Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: James on February 19, 2009, 11:22:10 AM
-
VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...
-
He will get attacked by the libs for dare speaking the truth.
-
Not sure who this guy is, but I have to agree with him. Unfortunately, the educated, disciplined and successful people are going to have to sit by and watch their money go to subsidizing the moronic, illiterate, lazy, impovershed collective that unfortunately is starting to comprise the majority of the American population. Oh well, it used to be a great country.
-
I'm glad this got posted...it should be goddamm stickied...amazingly there are very few people on this board that want this stimulus as pitched.
-
I'm glad this got posted...it should be goddamm stickied...amazingly there are very few people on this board that want this stimulus as pitched.
The cult members love it and think that are going to get picked up at their door stop by CAT for anew job..
-
He will get attacked by the libs for dare speaking the truth.
yep,
Being on CNBC, ( owned by GE) I bet you wont here much from him for a while.......... :-X
-
Rick is the man! :) That was fucking awesome! 72,000 views already.
-
VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...
I like it.
-
whenever he's on he always tell it like it is
-
Good post. I don't even have a friggin' mortgage and now I have to pay for someone else's. Gotta love it.
-
oh, those guys have real high ground to talk about "promoting bad behavior" pot meet kettle if I've ever heard it.
-
oh, those guys have real high ground to talk about "promoting bad behavior" pot meet kettle if I've ever heard it.
agreed...but santelli's the only honest schmuck on CNBC.
NT
-
Santelli admitted on Chris Matthews today that he was a McCain supporter. ::) It's easy to be against something when you don't have any solutions to the problem. When asked what he would do about the foreclosure crisis, Santelli hemmed and hawed.
From my years as a trader on Wall Street, I know the type.
Rick Santelli, the CNBC reporter who went into a certifiable rant against the Obama housing plan Thursday, found himself in the White House bullseye 24-hours later: the object of scorn and humorous derision from the president's press secretary Robert Gibbs.
"I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives," Gibbs said during the daily briefing. "But the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage, stay in their jobs, pay their bills to send their kids to school, and to hope that they don't get sick or somebody they care for gets sick that sends them into bankruptcy. I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader, that it was good for main street. I think the verdict is in on that."
Ouch. But from there it got almost more personal. Gibbs picked up a hard copy of the housing plan from the briefing room lectern and implored Santelli to "download it, hit print and begin to read it." Gibbs added: "I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee, decaf." The press in the room laughed.
The substance of the debate wasn't avoided either. Gibbs, striking an defiant and occasionally emotional tone, insisted that nothing in the president's proposal to keep 9 million people in their homes would help speculators, people trying to flip houses, or those who bought a house they knew they couldn't afford. He added that preventing foreclosures would be beneficial even to those whose mortgage payments were stable, keeping neighborhood property values from spiraling downwards.
The politics of the exchange are as telling as the substance. There are plenty of Republicans who have aired critiques of the Obama housing plan. And the president's communications staff has long insisted that they neither care nor respond to the punditry of people on cable news. So why respond to Santelli? Maybe Gibbs was worked up by the CNBC reporter's widely-aired rant, or maybe it was something more calculated. There are few people less popular today than derivative traders or Wall Street loud-mouths. Choosing Santelli to be the poster child of the opposition is smart politics for the Obama White House, just like making Rush Limbaugh the face of the anti-stimulus movement was during that debate.
-
Due, you are so owned its not even funny.
You have no original thoughts, no facts, no substance, nothing.
Gibbs had to respond to the BRUTAL ASS RAPING santelli laid on Zero!
-
Pathetic.
-
Pathetic.
Agreed--it was a canned non-response that consisted of nothing but empty political doublespeak. LAME-OOOOO. ANNNNDDDD I'm sure Rick Santelli can buy his own freakin cup of coffee and doesn't need or want Gibbs' charity! So there!!!
-
agreed...but santelli's the only honest schmuck on CNBC.
NT
Yep.
Most of the CNBC guys weer BEGGING congress to pass the Bush Bailout package.
Cause the money saved companies where their retirement savings were.
