Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

fox news, obama documentary tonight, 10-12

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regardless of who is elected...you can't legislate the fixing of stupidity.

However, you can expect otherwise competent people to be responsible for their own idiotic decisions.

This is where I feel that libs and conservatives vastly differ. Conservatives accept this as is. Libs always want to blame someone else for the world's problems and expect big brother (government) to fix it.

The elderly and mentally challenged folks were a very small minority of the folks taking on these loans I would bet.
</div></div>

I try to avoid gross generalizations and over simplifications whenever I can, especially when you are trying to paint everyone with but one of two colors (red or blue for instance). The world is not Coke or Pepsi, even though when it comes time to cast a ballot those are the only two choices you really have.

What do you think the perfect level of government involvement is? Just curious.
 
With a two party system "gross generalizations" are what we are left with. Although, in a nut shell, I stand by the comments since that has been my exact experience thus far in life. I don't walk the party line on anything just to be "red" or "blue" as I'm sure most don't. If we were able to cast our vote on each issue somehow then maybe it would be easy to vote for one of these clowns. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

As to government involvement, I can't off the top of my head think of one single thing they have done truley well. The private sector as a whole could manage or produce far superior results in comparison to anything the government has ever done. Of course, this is just my opinion and you are welcome to your own. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
You all still talking politics when the rut is getting so close. Ok, here we go, Obama is going to be our president. Like it or not. Now go kill something and put some pictures on here so we have something to enjoy /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bucknduck</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You all still talking politics when the rut is getting so close. Ok, here we go, Obama is going to be our president. Like it or not. Now go kill something and put some pictures on here so we have something to enjoy /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif </div></div>
Unfortunately bucknduck you are probably correct!

As to politics during the pre-rut...well, I'm out of buck tags till I head for KS. I need something to pass the time. What better way than to have a freindly debate with Avid! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: muddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What scares me is what would happen if McCain kicked the bucket during his time in office. He's what, 137 years old or something? Having to rely on Palin and her vast experience would be a scary deal indeed.

That being said, I believe it's another election where we'll all be trying to pick the lesser of two evils. </div></div>


What about Obama's experience! Great community organizer...I guess(whatever that is). Is South Chicago better off now than it was before he got involved? I would pick a governor over community organizer any day! I am sure that if its close vote(which it proly will be) there will be protests, riots, and endless legal proceedings until the left gets their man in office! Then, for the next four years when nothing still gets done, they will continue to blame Bush. Don't get me wrong, I think that no matter who gets elected, things will still be a mess.. I hope i am wrong.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GOLD TIP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Don't get me wrong, I think that no matter who gets elected, things will still be a mess.. I hope i am wrong. </div></div>

You won't be wrong. My main hope is that no matter who gets elected, whether they be black, elderly, a bumbling idiot, or a hot mom, they turn things around. End of story.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: muddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GOLD TIP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Don't get me wrong, I think that no matter who gets elected, things will still be a mess.. I hope i am wrong. </div></div>

You won't be wrong. My main hope is that no matter who gets elected, whether they be black, elderly, a bumbling idiot, or a hot mom, they turn things around. End of story. </div></div>


I hope you're right! I want the same. I just have lost hope in the whole process!!!
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bucknduck</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You all still talking politics when the rut is getting so close. Ok, here we go, Obama is going to be our president. Like it or not. Now go kill something and put some pictures on here so we have something to enjoy /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif </div></div>
Unfortunately bucknduck you are probably correct!

As to politics during the pre-rut...well, I'm out of buck tags till I head for KS. I need something to pass the time. What better way than to have a freindly debate with Avid! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

I wish I could be hunting right about now, but unfortunately I have to wait until the first week of November /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The private sector has been way too myopic and entirely obsessed with short term gains - at least at the corporate level, largely because of unchecked greed at the top. We are also to blame, as a society that has come to demand immediate results, to the detriment of our future.

Imagine if there was no government... who would provide for your safety? Who would protect your family from a potentially hostile neighbor(s) that thinks perhaps you have something he might like to have, and brute force is all that's required to take it. How would senior citizens survive without social security? What shape would our environment be in today if not for mandated emission standards on our cars, clean air/water laws? Do you think that the private sector would self impose these behaviors? No matter that it makes sense to protect the future of their own business by preserving the resources they need for production and maintaining the health of their consumers?

Government is a necessary evil, it has been said, because man would be left to toil in anarchy without it. Capitalism could not exist without government for that matter. As individuals we would be too preoccupied with our own self preservation to trifle with producing anything of value on any kind of scale to create any kind of economy. We would be savages without law and order.

The argument has been that government is simply in the way of business. I argue that business has survived because of it. Could we eliminate some red tape, cutback on wasteful spending, and improve the efficacy of government? ABSOLUTELY. But should we simply get out of the way of the private sector, as some people would have us do? Not if we want to risk losing it.

