 when he endorsed Bush after the Rove smear machine thrashed him with lies about his adopted daughter. Now, he's got the same lying perverts running his own smear machine.

He's a doddering, desperate old man jumping around on both sides of any issue, and his choice of the lipstick dipstick as a running mate shows an utter lack of judgment,

John McCain couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels. :thumbsdown: :|
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
So you're hypocrite and don't like being called out on it. Got it. Ayers is an okay topic, Keating is not. Got it.


This is where you lost me you ignorant ass. No one said Ayers is okay and Keating isn't. The problem is that whenever you two fuckjobs hear Ayers, Wright, INSERT ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA HERE, you want to start talking about McCain. NOTHING can be discussed with regard to Obama because the moment his name comes up in anything less than shining light, you two fucktards start crying "but McCain but McCain".

Get it through you dense idiot skulls that McCain and Keating have SHIT to do with Obama and XYZ. McCain and Keating are NOT a defense for Obama. EVER. Two totally unrelated topics.

Got it?

1. You whined about Keating being brought up.

2. I didn't use McCain and Keating for a defense for Obama and XYZ.

3. I addressed Obama and this "he caused the housing crisis" argument DIRECTLY. If you have a rebuttal to that, let's hear it. Otherwise, STFU.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I'm watching a special right now on Fox Business on the recent crash. Obama was a big proponent to the sub-prime pressure lending in the 90s. I don't plan on voting for Obama because of this.

Too bad all of that is a lie.

Every single poster here with banking industry experience, including myself, has come out and exposed that crap as a ridiculous partisan lie a dozen times over, and yet you spoonfed wingnuts keep lapping up and puking out this ridiculous propaganda.

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
What the hell are you talking about? He was an avid supporter of ACORN in the 90s. Additionally, Obama was an attorney for one of the lawsuits against Citi. Besides, the slide started in the 70s with the government pressuring banks to make sub prime loans. Obama supported this path of destruction.

Additionally, a McCain's bill in 2006 to reform the government?s involvement in lending, the Democrats shot down (after the Democrats shot down a previous attempt two years prior to that from the Bush administration). Democrats were taking their eye off the potential problem because the 'middle class' was getting wealthy off of the housing boom.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Yaknow what ACORN has always called subprime lending? Predatory lending. 1They literally did coin that term. And fought lawsuit and lawsuit against the practice of lending to people more than they could afford.
The so-called "subprime" that ACORN did push for were 2relatively modest expansions of Fannie/Freddie and FHA approvals, usually in select neighborhoods and always for borrowers with 3solid documented income. These loans, called "My Community," "Timely Payment Rewards," and "Expanded Approval" perform today just as good as prime loans. IOW they have nothing in common with the so-called "toxic" subprime mortgage loans that caused all this.
That lawsuit that Obama played an incredibly minor role in the 90s was a case of 4DOCUMENTED racial discrimination, where Citi was caught routinely denying black applicants with identical qualifications to white applicants that they were approving. Are you saying you endorse such practices?

And additionally, it wasn't "McCain's bill," it was Hagel's bill. McCain co-sponsored it for all of like 3 days before withdrawing his support. It died in a Republican-dominated Senate committee, and its purpose was not to "reform" Fannie/Freddie but to almost completely deregulate them (in particular, to remove HUD as Fannie/Freddie's regulatory body).

Yaknow, anyone with a computer and internet access could find out the truth of these issues within minutes. The fact that these ridiculous crap lies just keep getting repeated over and over again from the McCain camp just goes to show why that ticket must not be allowed to win. Admittedly, I could be a much bigger fan of the other side, but the nuts fueling the McCain camp will believe and spread any lie that supports their agenda, and that kind of immorality does not deserve any influence in the White House.

1 - Do you have evidence that the coined the term predatory lending?

2 - Relative to what?

3 - What does 'solid documented income' mean? I can document weekly bottle returns, doesn't mean I should get a loan. Too bad banks have to give me a loan because the Dems want everyone in a house.

4 - Who cares? If I don't want to lend someone my money because they have a tattoo or any other reason, I shouldn't have to. It is my god damned money.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
So you're hypocrite and don't like being called out on it. Got it. Ayers is an okay topic, Keating is not. Got it.


This is where you lost me you ignorant ass. No one said Ayers is okay and Keating isn't. The problem is that whenever you two fuckjobs hear Ayers, Wright, INSERT ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA HERE, you want to start talking about McCain. NOTHING can be discussed with regard to Obama because the moment his name comes up in anything less than shining light, you two fucktards start crying "but McCain but McCain".

Get it through you dense idiot skulls that McCain and Keating have SHIT to do with Obama and XYZ. McCain and Keating are NOT a defense for Obama. EVER. Two totally unrelated topics.

Got it?

1. You whined about Keating being brought up.

2. I didn't use McCain and Keating for a defense for Obama and XYZ.

3. I addressed Obama and this "he caused the housing crisis" argument DIRECTLY. If you have a rebuttal to that, let's hear it. Otherwise, STFU.

I've said it countless times: Keating is a FINE topic... just take it to a KEATING THREAD. But every damn time ANYTHING negative about Obama surfaces, Keating comes up. Are you two that fucking focus-challenged? ADD?

You're a joke and we're finished, Vic. Don't waste another breath.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I don't think it matters if he was in the senate or not. He was trying to get people in homes that shouldn't be. Granted, it is a noble effort, but it is not good business.
McCain, on the other hand, was a senator when he violated ethics standards in the Keating Five scandal.

And he's fought for deregulation for his entire 26 year career in the senate. Not a noble effort.

Jesus Christ on a fucking STICK jp, not every fucking thread needs to turn into "oh yeah, well McCain was involved with Keating!!!11"

We fucking get it. Are we allowed to talk about Obama without you getting all up in a tizzy that McCain isn't getting enough slam time?

You're like a broken fucking record.

That depends on if you're looking to talk about Obama or to slime him. If it's the latter, then jpeyton sliming McCain is just another broken record among dozens sliming Obama.
We could discuss the issues and legitimate merits of either candidate. But every time some tries that, some McCain supporter slimes Obama with yet another "he caused the subprime crisis" or "he pals with terrorists" or "he's a Chicago gangster" bullshit. So if someone like jpeyton turns it around and brings up the Keating 5 or one of Palin's many follies, I might not approve of it any more than I do the Obama slimes, but turnabout is fair play, now isn't it?


edit: and oh look, you're sliming that lie in your sig even. :roll:

In my opinion Vic, you're about a half-notch above JP, so I could give a shit what you have to say.

I'm not here doing PR for McCain. The guy is every bit as bad for our economy as Obama. But since Obama *IS* our next president, people want to discuss him, his policies, and his record. But instead, we have to tiptoe around dipshits like you and JP because at the drop of a hat, you want to smokescreen, deflect, and divert with absolute nonsense because you think the candidate that you've committed yourself to - mind body and soul - is being "slimed". Fuck that, and fuck you.

Piss off, both of you.

I agree with you 100%

Really, do you? Oh, you're not here doing PR for McCain, you just so happen to be spreading lies and character attacks against Obama that are can only be found on pro-McCain sources and can be disproven as easily as looking up Snopes. Why it's just a coincidence!!

:roll:

If you have a rebuttal to what I posted above in regards to your FUD, then post it. If you have countering facts or arguments, don't tip-toe, I want to hear them.

But you don't have shit, you're not actually discussing him, his policies, and his record, you're just spreading partisan hackery. Hell, you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, and that's why you're now resorting to personal attacks against me.

Chance in hell I want McCain in office. His 300B bill to refinance mortgages pisses me off. I almost blew a gasket when he said that. That is the most god damned retarded thing that could happen: rewarding bad behavior.
 

ch33kym0use

Senior member
Jul 17, 2005
495
0
0
It's retarded. When the rich are rewarded for their mistakes. They should be punished. The credit crisis is the markets punishment. Do I agree with it? No. However the market has control, not the government or the excessively rich.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - Do you have evidence that the coined the term predatory lending?

2 - Relative to what?

3 - What does 'solid documented income' mean? I can document weekly bottle returns, doesn't mean I should get a loan. Too bad banks have to give me a loan because the Dems want everyone in a house.

4 - Who cares? If I don't want to lend someone my money because they have a tattoo or any other reason, I shouldn't have to. It is my god damned money.

1. Your memory is obviously shorter than Dory's from Finding Nemo.

2. Relative to Fannie/Freddie's existing prime programs.

3. Solid income documentation means tax returns, W-2's, and paystubs, all of which must be verifiable. Not weekly bottle returns. Your partisan comment is ignored as stupid considering that Bush and the Pubs also said that they wanted everyone in a house.

4. I'd agree except this is not about you lending your own money. Federally chartered and insured banks with direct access to the Federal Reserve's discount window are doing the lending. This is a quid pro quo. If they want the government's insurance and cheap money, then they have to play by the government's rules.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Vic
So you're hypocrite and don't like being called out on it. Got it. Ayers is an okay topic, Keating is not. Got it.


This is where you lost me you ignorant ass. No one said Ayers is okay and Keating isn't. The problem is that whenever you two fuckjobs hear Ayers, Wright, INSERT ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA HERE, you want to start talking about McCain. NOTHING can be discussed with regard to Obama because the moment his name comes up in anything less than shining light, you two fucktards start crying "but McCain but McCain".

Get it through you dense idiot skulls that McCain and Keating have SHIT to do with Obama and XYZ. McCain and Keating are NOT a defense for Obama. EVER. Two totally unrelated topics.

Got it?

1. You whined about Keating being brought up.

2. I didn't use McCain and Keating for a defense for Obama and XYZ.

3. I addressed Obama and this "he caused the housing crisis" argument DIRECTLY. If you have a rebuttal to that, let's hear it. Otherwise, STFU.

I've said it countless times: Keating is a FINE topic... just take it to a KEATING THREAD. But every damn time ANYTHING negative about Obama surfaces, Keating comes up. Are you two that fucking focus-challenged? ADD?

You're a joke and we're finished, Vic. Don't waste another breath.

How am I finished? I prove you for a whining fool and you call me finished? That's a joke. Especially when Obama and this fantasy banking issue aren't the subject of this thread either, but you're all to happy to hammer on that one. Moron.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - Do you have evidence that the coined the term predatory lending?

2 - Relative to what?

3 - What does 'solid documented income' mean? I can document weekly bottle returns, doesn't mean I should get a loan. Too bad banks have to give me a loan because the Dems want everyone in a house.

4 - Who cares? If I don't want to lend someone my money because they have a tattoo or any other reason, I shouldn't have to. It is my god damned money.

1. Your memory is obviously shorter than Dory's from Finding Nemo.

2. Relative to Fannie/Freddie's existing prime programs.

3. Solid income documentation means tax returns, W-2's, and paystubs, all of which must be verifiable. Not weekly bottle returns. Your partisan comment is ignored as stupid considering that Bush and the Pubs also said that they wanted everyone in a house.

4. I'd agree except this is not about you lending your own money. Federally chartered and insured banks with direct access to the Federal Reserve's discount window are doing the lending. This is a quid pro quo. If they want the government's insurance and cheap money, then they have to play by the government's rules.

1 - I never saw Finding Nemo and don't think that ACORN defined the term predatory lending in the movie Finding Nemo. Where did they define the term and what assurances that it wasn't defined before?

2 - I don't believe that they were 'relatively modest'. What evidence do you have to support otherwise? The evidence I have is the crashing subprime market.

3 - Wanting people in homes who can't afford it and doing something about it are two different things.

4 - Are you talking FDIC? What does that have to do with deciding who can get a loan? The government shouldn't have a say.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
It just became more apparent to me that neither candidates really have a plan and that whoever that is elected will be a 1 term president.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
It just became more apparent to me that neither candidates really have a plan and that whoever that is elected will be a 1 term president.

Which is the best we could hope for, regardless of who is elected.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - I never saw Finding Nemo and don't think that ACORN defined the term predatory lending in the movie Finding Nemo. Where did they define the term and what assurances that it wasn't defined before?

2 - I don't believe that they were 'relatively modest'. What evidence do you have to support otherwise? The evidence I have is the crashing subprime market.

3 - Wanting people in homes who can't afford it and doing something about it are two different things.

4 - Are you talking FDIC? What does that have to do with deciding who can get a loan? The government shouldn't have a say.

1. Text

2. You don't know if they were relatively modest or not. I already said that the 'subprime' loans you brought up were NOT the toxic subprimes loans that crashed. Are you just conveniently forgetting that?
Here, let me give you examples.
The subprime loans you're complaing about, those backed by Fannie/Freddie:
- full income doc
- some additional leniency on damaged credit but no recent major like bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.
- Fixed interest rate with the option to automatically get a lower rate after 24 months of on-time payments.
- Default rates comparable to prime loans, less than 1%.
The toxic subprime that caused the crash, made by independent mortgage companies, not bound by CRA, and sold directly to Wall Street:
- NO income documentation
- One day out of bankruptcy OKAY!
- Adjustable interest rate guaranteed to go up 3 percentage points in 24 months.
- Default rates at 10% at rising.
Yes, your "evidence" is convincing.

3. Blaming Democrats for something the Republicans were involved too is stupid. And that IS what you did in this thread.

4. The government prints and insures the money those FDIC banks lend.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - I never saw Finding Nemo and don't think that ACORN defined the term predatory lending in the movie Finding Nemo. Where did they define the term and what assurances that it wasn't defined before?

2 - I don't believe that they were 'relatively modest'. What evidence do you have to support otherwise? The evidence I have is the crashing subprime market.

3 - Wanting people in homes who can't afford it and doing something about it are two different things.

4 - Are you talking FDIC? What does that have to do with deciding who can get a loan? The government shouldn't have a say.

1. Text

2. You don't know if they were relatively modest or not. I already said that the 'subprime' loans you brought up were NOT the toxic subprimes loans that crashed. Are you just conveniently forgetting that?
Here, let me give you examples.
The subprime loans you're complaing about, those backed by Fannie/Freddie:
- full income doc
- some additional leniency on damaged credit but no recent major like bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.
- Fixed interest rate with the option to automatically get a lower rate after 24 months of on-time payments.
- Default rates comparable to prime loans, less than 1%.
The toxic subprime that caused the crash, made by independent mortgage companies, not bound by CRA, and sold directly to Wall Street:
- NO income documentation
- One day out of bankruptcy OKAY!
- Adjustable interest rate guaranteed to go up 3 percentage points in 24 months.
- Default rates at 10% at rising.
Yes, your "evidence" is convincing.

3. Blaming Democrats for something the Republicans were involved too is stupid. And that IS what you did in this thread.

4. The government prints and insures the money those FDIC banks lend.

1 - Nothing there states that they defined the term.

2 - I'm not sure where you are getting your data:

The default rate for prime mortgages is still far lower than for subprime loans, about 24 percent of which are delinquent or in foreclosure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...business/12credit.html

3 - Of course the Republicans were involved. They were involved by trying to contain the problem when it was identified with the bill that McCain supported in 2006.

4 - The government is also the one who got us into this mess. They can't make efficient decisions. They are not bound by regular free market rules. We have to buy their 'product' in the form of taxes whether we like it or not.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - I never saw Finding Nemo and don't think that ACORN defined the term predatory lending in the movie Finding Nemo. Where did they define the term and what assurances that it wasn't defined before?

2 - I don't believe that they were 'relatively modest'. What evidence do you have to support otherwise? The evidence I have is the crashing subprime market.

3 - Wanting people in homes who can't afford it and doing something about it are two different things.

4 - Are you talking FDIC? What does that have to do with deciding who can get a loan? The government shouldn't have a say.

1. Text

2. You don't know if they were relatively modest or not. I already said that the 'subprime' loans you brought up were NOT the toxic subprimes loans that crashed. Are you just conveniently forgetting that?
Here, let me give you examples.
The subprime loans you're complaing about, those backed by Fannie/Freddie:
- full income doc
- some additional leniency on damaged credit but no recent major like bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.
- Fixed interest rate with the option to automatically get a lower rate after 24 months of on-time payments.
- Default rates comparable to prime loans, less than 1%.
The toxic subprime that caused the crash, made by independent mortgage companies, not bound by CRA, and sold directly to Wall Street:
- NO income documentation
- One day out of bankruptcy OKAY!
- Adjustable interest rate guaranteed to go up 3 percentage points in 24 months.
- Default rates at 10% at rising.
Yes, your "evidence" is convincing.

3. Blaming Democrats for something the Republicans were involved too is stupid. And that IS what you did in this thread.

4. The government prints and insures the money those FDIC banks lend.

1 - Nothing there states that they defined the term.

2 - I'm not sure where you are getting your data:

The default rate for prime mortgages is still far lower than for subprime loans, about 24 percent of which are delinquent or in foreclosure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...business/12credit.html

3 - Of course the Republicans were involved. They were involved by trying to contain the problem when it was identified with the bill that McCain supported in 2006.

4 - The government is also the one who got us into this mess. They can't make efficient decisions. They are not bound by regular free market rules. We have to buy their 'product' in the form of taxes whether we like it or not.

LoL - Government is culpable for opening the front door to a bunch of banking criminals in suits. While the move to de-regulation was a complete jack ass move on the goverment's part let's not absolve the assholes who ran wild in the banking industry. Giving those dushbags a free pass is not okay. No one put a gun to the heads of bank managers/CEO's and forced them to make and leverage out risky loans. In the end the banking industry and it's leaders who failed created this situation and put this on themselves by being greedy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
1 - Nothing there states that they defined the term.

2 - I'm not sure where you are getting your data:

The default rate for prime mortgages is still far lower than for subprime loans, about 24 percent of which are delinquent or in foreclosure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...business/12credit.html

3 - Of course the Republicans were involved. They were involved by trying to contain the problem when it was identified with the bill that McCain supported in 2006.

4 - The government is also the one who got us into this mess. They can't make efficient decisions. They are not bound by regular free market rules. We have to buy their 'product' in the form of taxes whether we like it or not.

/facepalm

1. "ACORN has been engaged in a major effort to protect our neighborhoods from predatory lending since 1999."

2. Delinquency != default. And your own linked article discredits your argument! WTF! "The rise in prime delinquencies, while less severe than the one in the subprime market... " Are you saying that prime loans are the cause of the housing collapse now?

3.
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
And I didn't say ACORN was responsible, I said the Democrats were.
And I already talked about McCain's MINIMAL involvement in that bill! Which itself was to further deregulate Fannie/Freddie. Fsck. You have absolutely no idea what happened in the housing markets, except for what some partisan sources have told you and and an arrogant partisan attitude that you know more than the experts do. I have always regarded this kind of populist I'm-smarter-than-the-doctor attitude as the worst kind of socialism.

4. And now, you're just trolling. Seriously, I'm as much a free marketer as anyone can be, but you are clearly just ignorant. First, I've already debunked your "govt programs caused the housing crisis" bullshit. Now, what part about QUID PRO QUO did you not understand? These banks get special access to money. Access the rest of us don't get. In return, they have to abide by special rules.
Tell ya what, pick a dollar bill out of your wallet right now and tell me what's printed on it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
White House.gov - Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership June 17, 2002

Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership

# Today, President Bush announced a new goal to help increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade. The President's aggressive housing agenda will help dismantle the barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes, increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the home buying process & increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families.

Background on the President's Homeownership Agenda

Buying a home is the biggest single investment most people will make in their lives. Homeownership is a cornerstone of America's healthy, vibrant communities, and benefits individual families by helping them build stability and long term financial security. But sadly, homeownership is out of reach for many Americans -- especially for minority families. For millions of these families, homeownership is a distant, unreachable dream.

President Bush has a comprehensive agenda to help increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade.

While the overall homeownership rate has reached an all time high of nearly 68 percent, the statistics show a clear and persistent homeownership gap:

* Despite increases in minority homeownership during the decade of the 1990s, large persistent gaps between non-Hispanic whites and minorities remain and have narrowed only slightly;

* According to HUD, in 1994 the minority homeownership rate was 26.8 percent below the rate for white households;

* The African-American homeownership rate was 27.5 percentage points below the white rate, and the Hispanic rate was 28.8 percentage points below the white rate;

* The second quarter Census data for 2002 shows that non-Hispanic whites have a 74.3% homeownership rate, while African-Americans have a 48% rate and Hispanics a 47.6% rate; and

* Asian-Americans and other races have a 53.7% homeownership rate.

A new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -- which analyzed the most recent homeownership data from the U.S. Census Bureau -- highlights the many barriers that prevent minority families from owning their own home. The barriers include:

* A lack of inventory of affordable single-family housing available for sale in many areas where a majority of residents are minority families;

* A need for down payment assistance, which affects minority families to a greater extent than non-Hispanic whites because they have less accumulated wealth that can be used to help children with down payments;

* A lack of access to affordable mortgage credit;

* A lack of understanding of the homebuying process;

* Weak credit histories, often arising from a poor understanding of financial matters and where financial counseling is required;

* A lack of information about available homeownership programs in the community; and

* Language difficulties or cultural differences.

It doesn't have to be this way. The President's agenda will help tear down the barriers to homeownership that stand in the way of our nation's African-American, Hispanic and other minority families by:

# Providing Downpayment Assistance. The single biggest barrier to homeownership is accumulating funds for a down payment. The President has proposed $200 million annually for the American Dream Downpayment Fund to help roughly 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs.

# Increasing the Supply of Affordable Homes. The President wants to dramatically increase the supply of homes available to low and moderate income families. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which will provide approximately $2.4 billion to encourage the production of 200,000 affordable homes for sale to low and moderate income families.

# Increasing Support for Self-Help Homeownership Programs. The President's budget triples funding for organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, that help families help themselves become homeowners through sweat equity and volunteerism in their communities.

# Simplifying the Home Buying Process & Increasing Education. When buying a home today a buyer faces a confusing and complicated process. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

The President also believes that government alone can't close America's homeownership gap. It is critical that our government challenge the private sector to take concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families. The President is issuing "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Many organizations have already responded to the President's challenge by committing to:

# Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;

# Launching twenty-five different local initiatives across the nation, geared toward eliminating the specific homeownership barriers faced by minority families in those communities;

# Raising $750 million in below-market-rate investments by 2007, which will work in collaboration with local homeownership initiatives and be targeted to heavily minority program areas;

# Pursuing strategic partnerships in 20 top housing markets between homebuilders, lenders, local officials, and community leaders to develop approaches that address the local challenges to building homes for minority families living in urban centers;

# Establishing faith-based housing partnerships between the participants and at least 100 churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions;

# Aggressively developing new mortgage products so that conventional market alternatives are available to combat the predatory loan products that are disproportionately targeted to minorities;

# Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants;

# Dramatically expanding financial education efforts for minorities, providing financial counseling to at least 380,000 minority families, and taking measures at the local level to reduce predatory lending; and

# Establishing multilingual, consumer-oriented internet Web sites designed to help minorities overcome barriers to homeownership, including creation of a central data bank of affordable housing programs made available to real estate agents when working with clients.

For more information on the President's initiatives please visit www.whitehouse.gov.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Bush's speech on the above initiative - Text with video

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Thanks, for coming. Well, thanks for the warm welcome. Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, we want everybody in America to own their own home. That?s what we want. This is - an ownership society is a compassionate society.

More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That?s a homeownership gap. It?s a - it?s a gap that we?ve got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. We?ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It?s one that I believe we can achieve. It?s a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we?ll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

Some may think that?s a stretch. I don?t think it is. I think it is realistic. I know we?re going to have to work together to achieve it. But when we do our communities will be stronger and so will our economy. Achieving the goal is going to require some good policies out of Washington. And it?s going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry.

Just by showing up at the conference, you show your commitment. And together, together we will work over the next decade to enable millions of our fellow Americans to own a piece of their own property, and that?s their home.

I appreciate so very much the home owners who are with us today, the Arias family, newly arrived from Peru. They live in Baltimore. Thanks to the Association of Real Estate Brokers, the help of some good folks in Baltimore, they figured out how to purchase their own home. Imagine to be coming to our country without a home, with a simple dream. And now they?re on stage here at this conference being one of the new home owners in the greatest land on the face of the Earth. I appreciate the Arias family coming. (Applause.)

We?ve got the Horton family from Little Rock, Arkansas, here today. Actually, it?s not Little Rock; it?s North Little Rock, Arkansas. I was corrected. (Laughter.) I appreciate so very much these good folks coming all the way up from the South. They were helped by HUD, they were helped by Freddie Mac. Obviously, they?ve got a young family. And when we start talking about owning a home, a smile spread right across the face of the dad that could have lit up the entire town of Washington, D.C. (Applause.) I appreciate you all coming. Thanks for coming. He had to make sure I knew that he was educated in Texas. (Laughter.)

Finally, Kim Berry from New York is here. She?s a single mom. You?re not going to believe this, but her son is 18 years old. (Laughter.) She barely looked like she was 18 to me. And being a single mom is the hardest job in America. And the idea of this fine American working hard to provide for her child, at the same time working hard to realize her dream, which is owning a home on Long Island, is really a special tribute to the character of this particular person and to the character of a lot of Americans. So we?re honored to have you here, Kim, and thanks for being such a good mom and a fine American. (Applause.)

I told Mel Martinez I was serious about this initiative. We started talking about it and I said, well, you know, I?m the kind of fellow, I don?t like to lay out a goal and don?t mean it. I think it?s not - I don?t think it?s fair for the American people to be - to have a President or anybody else, for that matter, lay out a goal and just kind of say it, but don?t mean it. I mean it. And the good news is, Mel Martinez believes it and means it, as well. He?s doing a fine job of running HUD, and I?m glad he has joined my Cabinet. (Applause.)

And I picked a pretty spunky deputy, as well, Alphonso Jackson - my fellow Texan. (Applause.) I call him A.J.

I appreciate the Secretary of Agriculture being here. She?s got a lot of money having to do with rural housing. I appreciate Ann?s commitment to rural America. And I?m really proud of the job she?s doing, as well, for the American people, serving in my Cabinet. Thanks for coming, Ann. (Applause.)

I?ve got some others in my administration, as I look around. I see Rosario Marin, who?s the Treasurer of the United States. Rosario used to be a mayor. Thank you for coming, Madam Mayor. (Applause.) She understands how important housing is. I see other mayors around here, and I want to thank the mayors for coming. After all, it?s in your interest that this project succeed.

I know we?ve got some folks from the faith-based community here. Luis Cortes, from Philadelphia is here; and my friend, Kirbyjon Caldwell, from Houston, Texas. Kirbyjon, I had breakfast with him this morning. He told me he was going to have to leave before my speech. He?s a wise man, that Kirbyjon Caldwell. (Laughter.) But he has gone back home to Texas. I appreciate Margaret Spellings and her staff. Margaret is the Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, and I want to thank you for putting on this conference, Margaret.

All of us here in America should believe, and I think we do, that we should be, as I mentioned, a nation of owners. Owning something is freedom, as far as I?m concerned. It?s part of a free society. And ownership of a home helps bring stability to neighborhoods. You own your home in a neighborhood, you have more interest in how your neighborhood feels, looks, whether it?s safe or not. It brings pride to people, it?s a part of an asset-based to society. It helps people build up their own individual portfolio, provides an opportunity, if need be, for a mom or a dad to leave something to their child. It?s a part of - it?s of being a - it?s a part of - an important part of America.

Homeownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If - when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; the activity - the economic activity stimulated with the additional purchasers, the additional buyers, the additional demand will be upwards of $256 billion. And that?s important because it will help people find work.

Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it?s good for the pocketbook of the country, as well.

To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can?t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don?t have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can?t cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate.

And so we?ve called upon Congress to set up what?s called the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which will provide financial grants to local governments to help first-time home buyers who qualify to make the down payment on their home. If a down payment is a problem, there?s a way we can address that. And when Congress funds the program, this should help 200,000 new families over the next five years become first-time home buyers.

Secondly, affordable housing is a problem in many neighborhoods, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. You may - we may have qualified home buyers, but if there?s no home to buy, this initiative isn?t going anywhere. And so one of the things that we?re going to - that I?m doing is proposing a single-family affordable housing credit to encourage the construction of single-family homes in neighborhoods where affordable housing is scarce. (Applause.)

Over the next five years the initiative will provide home builders and therefore home buyers with - home builders with $2 billion in tax credits to bring affordable homes and therefore provide an additional supply for home buyers. It?s really important for us to understand that we can provide incentive for people to build homes where there?s a lack of affordable housing.

And we?ve got to set priorities. And one of the key priorities is going to be inner-city America. Good schools and affordable housing will help revitalize our inner cities.

Another obstacle to minority homeownership is the lack of information. You know, getting into your own home can be complicated. It can be a difficult process. I had that very same problem. (Laughter and applause.)

Every home buyer has responsibilities and rights that need to be understood clearly. And yet, when you look at some of the contracts, there?s a lot of small print. And you can imagine somebody newly arrived from Peru looking at all that print, and saying, I?m not sure I can possibly understand that. Why do I want to buy a home? There?s an educational process that needs to go on, not only to explain the contract, explain obligation, but also to explain financing options, to help people understand the complexities of a homeownership market, and also at the same time to protect people from unscrupulous lenders, people who would take advantage of a good-hearted soul who is trying to realize their dream.

Homeownership education is critical. And so today, I?m pleased to announce that through Mel?s office, we?re going to distribute $35 million in 2003 to more than 100 national, state and local organizations that promote homeownership through buyer education. (Applause.)

And, of course, one of the larger obstacles to minority homeownership is financing, is the ability to have their dream financed. Right now, we have a program that all of you are familiar with, maybe our fellow Americans are, and that?s what they call a Section 8 housing program, that provides billions of dollars in vouchers to help low-income Americans with their rent. It encourages leasing. We think it?s important that we use those vouchers, that federal money to help low-income Americans go from being somebody who leases to somebody who owns; that we use the Section 8 program to not only help with down payment, but to help with continuing monthly mortgage payments after they?re into their new home. It is a - it is a way to help us meet this dream of 5.5 million additional families owning their home.

I?m also going to encourage the lending industry to develop a mortgage market so that this script, these vouchers, can regularly be used as a source of payment to provide more capital to lenders, who can then help more families move from rental housing into houses of their own.

These are some of the barriers that home owners face, potential home owners face, and this is what we intend to do about it. But like in a lot of our life, government can?t do everything. It?s impossible to provide every aspect of a national strategy, particularly in this case. And that?s why we need the help of private and nonprofit sectors in our country to help play a vital role in helping to meet the goal. Many of you here represent the nonprofit, as well as the private sectors of our economy and our country, and I want to thank you for your commitment.

Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I?m talking about, I?m talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.

Representatives of the real estate and homebuilding industries, through their nationwide networks or affiliates, are committed to broadening homeownership. They made the commitment to help meet the national goal we set.

Freddie Mae - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming - (laughter) - have committed to provide more money for lenders. They?ve committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.

Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin, I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It?s the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.

Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. Freddie Mac is also working with the Department of Defense to promote construction and financing for housing for men and women in the military.

There?s all kinds of ways that we can work together to meet the goal. Corporate America has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place. Corporate America has responded. As an example - only one of many examples - the good folks at Sears and Roebuck have responded by making a five-year, $100 million commitment to making homeownership and home maintenance possible for millions of Americans.

There have been other steps that are being taken to close the homeownership gap. And you?ve heard some of the stories here today, people much more eloquent than me, to talk about what?s taking place on the front line of meeting this national goal.

The non-profit groups are bringing homeownership to some of our most troubled communities. And as you know, I?m a strong advocate of what I call the faith-based initiative. And the reason I am is because I understand the universal call to love a neighbor like you?d like to be loved yourself, and that includes helping somebody find a home.

One such example is the Enterprise Foundation, a national non-profit organization that provides assistance to grassroots homeownership organizations. Because of their work, as one example, 185 affordable homes will be available in the Baltimore neighborhood that was once so crime-ridden that people had written it off. Revitalizing neighborhoods is a real possibility if people put their mind to it. And at the same time, you?re helping people own a home in America.

And the faith-based community is doing some fantastic work when it comes to encouraging homeownership, whether it be financial counseling, or job training or other outreach services, to help people understand what it takes to buy a home.

And then there?s my friend Kirbyjon Caldwell. He not only provides counseling and job training, he actually decided to encourage a development of homes in the Houston area. People - low-income people are going to be able to more afford a home in Texas because of Kirbyjon?s vision and work. He?s answered the call of faith to help people help themselves and to help them realize dreams.

The other thing Kirbyjon told me, which I really appreciate, is you don?t have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else. And I know Kirbyjon. He is what I call a social entrepreneur who is using his platform as a Methodist preacher to improve the neighborhood and the community in which he lives.

And so is Luis Cortes, who represents Nueva Esperanza in Philadelphia. I went to see Luis in the inner-city Philadelphia. Luis is - at least he was - he?s probably still there - in what one would call a tough neighborhood. There?s a lot of abandoned buildings. And I mean, beautiful old structures just empty. Luis had a dream to revitalize his neighborhood, starting with a good charter school, one that would work, one that would teach kids how to read and write and add and subtract.

But he also understood that a homeownership program is incredibly important to revitalize this neighborhood that a lot of folks had already quit on. I suspect one day we?ll all go back to Luis? neighborhood and we?ll find first-time home owners there, and a good education system. And this will be the beginning of a - of a neighborhood revitalization in that part of Philadelphia, because there was vision and drive and hope for our fellow citizens.

So I want to thank you all for coming. I want to thank you for your determination to help close the minority homeownership gap. It?s an incredibly important initiative for this country. See, America is a good and generous country. It?s a great place. Part of it was to make sure that the dream, the American Dream, the ability to come from anywhere in our society and say, I own this home, is a reality - can be achievable for anybody, regardless of their status, regardless of their - of whether or not they - whether or not they think the dream is meant for them.

I mean, we can put light where there?s darkness, and hope where there?s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.

Again, I want to tell you, this is an initiative - as Mel will tell you, it?s an initiative that we take very seriously. We?re going to stay on it until we?re - until we achieve the goal. And as we all achieve the goal, we can look back and say, America is a better place for our hard work, our efforts and our desires for our fellow Americans to realize the greatness of our country.

Thank you for coming. May God bless your vision. May God bless America. (Applause.)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
August 31, 2007, Bush shoves the burden of the imploding toxic subprime markets off on Fannie/Freddie and FHA Text

President Bush Discusses Homeownership Financing
Rose Garden
August 31, 2007
11:05 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you for joining me. Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson gave me an update on the strong fundamentals of our nation's economy. Economic growth is healthy, and just yesterday we learned that our economy grew at a strong rate of 4 percent in the second quarter of this year. Wages are rising, unemployment is low, exports are up, and steady job creation continues.

We also had a good discussion about the situation in America's financial markets. The markets are in a period of transition, as participants reassess and re-price risk. This process has been unfolding for some time, and it's going to take more time to fully play out. As it does, America's overall economy will remain strong enough to weather any turbulence.

One area that has shown particular strain is the mortgage market, especially what's known as the sub-prime sector of the mortgage market. This market has seen tremendous innovation in recent years, as new lending products make credit available to more people. For the most part, this has been a positive development, and the reason why is millions of families have taken out mortgages to buy their homes, and American homeownership is at a near all-time high.

Unfortunately, there's also been some excesses in the lending industry. One of the most troubling developments has been the increase in adjustable rate mortgages that start out with a very low interest rate and then reset to a higher rate after a few years. This has led some homeowners to take out loans larger than they could afford based on overly-optimistic assumptions about the future performance of the housing market. Others may have been confused by the terms of their loan, or misled by irresponsible lenders. Whatever the reason they chose this kind of mortgage, some borrowers are now unable to make their monthly payments, or facing foreclosure.

Complicating the situation for borrowers is the nature of today's mortgage market. In many cases, the neighborhood banker who issued a family's mortgage does not own that mortgage for long. Instead, mortgages are sold as securities on the global market. And that makes it harder for the lender and borrower to renegotiate.

The recent disturbances in the sub-prime mortgage industry are modest -- they're modest in relation to the size of our economy. But if you're a family -- if your family is one of those having trouble making the monthly payments, this problem doesn't seem modest at all. I understand these concerns, and therefore, I've made this a top priority to help our homeowners navigate these financial challenges, so that many families as possible can stay in their homes. That's what we've been working on, a plan to help homeowners.

We've got a role, the government has got a role to play -- but it is limited. A federal bailout of lenders would only encourage a recurrence of the problem. It's not the government's job to bail out speculators, or those who made the decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford. Yet there are many American homeowners who could get through this difficult time with a little flexibility from their lenders, or a little help from their government. So I strongly urge lenders to work with homeowners to adjust their mortgages. I believe lenders have a responsibility to help these good people to renegotiate so they can stay in their home. And today I'm going to outline a variety of steps at the federal level to help American families keep their homes.

First, we're going to work to modernize and improve the Federal Housing Administration -- that's known as the FHA. The FHA is a government agency that provides mortgage insurance to borrowers through a network of private sector lenders. Sixteen months ago I sent Congress an FHA modernization bill that would help more homeowners qualify for this insurance by lowering down-payment requirements, by increasing loan limits and providing more flexibility in pricing. These reforms would allow the FHA to reach families that need help, those with low incomes and less-than-perfect credit records or little savings.

Last year the House passed this bill with more than 400 votes. Unfortunately, Congress hasn't acted this year. It would be a good task for Congress to come and get FHA modernization done so that we can help these people refinance their homes, so more people can stay in their homes. I look forward to signing a bill as quickly as possible.

In the coming days, the FHA will launch a new program called FHA-Secure. This program will allow American homeowners who have got good credit history but cannot afford their current payments to refinance into FHA-insured mortgages. This means that many families who are struggling now will be able to refinance their loans, meet their monthly payments and keep their homes. In other words, we're going to start reaching out and making sure people know that this option is available to them so they can stay in their homes.

Second, I'm going to work with Congress to temporarily reform a key housing provision of the federal tax code, which will make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages during this time of market stress. Under current law, homeowners who are unable to meet their mortgage payments can face an unexpected tax bill. For example, let's say the value of your house declines by $20,000 and your adjustable rate mortgage payments have grown to a level you cannot afford. If the bank modifies your mortgage and forgives $20,000 of your loan, the tax code treats that $20,000 as taxable income. When your home is losing value and your family is under financial stress, the last thing you need to do is to be hit with higher taxes.

So I believe we need to change the code to make it easier for people to refinance their homes and stay in their homes. And to this end, I've called Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and told her that she's on to a good idea with the bill that she and George Voinovich have submitted to the Senate. The House has got Rob Andrews of New Jersey and Ron Lewis of Kentucky introducing legislation that is a positive step toward changing the tax code so people aren't penalized when they refinance their homes. With a few changes in the Senate version and the House version, this administration can support these bills, and we look forward to working with them -- the senators and the members of the House -- to pass common-sense legislation to help us address this issue.

Third, my administration will launch a new foreclosure avoidance initiative to help struggling homeowners find a way to refinance. Secretary Jackson and Secretary Paulson are going to reach out to a wide variety of groups that offer foreclosure counseling and refinancing for American homeowners. These groups include community organizations like NeighborWorks and mortgage lenders and loan services, and the FHA, as well as government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These organizations exist to help people refinance, and we expect them to do that.

See, it's easy for me to stand up here and talk about refinancing -- some people don't even know what I'm talking about. And we need to have a focused effort to help people understand the mortgage financing options available to them, or to identify homeowners before they face hardships and help them understand what's possible.

Finally, the federal government is taking a variety of actions to make the mortgage industry more transparent, more reliable and more fair, so we can reduce the likelihood that these kind of lending problems won't happen again. Federal banking regulators are improving disclosure requirements to ensure that lenders provide homeowners with complete and accurate and understandable information about their mortgages, including the possibility that their monthly payments could rise dramatically. In other words, we believe that if the consumer is better informed, these kind of problems won't arise -- are less likely to arise in the first place. Banking regulators are also strengthening lending standards to help ensure that borrowers are not approved for mortgages larger than they can handle.

This administration will soon issue regulations that require mortgage brokers to fully disclose their fees and closing costs. We're pursuing wrongdoing and fraud in the mortgage industry through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies. In other words, if you've been cheating somebody we're going to find you and hold you to account. And we'll continue to do our part to help improve all aspects of the mortgage marketplace that is really important to this economy of ours.

With all the steps I've outlined today we will deliver help and hope to American families who need it. We'll help guard against future problems in the housing sector. We'll reaffirm the vital place of homeownership in our nation. When more families own their own homes, neighborhoods are more vibrant and communities are stronger, and more people have a stake in the future of this country.

Owning a home has always been at the center of the American Dream. Together with the United States Congress I will continue working to help make that dream a reality for more of our citizens. Thank you.

Q: Sir, what about the hedge funds and banks that are overexposed on the sub-prime market? That's a bigger problem. Have you got a plan?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.