They don't care about this stim, since it doesnt effect them. Their retirement $ is safe now.
-
VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...
Aren't we subsidizing Big Business big time?
-
Which was wrong!
We should not bail anyone out.
I will use myself as an example. I own an apartment which I paid a lot down and have a small mortgage left.
I now have a lot of cash on the side and am ready to buy a home. I wanted to buy a home as far back as 2003-2004 in Westchester, where we live, but the prices to me just did not make sense, let alone the taxes.
Slapper, you know how insane things got in Westchester.
I held off on buying a house even through the mania because to me it just seemed crazy. The prices got so crazy small little cape cods were going for 799k with 15k in taxes!
If people who got in over their heads are foreclosed on and the prices come back to reality and earth, there are tons of people like myself who are ready to buy at a REAL market price, not a propped up BS price based purely on speculation.
Also, we are not doing these people any favors bailing them out by keeping them in over priced homes forever and ever living in debt prison and slavery.
Being the cynic I am, this whole housing bill is SOLELY a bailout for the local govts who overspend and who want to keep assessments sky high.
-
Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Gibbs corrects the record on the President’s housing plan
Today Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked during the White House press briefing about criticism of President Obama’s housing plan from some talking heads and Wall Street pundits, who have claimed baselessly that the plan is geared towards helping irresponsible home buyers at the expense of others.
"[T]he American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage, stay in their job, pay their bills, to send their kids to school, and to hope that they don't get sick or that somebody they care for gets sick and sends them into bankruptcy," said Gibbs. "I think we said a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that."
Gibbs reiterated the President’s explanation of how this plan will help responsible homeowners, who are struggling to make their payments in a tough economy and who have seen their home values plummet, through refinancing and standardized loan modifications. Then he ended any misconceptions:
"Here's what this plan won't do: It won't help somebody trying to flip a house. It won't bail out an investor looking to make a quick buck. It won't help speculators that were betting on a risky market. And it is not going to help a lender who knowingly made a bad loan. And it is not going to help -- as the President said in Phoenix, it is not going to help somebody who has long ago known they were in a house they couldn't afford. That's why the President was very clear in saying this was not going to stop every person's home from being foreclosed."
And just as HUD Secretary Donovan argued in this space this afternoon, Gibbs said Americans need to learn about the plan and see if they can take part: "every American with a mortgage payment should call their lender and see if they can refinance right now."
We have done our best to help homeowners get that information, and Gibbs encouraged everybody who might be able to get help – along with anybody else who wants to learn more about it -- to read the plain-spoken documents posted prominently here over the past few days:
-
-
Obviously anyone who dares question the mighty ebony jesus superman saint Obama and who had the sheer audacity to support ANYONE else for President clearly has no creditbility and can never be taken seriously. If you don't support Obama nothing you say should be heard by anyone ever.
-
ZERO is really pushing people in the wrong direction. He should expect a push back. Especially with the holder remarks.
-
Which was wrong!
We should not bail anyone out.
I will use myself as an example. I own an apartment which I paid a lot down and have a small mortgage left.
I now have a lot of cash on the side and am ready to buy a home. I wanted to buy a home as far back as 2003-2004 in Westchester, where we live, but the prices to me just did not make sense, let alone the taxes.
Slapper, you know how insane things got in Westchester.
I held off on buying a house even through the mania because to me it just seemed crazy. The prices got so crazy small little cape cods were going for 799k with 15k in taxes!
If people who got in over their heads are foreclosed on and the prices come back to reality and earth, there are tons of people like myself who are ready to buy at a REAL market price, not a propped up BS price based purely on speculation.
Also, we are not doing these people any favors bailing them out by keeping them in over priced homes forever and ever living in debt prison and slavery.
Being the cynic I am, this whole housing bill is SOLELY a bailout for the local govts who overspend and who want to keep assessments sky high.
Well then, if that is the case, how come people, meaning the majority of Americans, getting a break on their mortgage (to the tune of < 100 billion) gets similar publicity as the minority that is getting > 800 billion?
-
Well then, if that is the case, how come people, meaning the majority of Americans, getting a break on their mortgage (to the tune of < 100 billion) gets similar publicity as the minority that is getting > 800 billion?
WHAT????
-
WHAT????
¿Quieres que te lo diga en español?
-
¿Quieres que te lo diga en español?
No. Speak English. Your post was incoherent at best.
-
WHAT????
En mi sincera opinión creo que el darle ayudas fiscales a la mayoría de los americanos tiene más fundamento o sentido que el darle las llaves de la máquina que imprime el dinero a un puñado de cabrones a los cuales sólo les interesa su propio culo.
-
No. Speak English. Your post was incoherent at best.
Look, I'm with you on everything you say about the evils of giving free money away. Nonetheless, our representatives ARE giving money away, thus it stands to reason that if we ARE going to give money away then we should "giveth to the neediest", and not to corporations that have been getting tax breaks left and right for many, many years.
Having said this, it still BEFUDDLES me how the media can make such a travesty of the money being earmarked to be used to help mortgage defaultees (it hasn't even been put to use!) and use the "it's the best thing to do for our economy" when talking about company bailouts.
I work for a major international conglomerate, one that lost TONS of money (30 billion so far) and that is getting bailout money from both the Swiss and the American government, and I got a bonus. And my manager got a bonus. And so forth. All that is being talked about about the bonus bullshit is just that BULLSHIT. Principles are fine, but the reality I see is not based on principles. So the question now becomes: Would you like to put your head in the sand or act in a way that most benefits you and the majority of Americans?
YOU have to make that decision, not the government.
-
this is why i am against this garbage
________________________ ________________________ _______
By Nancy Bartley
Seattle Times staff reporter
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Danil Kasimov, with wife Diana Shakhnazaryan, says he was prequalified for a loan on a $1.5 million condo but lost $75,000 in earnest money when he couldn't qualify for the actual loan.
GERDING/EDLEN DEVELOPMENT
This image shows the 42- and 43-story Bellevue Towers, being built in downtown Bellevue. Units sell from $500,000 to more than $9 million each.
When Uzbek hot-dog vendor Danil Kasimov thought of America, he thought of the place portrayed in movies — a Land of Plenty where anyone's dreams could come true.
In 2000, he emigrated to the U.S., settled in Redmond and became a limousine driver, earning little more than minimum wage.
Two years ago, a real-estate agent suggested he consider purchasing a condominium at the luxurious Bellevue Towers. To Kasimov, it seemed his vision of America was unfolding with the ease of the touch-screen showing eventual views from his dream condo on the 32nd floor.
Delighted that he prequalified for a $1.5 million condo on his $20,000-a-year income, he put down more than $75,000 in earnest money he borrowed from a friend.
But that money — and nearly $100,000 from five other prospective condo buyers — soon evaporated. The six filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court this week against Bellevue Towers and JP Morgan Chase Bank, alleging the lender falsified documents, making it possible for them to prequalify for loans they could never actually get.
In one case, the lawsuit says, a Chase broker listed a prospective buyer's income not at the actual $2,147 a month, but at $12,500. Chase's underwriter "red flagged" the document as suspicious, the suit alleges, but the applicant still was prequalified for a $724,000 condo.
Jim Robinson, the prospective buyers' attorney, says the sellers risked nothing because of a 2005 state law that allows property owners to keep earnest money without proving they were damaged.
Robinson, who is working pro bono, says that law allows buyers who should never have been "prequalified" for loans to put earnest money down that they are sure to lose when they fail to qualify for the actual loan.
The Legislature has created a means for developers "to grab their earnest money, and that is shocking. ... If you take that law and combine it with a lousy real-estate market, guess what happens? You've got developers running around trying to grab people's earnest money," Robinson said. "It's going on all over the state."
The lawsuit filed Wednesday caught Bellevue Towers staff and others by surprise. Patrick Clark, a principal at Realty Trust, which markets the complex, said Thursday, "We have no interest in selling a home to somebody who isn't qualified to purchase it."
He added that "it's a very difficult market, and (buyers) will make any sort of argument they'd like to get money back, but the contract is the contract."
The Chase broker could not be reached for comment. Her former supervisor declined to comment Thursday night.
Grand opening
Bellevue Towers held its grand opening Thursday, celebrating completion of its first 22 floors. The rest is scheduled to be completed by June.
Just east of Bellevue Square, it's an architectural dream, with twin towers rising an eventual 42 and 43 stories, making it the tallest residential building in the Northwest when it is complete. Of the 539 condos, 180 have been sold, the marketing department says. The number does not include those who backed out or forfeited their earnest money. According to King County records, about 12 sales have closed. The units sell from $500,000 to more than $9 million each.
In 2007, Kasimov borrowed $75,700 from a friend to put 5 percent earnest money down on a Bellevue Towers condo. Financing 95 percent, the new home would have cost him more than $7,000 a month, including monthly dues.
Bellevue Towers' preferred lender is JP Morgan Chase, which had an office in the same space as the condo model.
"I normally wouldn't think I could afford this," Kasimov said. "But there was all this excitement ... Hollywood all over the place." He says he was told there were only a few units left, and the real-estate agent, knowing what Kasimov did for a living and that it was his first purchase, said, "Let's see if they'll approve you."
Kasimov said that when he asked if he could afford the condo, the agent told him: "Let the bank worry about it."
Kasimov said a Bellevue Towers agent led him to a Chase senior mortgage banker/broker. While he had the option of going with other lenders, Chase being the preferred lender meant he would get a better deal, he said the agent told him. Kasimov signed the contract with Chase, but buried in the middle was language indicating that the lender could increase the required earnest money to 25 percent even after accepting the 5 percent, Robinson said. And, he said, that's what happened.
Kasimov couldn't raise the extra cash and lost what he'd already put up.
Other plaintiffs
Other plaintiffs are Kasimov's wife, Diana Shakhnazaryan, who was not married to him at the time, and her mother, Svetlana Kocharyan, both of whom fled Azerbaijan and gained political asylum here about 10 years ago. In 2006, Kocharyan worked on an assembly line and her daughter had a part-time job washing hair in a Kirkland beauty salon. Together, they made $3,659 a month, court documents say.
Chase prequalified them for a 95 percent mortgage for the purchase of a $922,600 condominium, giving them a $7,198 monthly payment, including condo dues.
Standard loan underwriting criteria require a debt-to-adjusted-gross-income ratio of less than 45 percent, which means that the women would have had to have "an adjusted gross income of $16,000 a month," the lawsuit says. Since they clearly did not, and say they were never given a copy of the contract — which was written in English, a language they didn't understand — they allege that the broker put down false numbers making it possible for them to prequalify.
Kasimov and the other plaintiffs, Yuri and Dora Aleksandrov and Davud Kasparov, none of whom are fluent in English, make the same allegations in the suit.
In Kasparov's case, he was a student with an income of $3,600 a year and says he was told he prequalified for a $634,000 condominium.
Court documents say the Aleksandrovs put down $36,000 in earnest money — from refinancing their home — on a $724,000 condominium for which they were told they prequalified. The Aleksandrovs have a copy of their contract and noticed that the Chase broker listed Dora Aleksandrov's income as a hairstylist not at the actual $2,147 a month, but at $12,500. Chase's underwriter "red flagged" the document and, the suit says, wrote "income ... appears high for area and time in line of work" and wondered if she worked with celebrities.
But, the court documents say, Chase ignored its underwriter's red flag and prequalified the Aleksandrovs.
Times researcher David Turim contributed to this story.
Nancy Bartley: 206-464-8522 or nbartley@seattletimes.com
-
good post
Well, it stands to reason I think. I mean... you may think that one day you will be driving a Bentley, marrying Adriana Lima and owing an island in the Caribbean, and that is fine, but you really have to give it a little though and ask yourself how much you are sacrifizing for the "dream". 99.99999% of Americans will never get to that point, and instead like to endulge in discussions about shit that does not involve them in any way shape or form, like the bailout money to Big Business: You have no control over it. The politicians give the majority of the money to Big Business and there isn't a single thing you and I can do about it. None. Nada. Niente. So, instead of talking about universal health care, DECENT public education, lower taxes, FREE bridges and tunnels and cheap gas, you know, SHIT that really affects us all, we're here discussing how much FREE money is being handed out.
I mean, you may hear many things from the propaganda machine about values and how things should be, but how long is it going to take before you realise that that idealized American will NEVER exist?
-
Than why did Obama/Pelosi only devote 5% of the money in the bill to infrastructure????
They lied and are doing the same thing GWB did.
GWB bailed out his buddies and OBAMA/PELOSI asre bailing out their buddies.
You and I are going to get screwed!
-
Than why did Obama/Pelosi only devote 5% of the money in the bill to infrastructure????
They lied and are doing the same thing GWB did.
GWB bailed out his buddies and OBAMA/PELOSI asre bailing out their buddies.
You and I are going to get screwed!
That's what I'm saying. We're all getting screwed, but there is NOTHING we can do about it. However, if, at least, some of us get a bailout on our mortgage, then so be it, more power to them. The government bailing out people who do not pay for their mortgage is code language for DO NOT PAY YOUR MORTGAGE. Can't get any simpler. It's equivalent to the Big Business bailout's DO NOT DECLARE BANKRUPCY, WE WILL BAIL YOU OUT.
This has nothing to do with political party affiliation, it's thinking you live in a country in which your voice is heard and your concerns addressed (at the federal and state levels). Guess what, THEY AIN'T. Next.
-
This has nothing to do with political party affiliation, it's thinking you live in a country in which your voice is heard and your concerns addressed (at the federal and state levels). Guess what, THEY AIN'T. Next.
100000000% AGREED.
That is why Obama/Pelosi need to tread very carefully with what they are doing because they are pissing off legions of people by deciding who are the winners and losers in all of this.
Celente was dead right -
"Most of us schmucks are too small to save"
-
Well, yes, but Pelosi is acting in consequence, meaning she's just a tool. She could've been a republican and noone would ever notice.
By the way, this latest round of the majority indirectly funneling the country's fortunes to a small minority is actually a process that restarted during Reagan administration, took 45 steps forward with Bush/Clinton and is now an ALL OUT undeclared class WAR masqueraded as a crisis that affect everyone. IT AIN'T!
-
Big Money takes advantage of things like this. They know that people are going to get into fight or flight mode and will accept any solution to losing their jobs.
Methinks we're headed for a pseudo-feudal system (or its XXI century version that is).
We'll still have American Gladiators though.
-
Well, it stands to reason I think. I mean... you may think that one day you will be driving a Bentley, marrying Adriana Lima and owing an island in the Caribbean, and that is fine, but you really have to give it a little though and ask yourself how much you are sacrifizing for the "dream". 99.99999% of Americans will never get to that point, and instead like to endulge in discussions about shit that does not involve them in any way shape or form, like the bailout money to Big Business: You have no control over it. The politicians give the majority of the money to Big Business and there isn't a single thing you and I can do about it. None. Nada. Niente. So, instead of talking about universal health care, DECENT public education, lower taxes, FREE bridges and tunnels and cheap gas, you know, SHIT that really affects us all, we're here discussing how much FREE money is being handed out.
I mean, you may hear many things from the propaganda machine about values and how things should be, but how long is it going to take before you realise that that idealized American will NEVER exist?
Yup nothing we can do about it, except keep paying for it. Why bother doing anything about it? They don't listen, especially since we never really do anything about it anyway.
This is doing SOMETHING about it.
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/15/svFRENCH_wideweb__470x334,0.jpg)
-
Yup nothing we can do about it, except keep paying for it. Why bother doing anything about it? They don't listen, especially since we never really do anything about it anyway.
This is doing SOMETHING about it.
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/15/svFRENCH_wideweb__470x334,0.jpg)
Yes, but getting 300-400 of your buddies to protest is not going to get anything done aside from you and your buddies from getting your asses beaten mercilessly by the egomaniacal police (who are also losing their benefits big time and are most likely taking all that accumulated rage on you).