How's your 401k doing lately? That's the result of getting out of the way of business...
 
"How's your 401k doing lately? That's the result of getting out of the way of business... "

Are you just making this stuff up out of your own head or are you actually that ignorant?

The market conditions we have right now are a direct result of the Clinton administration pressuring Freddie Mac and Fannie mae and similar instituions to give loans to people who really couldn't afford it. That my ignorant friend is a direct result of the government getting in the way of business, and our liberal congress persons will never take the blame for it, even though they just postponed the inevitable until it came at the perfect time for them to shine the light of blame on someone else, which is the typical pattern of liberals.

I know you are voting for Obama because you think the democrats have a chance to fix the economy, but they definitely do not have history on their side. He talks and walks just like Jimmy Carter who gave us the worst inflation we've ever seen, interests rates of 20% and historic levels of unemployment.

Tighten yor belt up for the next few years, you are going to be eating not much other than your words.
 
Avid-
I don't have the time right now to get into it in grave detail, but I'll simply say government is already massively bloated and we definately don't need any more government programs to "help" us out. Those people who hold themselves accountable for their own decisions and have a strong work ethic are still able to get by better than anywhere else on the planet and I suspect that will always be the case. Those without those attributes will get what they deserve ultimately. That is unless we end up a socialist country and then those people will get what they don't deserve while those who work hard end up with the vaseline.

As to the freddie, fannie and the whole sub prime mess.....I'll just say that just b/c you are an American that doesn't entitle you to live in a mansion or even to simply own a house. On top of that, we don't owe anyone who was that naive our tax dollars in order to bale them out of a mortgage they should have never received in the first place. As to the banks that issued them....that was bad business and they too should be accountable for there greedy actions. Government is needed for military, basic municipal functions, and to protect/help those who are unable protect/help themselves. Beyond that I think we can trim a lot of fat.

Anarchy you say....funny, you must have been listening to Obama and Bill Ayers preach a little to much lately....just kidding AVID but it was to easy of a stab to pass on. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Your use of the slippery slope is handy when it favors your own arguments. You say if we cut down on government we will have anarchy.....but never in a million years would they threaten our gun or other civil rights if they get to large or one sided (heavy sarcasm implied). Hard to follow your logic, well, at least for me it is.

As to the 401K issue. It's your money and if you lost a lot...that's your fault and no one else. T-bills and 99.9 % of MM funds have preserved capital just fine since last October. Nothing in live is guaranteed and that includes investments.

Personal accountability folks....that what our country is missing now. Those from the greatest generation now cringe or would roll over in there graves watching the modern entitlement mentality play out. If you work hard......it should make you angry too.

Avid is very smart guy folks....he just comes to his conclusions via a different pathway of thinking. I would have a beer with him anytime and I appreciate that he can discuss things in a civil manner. In 3 weeks, we won't have to have these discussions hopefully for another 4 years.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iowa1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"How's your 401k doing lately? That's the result of getting out of the way of business... "

Are you just making this stuff up out of your own head or are you actually that ignorant?

The market conditions we have right now are a direct result of the Clinton administration pressuring Freddie Mac and Fannie mae and similar instituions to give loans to people who really couldn't afford it. That my ignorant friend is a direct result of the government getting in the way of business, and our liberal congress persons will never take the blame for it, even though they just postponed the inevitable until it came at the perfect time for them to shine the light of blame on someone else, which is the typical pattern of liberals.

I know you are voting for Obama because you think the democrats have a chance to fix the economy, but they definitely do not have history on their side. He talks and walks just like Jimmy Carter who gave us the worst inflation we've ever seen, interests rates of 20% and historic levels of unemployment.

Tighten yor belt up for the next few years, you are going to be eating not much other than your words. </div></div>

I think I may have put a little too much Bailey's in my coffee this morning /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Let me put it this way, I was a lender for nearly eight years. I have some knowledge on this topic. Gov't encouraged lenders to make loans to lower income people that had either a lack of credit or poor credit, it had NOTHING to do with making loans people could not afford to pay. The intent was noble, to give more people the opportunity to become home owners, rather than living their entire lives paying rent to a landlord. The gov't never intended for lenders to make $300k home loans to people making $30k year. That, my friend, was an artifact of greedy mortgage executives, period. You give them an inch, and they take a mile.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Like I mentioned earlier, I have seen some ludicrous debt ratios fly, incomes misreported, and disgustingly "creative" financing that would make your head spin. That's partly why I left the industry. I didn't have the stomach for it. Your average person is over matched by a car salesman, and they are/were over matched by the mortgage banker. It's not just the elderly and mentally disabled that were taken advantage of.

