Foreclosures at an all-time high in August, and poverty rate highest since 1994

[thegimp03]

Great job Obama! Change we can believe in!

/golf clap

 

[PeshakJang]

Great job Obama! Change we can believe in!

/golf clap

Hey... people were asking for change. Now they're begging for change.

 

[Darwin333]

You ass, a lying accusation of dishonesty is pretty much an automatic ignore list indefinitely.


I have said many times for years Clinton is highly at fault for that action. While it was pushed hard by Republicans, it was also pushed hard by the corporatist faction of Democrats.

Clinton is highly to blame for that and for the disastrous results.

At least I will be in good company. Its not like you ever address anything in my rebuttals besides a very small and relatively unimportant snip. Gee, kinda like you just did with this one.


Furthermore, I don't, nor would I if I even had the time, read all of your posts. The entire gist of the post I responded to was republicans = got us into this mess and will make the mess worse if they get power/ Democrats = good and stopping the financial mess. Funny how you never seem to address the points I have made directly to you time and time again about the Dems (and Reps too) intentionally allowing the banks to fuck all of us so that the .001% can profit huge.

Clinton is highly to blame for that and for the disastrous results.

Kinda goes against the notion that peoples "share of wealth" increased under Clinton if the wealth was never real, doesn't it? I believe you tried to make that point in this very thread but I am to lazy to go back and look for the quote. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit so, as always.

That ignore list begins now not reading the rest of your post.

It sure as hell won't stop me from calling you out when you are dead wrong. Stick your fingers in your ears and cry "nah nah nah" all you want, as I stated earlier, its not like you actually try to defend your position with real facts. Instead you prefer to post walls of text that usually break down to: Republicans = bad, Democrats = good, Progressives = saints.

 

[PeshakJang]

At least I will be in good company. Its not like you ever address anything in my rebuttals besides a very small and relatively unimportant snip. Gee, kinda like you just did with this one.

I've noticed that more and more... he never really replies to *anything* when he's called out... he just keeps referring to posts he may or may not have made within the last 10 years, and calls you names.

And now he's pretending to ignore you... "I'm ignoring you now! I'm ignoring you now! LALALALA!"

What a crack

 

[Darwin333]

If you're going to make this sort of point, which might be valid in another factual context, you should probably verify the facts first. Darwin's recollection of the fact is not at all accurate here, and hence this is a poor example to use for this sort of observation.

This article tracks the legislative process that occurred with the Dodd amendment and quotes the amendment. It did the exact, diametric opposite of what was claimed by Rush Limbaugh and is now recalled by Darwin.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200903170026

Facts > opinions. Always, always, always.

- wolf

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary [of the Treasury] or the designee of the Secretary.

I love facts and I try to be as factual as possible. Sometimes I am wrong and I gladly admit that I am wrong because now I have more facts. With that said, why put that verbage into a bill? Does Congress have the ability to retroactively invalidate private contracts therefor needing an amendment such as the above to ensure that they aren't?

It is the "shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payments" part that gets me. Congress had all the power at the time because the banks needed damn near a trillion bucks. I don't see why they couldn't have easily said "you want the bailout funds then your executives must voluntarily give up X% of their bonuses" or something to the sort. Not forcing them to do it but as a clause in taking additional bailout funds or a slew of other benefits granted during the time.

Please elaborate if I am in left field on this one (and I may very well be).

 

[Darwin333]

Please tone down the rancor.

If you are going to put him on an ignore list, then do so. Replying to a post implies dishonesty regards to ignore.

Anandtech Admin
Common Courtesy

I just spit Mountain Dew on my keyboard.

No worries, it was about time to clean it anyway.

 

[woolfe9999]

I love facts and I try to be as factual as possible. Sometimes I am wrong and I gladly admit that I am wrong because now I have more facts. With that said, why put that verbage into a bill? Does Congress have the ability to retroactively invalidate private contracts therefor needing an amendment such as the above to ensure that they aren't?

It is the "shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payments" part that gets me. Congress had all the power at the time because the banks needed damn near a trillion bucks. I don't see why they couldn't have easily said "you want the bailout funds then your executives must voluntarily give up X% of their bonuses" or something to the sort. Not forcing them to do it but as a clause in taking additional bailout funds or a slew of other benefits granted during the time.

Please elaborate if I am in left field on this one (and I may very well be).

If the banks are forced to breach their executive contracts in order to get the bailout money, then that is a huge problem. And Congress cannot invalidate existing contracts as that would be confiscatory, like a bill of attainder. They could require that their executives volunarily give up their contractually promised money as a condition to the bailout like you say, but then you'd have to get all of them to agree to it, and that just isn't going to happen. Many of these executives, especially the highest paid, would rather the bank go under and they jump ship in their golden parachutes than give up their huge bonuses. Since the purpose of the TARP was to actually prevent these banks from failing, all they could do was condition the bailout money on them not contracting for big bonsuses in the future, which is what they did.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Please tone down the rancor.

If you are going to put him on an ignore list, then do so. Replying to a post implies dishonesty regards to ignore.

Anandtech Admin
Common Courtesy

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

He posts the false accusation of dishonesty, and other things.

I respond just enough to the false accusation of dishonesty to explain the situation.

Per my statement that I'll ignore the rest of post, I do just that, and any following.

The decision to ignore his post is unilateral and can continue at my discretion. If I choose to reverse it tomorrow and give him a chance to act better I could (that's not my plan).

And consistent with my statement to him, YOUR false accusation of dishonest has you on my ignore as well now indefinitely.

If you post, I will glance for the 'moderator sig' and respond appropriate to that, but plan to ignore your posts as a poster. If you have question, have someone explain to you or PM.

As for rancor - the rancor is in your reckless and outrageous accusation of dishonesty. That will not be tolerated nor should it.

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

 

[LegendKiller]

I have yet to figure out how any of this is Obama's fault.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I have yet to figure out how any of this is Obama's fault.

Because placing the blame on the Republican congress of the late 90s, along with Presidents Clinton and G.W.Bush, AND the American people as whole doesn't fit their anti-Obama mindset.

 

[Corn]

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

He posts the false accusation of dishonesty, and other things.

I respond just enough to the false accusation of dishonesty to explain the situation.

Per my statement that I'll ignore the rest of post, I do just that, and any following.

The decision to ignore his post is unilateral and can continue at my discretion. If I choose to reverse it tomorrow and give him a chance to act better I could (that's not my plan).

And consistent with my statement to him, YOUR false accusation of dishonest has you on my ignore as well now indefinitely.

If you post, I will glance for the 'moderator sig' and respond appropriate to that, but plan to ignore your posts as a poster. If you have question, have someone explain to you or PM.

As for rancor - the rancor is in your reckless and outrageous accusation of dishonesty. That will not be tolerated nor should it.

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

LOL, you are such a child. Ignore me too, please!

 

[nick1985]

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

He posts the false accusation of dishonesty, and other things.

I respond just enough to the false accusation of dishonesty to explain the situation.

Per my statement that I'll ignore the rest of post, I do just that, and any following.

The decision to ignore his post is unilateral and can continue at my discretion. If I choose to reverse it tomorrow and give him a chance to act better I could (that's not my plan).

And consistent with my statement to him, YOUR false accusation of dishonest has you on my ignore as well now indefinitely.

If you post, I will glance for the 'moderator sig' and respond appropriate to that, but plan to ignore your posts as a poster. If you have question, have someone explain to you or PM.

As for rancor - the rancor is in your reckless and outrageous accusation of dishonesty. That will not be tolerated nor should it.

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

ignore me too plz

 

[PeshakJang]

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

He posts the false accusation of dishonesty, and other things.

I respond just enough to the false accusation of dishonesty to explain the situation.

Per my statement that I'll ignore the rest of post, I do just that, and any following.

The decision to ignore his post is unilateral and can continue at my discretion. If I choose to reverse it tomorrow and give him a chance to act better I could (that's not my plan).

And consistent with my statement to him, YOUR false accusation of dishonest has you on my ignore as well now indefinitely.

If you post, I will glance for the 'moderator sig' and respond appropriate to that, but plan to ignore your posts as a poster. If you have question, have someone explain to you or PM.

As for rancor - the rancor is in your reckless and outrageous accusation of dishonesty. That will not be tolerated nor should it.

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're the best, Craig

Ignore me too!

 

[nonlnear]

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

...

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

You are a petulant little runt, aren't you? Could you please add me to your ignore list?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ain't spidey cute?

It's obviously all Obama's fault, everything.

He used some sort of Kenyan mind control to make Wall St issue all that bunk paper covering bogus mortgages and was a huge booster of the ownership society, even mind melded with Bush and Greenspan, forcing them to do his bidding, crash the economy, so he could inherit the wreck...

Heck he even time travelled to put the announcement of his birth in the Hawaiian paper to make it look like he was born here...

Pure Eeeviilll, obviously, and the real source of "uncertainty" about the economy that was already crashed before he took office... the crashing itself and non-recovery having nothing to do with it...

 

[First]

If you want a case against Obama's policies that are based in reality, let me give it to you.

Cash 4 Clunkers, the Home Buyer's credit, and other targeted stimulus programs have proven that people are willing to open their wallets if the cost of the products falls to a price that the consumer is willing to pay. However, said stimulus programs also set back a broader recovery, because it provides a disincentive for manufacturers to adjust the price of their goods to a market-clearing level. You can see evidence of this in the housing and automotive markets today, as both experienced a very sharp drop after their respective stimulus programs ended. Not only does the economic performance directly impact related markets (sending them down as well), it has a psychological impact that puts a damper on transactions throughout the economy.

Except your entire basis for this argument is rooted in the notion that the auto and housing industries wouldn't have experienced this slowdown whether the stimulus existed or not. You attributing "disincentive" to the fall in both markets is an interesting take but one without any evidence whatsoever. A much better explanation based on something that can actually be seen and measured is, say, the European debt scare and austerity around the world in the last 6 months, something that is measurable in terms of reduced stimulus spending globally, lack of yuan easing in China (hurting U.S. exports greatly), deflationary pressures stagnating growth (due to debt scares), all things that can been seen in total dollars spent, exchange rates, and CPI.

 

[rudder]

BUT HERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!!! 55 Jobs were saved in L.A.!

It was a bargain at only $111 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...appointed-city-used-stimulus-funds/undefined/


Just thought I would lighten up this depressing thread with some good news!

 

[umbrella39]

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're the best, Craig

Ignore me too!

Which alt should he ignore first?

 

[hal2kilo]

Sure am glad we brought in hope and change to fix all this, see? It's all so much better now. Or, wait, it's not. Good thing we get a chance in november to start fixing the problem.

Yea, "take our country back" is so much more concise and specific lol. That's the only lol, specific thing I heard out of the O'Donnel bitches mouth during her acceptance speach.

 

[Sinsear]

No, that's idiotic, here's the sequence:

He posts the false accusation of dishonesty, and other things.

I respond just enough to the false accusation of dishonesty to explain the situation.

Per my statement that I'll ignore the rest of post, I do just that, and any following.

The decision to ignore his post is unilateral and can continue at my discretion. If I choose to reverse it tomorrow and give him a chance to act better I could (that's not my plan).

And consistent with my statement to him, YOUR false accusation of dishonest has you on my ignore as well now indefinitely.

If you post, I will glance for the 'moderator sig' and respond appropriate to that, but plan to ignore your posts as a poster. If you have question, have someone explain to you or PM.

As for rancor - the rancor is in your reckless and outrageous accusation of dishonesty. That will not be tolerated nor should it.

When someone acts terribly and is ignored for it, there's no reason not to say so publically so the readers don't think there's another reason for the lack of response to that person.

Awwww......poor little Craig....all butthurt again.

 

[dmcowen674]

BUT HERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!!! 55 Jobs were saved in L.A.!

It was a bargain at only $111 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...appointed-city-used-stimulus-funds/undefined/


Just thought I would lighten up this depressing thread with some good news!

How many jobs did your hero Bush save? Zero because he sent all the jobs overseas.

If it costs 111 trillion to save jobs here it's worth it.

 

[StageLeft]

How many jobs did your hero Bush save? Zero because he sent all the jobs overseas.

If it costs 111 trillion to save jobs here it's worth it.

If there were $111 trillion none of us would need to work, but then since Bush sent "all the jobs" overseas, none of us are working now anyway.

 

[SammyJr]

How many jobs did your hero Bush save? Zero because he sent all the jobs overseas.

If it costs 111 trillion to save jobs here it's worth it.

Be fair. The jobs going overseas bit is part of the Free Trade religion - that's been going on for 30 years.

 

[SAWYER]

lol, ignore lists

People are so full of crap when they pull the "IMMA Ignore you!!!!111!!!"

You know they can not resist to see what the people they ignore are posting if they take what said people say so seriously to get that butthurt in the first place

 

[BurnItDwn]

This is bad news, but, I believe OP is misstating things very slightly.

Forclosure is not the same thing as Repossession.

Repossession is at an all time high, BUT, The number of people defaulting and going into foreclosure is declining, and has been for 7 months straight.

Typically, there is a good amount of lag time between foreclosure and repossession, so naturally, repossession will peak 6-12 months after foreclosures peak. The next 2-3 months will be really bad with repo's, no matter how the foreclosure rate goes.