Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Zero-Downpayment Initiative?

Recs

8

March 09, 2008 – Comments (8)

Bush signed a zero down payment initiative in Feb. 2004?  And Americans voted him into office again.  Americans have a president that passed negligent and incompetent lending practices into law and  then they voted for him again...

Dumb...

 

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 09, 2008 at 10:31 PM, dwot (40.23) wrote:

There is a good read on Auction-rate securities on Marketwatch.

It talks about a company that was 4 years early warning that the auction-rate securities could dry up in a heartbeat.  

There is also a potential problem for companies that are in these things if they need liquidity.  They are likely to get their money at maturity, but may end up taking losses if they need to get out of them early.  They are not liquid investments. 

 

Report this comment
#2) On March 09, 2008 at 10:40 PM, DemonDoug (74.37) wrote:

dwot, you would be mortified at the mindset and intelligence level of the average voter.  a lot of old grannies voted for bush solely because he was a "good christian boy."  their words not mine.

Report this comment
#3) On March 09, 2008 at 11:20 PM, dwot (40.23) wrote:

Doug, then may god help them...

Devoish, I am so disappointed that Gore didn't get in.  I follow this market stuff, but the environmental stuff may prove this stuff to just have been a waste of time and irrelevant.   Everything Bush has done has accelerated the use of fossil fuels.

If you follow Lovelock at all, he says that we have a layer of  aerosol pollution that is actually buffering us from the level of green house damage that we have done.  That pollution could escape our atmosphere very easily and should we loose that protection the rate of global warming would dramatically increase.  He thinks we've gone past the point of no return on global warming and we should instead of working on saving the environment be working on technology to enable survival on an over heated planet.

When you look at the declining water levels in the Great Lakes and a number of our rivers in Canada, the loss of water reserves behind Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, Mt Shasta, the lowering of the land mass in Florida due to declining under water reserves, well, first thing Bush did was build all these plants to turn fossel fuel into electricity. 

Report this comment
#4) On March 09, 2008 at 11:23 PM, dwot (40.23) wrote:

how the heck did my reply end up coming before the comment I was replying to?

Report this comment
#5) On March 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, devoish (98.63) wrote:

But Bush was the best we could muster.

There was some question whether the other guy deserved all his medals.

And before that the other guy was boring, he went on and on with facts and stuff.

And back then even in the primary the best other Republican, well everybody thought he had fathered an illegitimate black kid.

Report this comment
#6) On March 10, 2008 at 1:32 AM, StockSpreadsheet (71.74) wrote:

Dwot,

A U.S. president cannot "pass" legislation.  He can sign it or not sign it or veto it, but only Congress can "pass" legislation.  Bush can issue executive orders, and he might persuad people in the Executive Branch of the government, (such as the Treasury Secretary), to issue "rulings" or "guidance" for institutions under their supervision, but even they can't "pass" anything. The ruling by HUD only affected a small portion of the homebuying public, those getting FHA-secured homes for first-time home buyers.  A zero-down-payment loan for someone with good credit and proper loan documentation probably isn't defaulting that frequently.  FHA loans require income verification.  All FHA loans that I know of are 30-year fixed loans.  These are not the loans creating the problems.  ARMs with low teaser rates, Alt-A, no-doc, negative amortization, pay option, etc. loans are the problem loans now, and I seriously doubt that any of them would have qualified for FHA insurance.  Also, if the problem loans were FHA insured, then Wall Street and the banks wouldn't be in the mess that they are in, as the federal government would be on the hook to pay off the loans.  The problem loans are not FHA secured, therefore the initiative mentioned is not applicable in this case.

Our current fiscal problems are due to loose money from the Fed, collusion/fraud by and between Wall Street and the ratings agencies, and greed/lack of ownership by the banks, as well as lack of oversite by the Fed, Congress and the Executive Branch.  Bush has very little responsibility for any of the problems.  Wall Street, the ratings agencies and the banks are to blame.  The Fed shares a lot of the blame because they have oversite on the banks, (and all the CDO crap was blessed by Greenspan as a great financial innovation).  Congress and the Executive Branch, (of which Bush is the head), also share some blame because they have oversite into the actions of the Fed and thus the banks.  Bush is at the very end of a long line of people/institutions that are to blame.  To blame him for the current crisis would be the same as blaming him for every airplane crash around the world, saying that the FAA didn't train the pilots well enough.  Other people much closer to the problem are much more to blame than Bush is.

Craig

Report this comment
#7) On March 10, 2008 at 2:31 AM, dwot (40.23) wrote:

He signed it...

Report this comment
#8) On March 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Imperial1964 (97.74) wrote:

Exactly why a two-party system sucks.

Does anybody honestly think Gore or Kerry would've been much of an improvement?  One could hope they would be better.  But when was the last president we had who didn't abuse power, commit perjury, greatly expand the defecit, or just plain suck?  We haven't had such a president since I've been born.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement