Who said the stimulus plan isn't working?

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: munky

Hmm, here's some things the rich do with their money:
1. Buy expensive mansions, cars, yachts, islands, etc....
2. Make "political donations" to congressmen in exchange for favorable policy decisions
3. Establish partnerships, foundations and organizations with the goal of using the money to make even more money.
4. Buy out or merge companies - that usually involves job losses, not gains.

So far, I see nothing in there which directly serves to benefit the middle class average joe, nevermind benefiting the lower class poor, or those who have lost their jobs and homes.

Unless you happen to be a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, dock worker, construction worker, electrician, real-estate broker, auto plant worker, miner, landscaper, car salesman, steel worker, truck driver, small business owner, or have a 401k...

Nope! No benefit to the lower or middle class whatsoever!

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: First
The jokers touting the economy and stimulus continue to look foolish with each passing week.

Fixed.

About 500K job losses each week?

Record foreclosures as of the last quarter reported?

Yeah, it's kick'in man! [/sarcasm]

We're still looking at about 750 Billion in ARMs coming up for reset and no more money for bailouts should they hit/go into default (they are all bundled into MBS's and CDS's). Equally as ominous is the continuing rise in defaults on standard home mortgages due to unemployment.

I'm glad the MSM is no longer bashing the economy, thus making it worse - but I still believe it's too soon to celebrate. Just getting a little bit LESS worse ain't all that hot. That's about as comforting as jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and getting all happy that your rate of fall isn't accelerating as much as it was.

Fern

When the hell was 500K job losses per week happening? Maybe you meant per month (which, btw, occurred months ago)? In any case, "if the current ARM mortgages default" is a meaningless statement; they always default, the question is what % do. There's no indication they'll be any worse than historical norms and, certainly, the bailouts and stimulus made things far better than they would have been had mortgage relief for underwater owners not been enacted; and even though just 6% new contracts have been accepted by banks like BOA, it's still far better than the alternative proposition from the opposition, which was that 0% of mortgages be renegotiated. Again, that was all part of the stimulus.

And again, all impossible without bailing out these (admittedly horribly irresponsible) financial institutions that put 60% of $10T financial industry at risk of default. It's why a majority of economists agree the stimulus clearly had a major impact on new mortgages, home buying, and job creation. And it's why those same economists all say we're out/heading out of the recession, with positive GDP growth already here and (hopefully) job creation to begin sometime next year (jobs almost universally lag GDP growth, btw, so that's not an excuse). And besides, let's not pretend that Obama had anything to do with job losses in, say, January or February or even March. Bush era policies (with some terrible holdover Clinton decisions) created a good deal of this boondoggle over the last year. Though, despite Bush's ineptitude and utter failings to create sustainable job growth, he did at least adhere to the bailouts, something history will look well upon him for.

And Fern, you used to be a good poster but you have gone entirely off the deep end since Obama was elected, whether it's the birther nonsense or your baseless notion that the economy hasn't clearly recovered.

Good ole Uncle Sam helping folks get a mortgage and helping the economy at the same time, gotta be a win/win right?

You are correct that the Gov is helping people purchase houses. A very large portion of new home loans are FHA loans (Gov giving people a helping hand). Now the Government doesn't want to be unfair and only allow people who have saved a significant amount of money for a down payment to qualify so they got rid of that ridiculous requirement. And since we are trying to help the poor people live the American dream we relaxed those dumbass debt-income ratios and then we threw in some free money to motivate people a little more to purchase something they can't afford.

Bottom line: 1 of every 5 FHA borrowers (current numbers) are in default and heading towards foreclosure. Could you please explain how this helps either the borrower or the economy (excluding real estate agents and banks)? I seem to recall us getting into just a bit of trouble from similar lending practices but it was so long ago its a bit fuzzy. At least the suckers don't have any/much skin in the game to lose if they become part of the 20% and rising.

Working as planned?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Ausm
Obama... has not done anything...Yet.

That just about sums up everything right there. :thumbsup:

Awful hard on a president who has been in office only 9 months with more problems on his plate then just about any other president in history. I get your angst toward him because you suck on the right wing tit and hump your Reagan blowup doll.

While I'm not a fan of Lincoln I'd be more prone to say he definitely inherited the biggest plate of problems.

 

[bfdd]

I don't know why people are stoked about the government helping you get a loan now... You realize the money the bank lends you at lets say 5% was most likely lended to them by the government at 1%..... Yeah.... chew on that for awhile..

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Put all the trust you want in the poor, but there is a good reason they are poor: they make very bad decisions with their money and do not develop useful skills for the modern world.

Not always. Simple case in point what if you were born in Somalia? I bet you'd be poor as fvck and so would I. And since the US is not a perfect nation/economy in which your dreams can all be realized with just a little elbow grease, it's somewhere in between that ideal and Somalia, the end result being that luck/birthdright still plays a huge role in how you end up.

The jokers decrying the bailouts and stimulus continue to look foolish with each passing week.

Anyway, Craig is right the rich and poor divide continues to get huge and the middle and lower classes in the US are about flat while the increasing size of the US pie trends very heavily toward those at the top.

That's because the right likes to pawn off Middle class jobs overseas for the sake of profits.

I forget, what adminstration formally signed NAFTA into law?

Done in a Republican majority Congress by a president who I mistook for a Republican.

Oh, but the years when it was a Democrat controlled Congress during the Bush admin merits no mention in these forums by tools like yourself.
And your justification is that you considered President Clinton a Republican?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: First
The jokers touting the economy and stimulus continue to look foolish with each passing week.

Fixed.

About 500K job losses each week?

Record foreclosures as of the last quarter reported?

Yeah, it's kick'in man! [/sarcasm]

We're still looking at about 750 Billion in ARMs coming up for reset and no more money for bailouts should they hit/go into default (they are all bundled into MBS's and CDS's). Equally as ominous is the continuing rise in defaults on standard home mortgages due to unemployment.

I'm glad the MSM is no longer bashing the economy, thus making it worse - but I still believe it's too soon to celebrate. Just getting a little bit LESS worse ain't all that hot. That's about as comforting as jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and getting all happy that your rate of fall isn't accelerating as much as it was.

Fern

When the hell was 500K job losses per week happening? Maybe you meant per month (which, btw, occurred months ago)? In any case, "if the current ARM mortgages default" is a meaningless statement; they always default, the question is what % do. There's no indication they'll be any worse than historical norms and, certainly, the bailouts and stimulus made things far better than they would have been had mortgage relief for underwater owners not been enacted; and even though just 6% new contracts have been accepted by banks like BOA, it's still far better than the alternative proposition from the opposition, which was that 0% of mortgages be renegotiated. Again, that was all part of the stimulus.

And again, all impossible without bailing out these (admittedly horribly irresponsible) financial institutions that put 60% of $10T financial industry at risk of default. It's why a majority of economists agree the stimulus clearly had a major impact on new mortgages, home buying, and job creation. And it's why those same economists all say we're out/heading out of the recession, with positive GDP growth already here and (hopefully) job creation to begin sometime next year (jobs almost universally lag GDP growth, btw, so that's not an excuse). And besides, let's not pretend that Obama had anything to do with job losses in, say, January or February or even March. Bush era policies (with some terrible holdover Clinton decisions) created a good deal of this boondoggle over the last year. Though, despite Bush's ineptitude and utter failings to create sustainable job growth, he did at least adhere to the bailouts, something history will look well upon him for.

And Fern, you used to be a good poster but you have gone entirely off the deep end since Obama was elected, whether it's the birther nonsense or your baseless notion that the economy hasn't clearly recovered.

Good ole Uncle Sam helping folks get a mortgage and helping the economy at the same time, gotta be a win/win right?

You are correct that the Gov is helping people purchase houses. A very large portion of new home loans are FHA loans (Gov giving people a helping hand). Now the Government doesn't want to be unfair and only allow people who have saved a significant amount of money for a down payment to qualify so they got rid of that ridiculous requirement. And since we are trying to help the poor people live the American dream we relaxed those dumbass debt-income ratios and then we threw in some free money to motivate people a little more to purchase something they can't afford.

Bottom line: 1 of every 5 FHA borrowers (current numbers) are in default and heading towards foreclosure. Could you please explain how this helps either the borrower or the economy (excluding real estate agents and banks)? I seem to recall us getting into just a bit of trouble from similar lending practices but it was so long ago its a bit fuzzy. At least the suckers don't have any/much skin in the game to lose if they become part of the 20% and rising.

Working as planned?

1) I have no problem tightening lending standards and encourage it. They have already upped the credit rating requirements to the high 500's (580 up to 620 I believe?), which is good.

2) 20% of FHA loans aren't in default and heading toward foreclosure. It's 7% in default with 13% of those behind in payments. If 20% actually defaulted I'd be appalled. But that isn't the case, not even close.

http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj

It found that the FHA?s default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days.

So yes, it's definitely disconcerting that FHA are taking on these (additional) risks, and perhaps a good deal of those loans really shouldn't be made (impossible to know for certain without looking at the books). However, I am not willing to say it isn't expected or even necessary to make loans like that in this climate where a severe slowdown in consumer spending (and home buying) has a crippling rippling effect on the economy; specifically wages and job creation and therefore small businesses and therefore the lifeblood of the whole damn thing. That's what people like to ignore when they say "Let it fail" or whatever; the economy itself has always been closely interlinked with consumer spending (accounts for roughly 70% of GDP), so any significant hit to that spending (especially in this case, which is an artificial once-in-a-century banking collapse) has to be dealt with in special ways. Sometimes that means taking on more risk, but facts are we don't know the true worthiness/risk of the loans without peering into the books. 7% is poor but manageable with future economic growth (i.e. job creation which creates more reliable bond issuers).