« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 221 Next » Last » Search these comments
Let's look at that point. So regulation, and control logically are the answer according to Reality's post. Ok, but a quick refresher.
These same bums that caused this crisis, and yes it is a crisis, compared to another Katrina are the same ones who would have cried to the courts and Congress if they weren't allowed loans. You know, the great Equal Credit Opportunity act which now gives every impoverished bad credit minority a legal standing to sue if they are declined credit. So the standards are relaxed by the the 'regulating' government companies of Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Beautiful, so now we have a time bomb, and prices go wild with this historically wreckless spending spree.
Of course it is no one's fault because, hey there is no accountability and no one is responsible for their own actions so the media plays the blame game, and lenders are paraded in front of Congress. BTW, I called that one over a year ago.
Now the obvious answer is to regulate and dictate acceptable lending standards since; no one is responsible for their actions. Now we only lend to qualified borrowers. Terrifc.
Now we shrink the pool of borrowers which does what to demand and prices? pause for answer........... yes! it shrinks both.
Cool, so now not only are speculators and wreckless borrowers hurt, prices drop to where everyday people can't sell, and in all of this they find out that they overpaid because the comparable sales were padded with all of the cash back scams pointed out in Former's link.
I guess I'm also a retarded hypocrite because somehow I don't see regulation solving this problem, and yet, I believe people should have the freedom to chase their insatiable lust off of a cliff if they so choose.
@Sybrib,
It's true that we cannot cast too many stones because we don't know all the facts of Galindo's story, however...
The facts as presented in this typical "victim" media story simply do not pass the "smell test". The story paints a portraint of Mr. Galindo and definitely draws a conclusion (victim) that simply does not square with the information provided. Either the journalist was too lazy to ask the right follow-up questions, or simply decided to take Mr. Galindo's story at face value because the material fit so well with the "theme" of the article. Either way, I'm not buying it "as is".
Some of the other posters' comments I particularly agree with:
I’m pretty sure they would have printed any medical problems as it would really have increased the sob factor.
It really is a tough pill to swallow but most people in these situations are there by their own doing.
FAB,
Great detective work! If you want a job at the HARM-X Bullshit Detectives Agency, you're hired.
I get very excited when someone says s/he hates me. Come again please. :)
I think many experienced writers either quit or were laid off = Google Effect
@Reality,
Personal attacks against other bloggers will not be tolerated here. If you want to engage in that kind of baseless name-calling, I recommend either Craigslist or the Wall Street Journal real estate blog --they seem to thrive on that kind of stuff.
You have been warned.
You know, one thing you said does scare me, because my worst case scenario for all of this is not France, but more the communist revolution. Enough people are affected, and they are masses of losers like the peasants of Russia, China, and France, that it is conceivable that there could be an upheaval. Reality, you could actually get your way, we could have regulation, price controls, tax payer bailouts, and more restrictions on our freedoms.
As for your other comments I trust the other readers more than I trust your opinion of my thoughts. You might take a minute to reflect that all of the links, all of the stories show without any shadow of a doubt that we have been right all along.
It's cute that you are trying to be clever, but I am really trying to see if you have a point of view or if you just had a bad day, or maybe you have a lender calling you demanding payment.
Maybe you should have started checking this site out beforehand. It has been observed that most of the people that have a problem with us don't like the message because it is bad news for them. You are not the first.
Hey, Peter P,
I don't know if you noticed how I worked food into the thread topic, but I was thinking of you ;-) .
I don’t know if you noticed how I worked food into the thread topic, but I was thinking of you.
Thanks, brother. :)
We should have another blog party!
I'd say you are the one who can't be questioned. You made a silly assertion, I followed your logic to its conclusion and you don't like the outcome. Throwing terms like yuppie out are revealing your hand. You just don't like the message.
Sounds like a plan --maybe we can do it at my place this time!
Oh, and for the record, Peter P is *not* fat or ugly. Callow? maybe...
(just kidding)
I am at least overweight, according to some standard somewhere. I need to try the Atkin's sometime. :)
Light cheese cake is the best. Yellow cake with chocolate frosting rocks.
BTW, back to the subject, I keep getting called by mortgage companies for refinancing. Looks like rentor can get HELOCs very soon.
Yellow cake with chocolate frosting rocks.
Will that be similar to Black Forest cake?
Hey, just do 'what everyone else does' forge your name on a grant deed, then go crazy. Or even easier, just assume your landlord's identity.
Now, I'm going to have to make a cake tomorrow, you've got me craving a moist yellow cake now.
Sheez, I was the one who proposed Bubblepalooza. That would be awesome.
you’ve got me craving a moist yellow cake now
I did bring a moist yellow cake (with cream outside) for the last blog party. :)
I bought it from a Danish bakery though.
Did someone mention blog party? When? Where?
Probably my place - maybe next month - Pasadena area.
Peter are you up in San Francisco? Where do you all meet?
Last blog party was down in Santa Barbara. It was a good labor day (?) trip.
« First « Previous Comments 27 - 66 of 221 Next » Last » Search these comments
Most of the posts here tend to pretty much revolve around posting housing/economic news stats, debunking REIC propaganda, ranting about the NAR/Fed, sharing stories, parodying ignorant FBs, etc. This time, I have a genuine mystery for you to help solve.
A recent San Francisco Chronicle article, "ECONOMIC DEEP FREEZE
January cold spell inflicts hardship on the state's citrus workers" contained the following excerpt:
Ok, now here are the facts:
Yet...
I really need your help here, because I just can't seem to reconcile the first two statements with the last two. From 1995 to 2007, house prices throughout virtually every part of California have at least tripled. So, even assuming Mr. Galindo took out an interest-only loan back in 1995 (not likely, as they were very rare back then), he must have at least 66.67% equity in his home by now, right? And if he has been more-or-less continuously employed since 1992 (with a very, very low housing cost basis), then how could he have almost zero savings? Even with the wife + 3 kids and assuming his job is of the low-skill/low-pay fruit-picking variety, and that his wife never works, this all seems somewhat hard to understand.
Has Mr. Galindo cash-out refinanced his house each year since 1995 and used the money to take his family on annual round-the-world luxury cruises? Has his family dined exclusively on Chateaubriand, Maine lobster, pâté de foie gras, Italian black truffles, Kobe beef and Dom Perignon for the last 12 years? Is he single-handedly putting "Kitty", "Amber" and "Bambi" at the local gentleman's club through college?
Unfortunately, this mystery is beyond my limited amateur-sleuth abilities to solve. Please help me out here.
Thanks,
HARM
#housing