I get the argument that you sleep in the bed that you make. I don't believe that everyone who makes a mistake should be thrown a life preserver at the tax payers expense... really I don't.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that we are slipping towards anarchy lol. I was just stating the core reason as to why gov't exists in the first place. We enter into a social contract and give up some freedoms in order to create and preserve order (and exit anarchy). If anything, my comments were very much anti-Ayers, who was arguably a proponent of anarchy.
 
"Gov't encouraged lenders to make loans to lower income people that had either a lack of credit or poor credit, it had NOTHING to do with making loans people could not afford to pay."

More contradictory NONSENSE. Read your own words and see how ridiculous they are. Both of your last two posts. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You are right only on one ting... the Clinton adminstration pressured lenders to loan money to bad credit risks because theere was a recession looming and all this house of cards was going to come crashing down. The Clinton administration didn't want it to happen on their watch so they postponed it by pressuring lenders to loan money to high risk people. They successfully postponed it until it came down harder than ever. If they would hav just let it naturally correct we wouldn't have this mess. Now we have to spend $100 BILLION to try to fix it so we don't have a depression. Probably won't work anyway.

Obama will go in office and say "We democrats didn't create this mess, we inherited it." Which is another in a long string of lies. Democrats were the cause of the problem and they sure aren't going to be the solution.
 
Spell out the contradiction you speak of. There is none. Credit rating is not simply someone's capacity to repay a loan (ability to pay is generally measured by a debt ratio). Please don't insult me when you do not have a full understanding of the subject matter.

Risky loans were ALREADY being made to sub prime mortgage companies at VERY high interest rates. The gov't simply made it easier for these borrowers to get lower fixed rates at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, rather than continue to be priced out of home ownership by sky high interest rates.

Once again, they DID NOT intend for mortgage brokerages and realtors to be undermining the economy by placing people into housing situations they could not afford. That is a result of the greed and excess, top to bottom, in the businesses that are now being bailed out. What part of that don't you get?

There is plenty of blame to be spread on this topic. Most of it can rightfully be attributed to the ones ultimately making the decisions to underwrite a loan in the first place. Does it make sense to put someone making $30k into a $300k home? It does if you want to make your manager happy and line your pocket while you're at it... Are the people who bought the house partially to blame? Of course! But as I said earlier, they are over matched by the banker. You would assume that a lender wants to put you into a position and into a home that you can actually afford to pay... so the impression you get is that if they tell you "it's approved" that they must know better than I do... is this a lame excuse? You can argue that it is, but the average Joe Plumber doesn't have a degree in finance. The loan products these days have gotten pretty complicated, partly to meet new demands of customers, but also to differentiate banks from other banks by offering a "new shiny mortgage loan option", loaded with obscured details.

It used to be the case that you could trust your banker, but now the boundary between personal banker and sales bot is about as delineated and secure as the Mexican border.
 
Okay, I will S-P-E-L-L out your contradiciton in your own words. Read it slowly so you can understand it (I am, of course, assuming that you can read).

H E R E Y O U G O

"Gov't encouraged lenders to make loans to lower income people that had either a lack of credit or poor credit, it had NOTHING to do with making loans people could not afford to pay."

Those are your own words. Additionally, go back and read your other posts on this very thread, particularly those about government intervention, to see how much more contradictory tripe you have been spouting. I have been trying to reason with you and that's obviously a waste of time.
 
You just proved that you have no idea what a credit score means. Credit ratings reflect many things, primarily fiscal responsibility (which is in no way the same thing as capacity to pay). The gov't primarily eased up on down payment requirements, which is often a huge hurdle to home ownership. They DID NOT encourage mortgage companies to make excessive loans to people that could not afford to pay them - that is called greed my friend, and that cannot be blamed away on gov't. A person with even horrible credit, making $30k/yr can likely afford a $100k home. It's all about debt to income ratios, a measurement of your ability (capacity) to repay a loan. That's called Lending 101. You don't make a loan to someone that they cannot afford to repay. But the cold hard truth is that a realtor and a lender make a lot more money when you increase the purchase price, and hence increase the amount financed.

Just a few posts ago someone brought up the idea of personal accountability and responsibility. Why is it that these mortgage companies are so quick to ditch accountability and responsibility, and simply point the finger at gov't? Because they know they screwed up and it's much easier to get a bailout when they blame someone else for their mistakes. I've changed my mind on the bailout... after thinking about it from both sides of the prevailing arguments, the bailout was probably a terrible idea. It just takes away both accountability and responsibility from these companies, and sends the message to Wall Street that the tax payer will always be there to save them from their own greed and excess.

Like I said earlier, they gave them an inch and they took a mile. And now they aren't willing to sleep in the bed they made for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom