The mortgage crisis....Did the Bush Administration protect the Dirt Balls?

Bush and this whole admin. should have been impeached from the word go...but people have just stuck their collective heads up their collective asses and ignored it believing they can't do anything...which is why the shrub ended up back in the white house after the first four year fiasco...even though it was quite clear he stole the election.

 

pretty much in agreement w/mizmoon!!!!!!!

 

2.1 million borrowers are behind on their mortgage payments

Plenty of growth in that field

 

yep....lender workout specialists/security property management firms working for institutions handling vacant properties, auction houses. Yep--this recession is creating a bunch of opportunities for some.

I worked in commercial real estate in the late 1980's and early 1990's when this sh*t hit the fan in that world. Some guy in my metro region basically started his firm as a "workout" specialist then. He is now a huge very wealthy bigshot in this region. He was much sharper than me.

So really it does create opportunities for some. It takes a lot of manpower and expertise if those 2.1 million behind on their mortgage payments and/or some percentage default on those properties and they go back to lenders.

It is also a huge job to try and sell up to 2.1 million houses to investors. Good time to be a super fast talking auctioneer.

 

I give it a couple more years and I'm going to be able to get a great house for dirt cheap. When these foreclosures start hitting the market, home prices are going to plummet.

 

1 in 10 homes have been foreclosed in Clevland. That's 70,000 foreclosed homes. I was just looking on backage and there are plenty of homes selling for $10,000

Duetcshe Bank was the biggest subprime lender in Clevland and they are in for sme real big loses.

There is a glut of four million unsold homes that is depressing prices nationwide and the situation should blow up sometime after the Presidential election in Nov

 

Really? Wow! I know a way to make money....and good money on that situation. It does take on site management time and energy in Cleveland though. Of course you really got to study it first to make sure it might work, looking at certain "market conditions".

There are a huge myriad of horrible consequences from this crisis. It is hitting on levels from the individual who loses a house and gets his/her credit rating screwed to international affects that are ripping institutions and negatively impacting entire countries. But there are ways to benefit from this stuff also.

 

Yes, but you have to look to the Republican Congress which enabled this, and the subsequent Democrat Congress which has been too gutless to stop it.

Our Reps are in the House and Senate. If someone is not protecting YOU and ME, then it's them.

Fascism is when government and corporations collaborate.

Welcome to fascism.

 

You really have to be careful. In Detroit that can't give these homes away.

http://cleveland.backpage.com/Homes...egory=4412&priceMin=&priceMax=15000&bedrooms=

 

You can call it fascism and thereby rant and rave about all government being all bad and all combinations of govt and business being intrisically evil....OR you can look at some of the specifics...for instance:

1. According to Spitzer 50 state attorneys (last I checked that means all of them/Democrats and Republicans) and 50 state banking regulators objected to what the Bush administration was doing.

2. Why have the feds step in on something that was never their purview before.

3. Look at how much was the banking industry contributing to the Bush administration and national Republican campaign interests.

4. Why remove a consumer protection that seemed to work.

.....and a lot of other issues. Frankly any time a bunch of hot aired politicians start claiming that some fee based industry needs to be removed from regulations so it can thrive and spark the economy is a bunch of hooey.

Or you can run around claiming they are all fascists.

 

So it was the congress men buying houses that they couldn't afford?

 

What's sad, is that people would rather blame Bush, than look at the big picture. Specifically you Earl. I'm no fan of GWB, but you're playing the role perfectly, by focusing on the present, and not accounting for the past, or the future.

Problem => Reaction => Solution.

Meaningless. Where is the impeachment proceedings? It's easy post facto to claim that you objected. Where are the official letters of protest? The Federal and state legislatures motions to censure?

It is the responsibility of the Congress to check and balance. Also to impeach.

Look at Hillary and Obama's corporate campaign sponsor list. Don't kid yourself that there is much difference between the parties. That is why this is fascism.

Because like the war, someone gets rich from it. It's not in your interest, or in my interest. It's in the interest of GWB's corporate masters.

Actually, your dancing around issues, and creating strawmen is hooey. We have regulations that are universal. They are contract and many other kinds of law. But regulation to retard an industry or reduce global competitiveness, or to hinder competition, do nothing for us.

This isn't about regulation or small government, as much as you would like to make it so. It's about collusion, and it's about how 10 years from now, no one will be held accountable. That is what it is about.

Our troops make less than Blackwater, companies which operate outside anyone's jurisdiction. Our elected officials refuse to uphold the rights in the Constitution, and they refuse to impeach a criminal executive branch. Oil companies post huge profits, and we are gouged at the pump, while the country is sold into Chinese debt. We torture, we rendition (Clinton's program), we eavesdrop (Clinton's program), we promote neo-conservative foreign policy like regime change (Clinton's policy).

Our government actually manufactures evidence to go to war, so they can seize more power by law, and when the lies have been exposed, STILL NO ONE DOES ANYTHING.

But hey, you seem to think fascism isn't a reality. You're worried about the mortgage crisis.

 

I think I've grown tired of the ideological Ron Paulists.

There is probably a good reason why Paul has such a small minority of votes and support within the following:

1. The primary/caucas season. Only a percentage of all voters get involved.
2. Within that group, the Republican party. That party, like any party, represents a less than 50% part of the population. On top of that in this primary season Republicans are getting dramatically fewer participants than Democrats.

So despite a lot of vocal/internet support and lots lots and lots and lots of air time at the DP P&R subforum, those that represent and support RP make up a very small part of the population who are interested enough to vote, let alone the entire population.

I wonder why his support is so low? Its interesting that people from the Right, such as Will or GTech, by example and people from the Left (or left center, like me (how I perceive my views) pretty much agree that RP and his theories and support are a dangerous alternative and/or a waste of time.

Its actually interesting that many commentators from the significant Right (like the radio commentators) pretty much don't give RP the time of day.

I guess his perspective is pretty much seen as not worthwhile of serious consideration by many.

Now frankly, I've always been concerned about economics. I've been concerned about stuff like budget deficits and crazy govt. spending. I've concerned about the defense of the nation. I guess that is why I'm not a "liberal".

I don't mind spending on "liberal" type stuff. I don't see why the US govt. doesn't regularly let the individual states try things first. If it works--great. If it doesn't work--then we have learned a lot and the federal govt won't waste a lot of money.

If states do stuff on a statewide level then the expenditures and the size of govt isn't expanded like crazy. If it somewhat works, but has problems and consequences, then the states have an opportunity to work out the kinks. And if the feds proceed....the feds will have benefitted from the experience of the states.

Actually many many many businesses and industries proceed in that fashion.

In fact when it comes to a big/huge/enormous issue like "universal health care" what an extraordinary opportunity for America to learn by watching, monitoring, and evaluating what Massachusetts is doing.

Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. Maybe it will be outrageously expensive. Maybe it won't. Maybe involving more people in initial health care will cut subsequent costs and thereby save money. Maybe it won't. Maybe the state will make a lot of mistakes and fix them down the line. Who knows.

I guess the Paulists have already figured all that out. I guess their theories have already accounted for all possibilities. I suppose the most ardent of the Paulist theoretical elite know more than the rest of the world and are capable of foretelling the future.

As far as your particular comments, Guerilla.

George Bush. Right. I am definitely not a fan. I definitely believe he is particularly responsable for a significant level of current problems in the US, some of which we both acknowledge. I think this way for the following reasons and history.

(parenthetically, I couldn't give a cr@p about claims that Bush stole the election a la the most ardent liberal/Bush haters.) Best thing I saw out of that set of circumstances was that Gore respectfully ended his part in the controversy and allowed for a smooth transition to a new administration.)

1. On a broad level Bush has done the following that is dramatically different than past presidencies;

A. He is the most secretive of presidents and has couched all his actions and decisions under veils of secrecy, claims of executive privelege, claims of security and national defense needs, and finally an absolute significant effort to never reveal any documents as to what is going on in the White House despite certain laws that require him to do so.

Frankly the Congress hasn't pursued these issues

B. He has skewed the practice of government in a way to make it dramatically more partisan and about power than any Presidency that I can think of. That in my mind is dangerous. He worked to turn the Justice Department into a political wing of the Republican party. That threatens the population. Call that anti-constitutional. Call it illegal. Call it against the best interests of the population of the United States. I don't know. I call it dangerous.

Thirdly he was assisted in doing this by a majority Republican Congress that thoroughly supported every part of his agenda.

In my mind his administration is a rogue administration that has attempted to change democracy into a sort of dictatorship. (couched in terms of democracy).

On the big issue of the war in Iraq, significant readings on the topic lead me to believe that Bush was focused on regime change from the beginning of his administration long before America was attacked by Al Queda on 9/11/2001. The terrorist attack gave him an opportunity to wrap his focus on Iraq into a war. I think he and his administration lied to America about this.

So yeah.....I'm not happy with Bush.

now I did support him, certainly after 9/11. I've said here (at some point) I'd support him over any terrorist. I'd pick the US over Islamic fundamentalists at any time. When the initial effort came out of the Bush administration to support financial institutions during its first reactions to the mortgage crisis I said several times I thought it was a good idea. I liked the response to try stem a potential world wide financial crisis. (looks to me like the crisis is far bigger than I imagined.)

But yes I blame him. I think he went well beyond other presidencies.

2. The Spitzer thing has NOTHING to do with impeachment. Reread it. Think about it. Try and deal with the specifics.

That may be hard when there are enormous truisms connected to Ron Paulism that the rest of the world must be educated about.

But regardless, give it a whirl.

To repeat the Spitzer thing had to do with the fact that a unanimous 50 State Attorney Generals and a unanimous 50 State Bank regulatory officials disagreed with the actions of the Bush administration on removing banks from state oversight.

I don't see where impeachment has anything to do with that. Maybe in Paulist theory talk it means impeachment. In normal English it doesn't.

It appears that you twice took this issue and turned it into an impeachment discussion. My comment is slow down and reread it.

Further: Do Hillary and Obama have corporate sponsors? You bet. In fact, look at lobbyist records and see how the same industries and the same businesses will support both Republican and Democratic candidates.

You call it fascism. I think that is over the top. I think the system breeds corruption at this level in interaction between industry and government. But look at the details.

At various times certain businesses within the same industry are pitted against one another and sometimes before the government. I suspect Microsoft and Google are moving this way with regard to Yahoo and other issues.

At other times industries are pitted against one another before congress.

They all use big money and lobbyists to fight it out, along with government.

I truly think this leads to levels of corrupt decision making.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a current level of public awareness to significantly alter this situation. Frankly congress shouldn't regulate itself when it comes to limiting interaction with lobbyists etc. That is reality BS. It won't happen.

I think last years "reforms" on govt are sort of BS, they won't have an impact on this type of business/govt interplay.

Frankly I'd like to see a different entity enforce and regulate over congress and interaction with business.

Frankly, I'd like to see most of the money stripped from campaigns and lobbying. Do it wholescale. That might impact the way in which businesses and govt seem to buddy up to one another and protect their interests.

A different way to accomplish some of that is also to have a dominant Congress that is of one party and a Presidency of a different Party. Right there you have some level of checks and balances.

Frankly in the real world....there are big industries. From an economic perspective there are truisms to bigger businesses being more efficient than smaller businesses. At some point of course that no longer holds. I believe GM had worldwide sales in the range of $180 billion this year. Most of that comes from building and selling cars and trucks. I read that it had an OPERATING loss of about $2 billion. (the bigger loss they claimed is one time and a result of accounting changes.

If you can't make money when selling $180 billion worth of anything than something is wrong. Maybe they are too big. Maybe it would be more efficient to see break up GM into 4 or 5 smaller companies each selling about $30-40 billion dollars worth of trucks and cars. Maybe then they could make some money.

That might be an an example of something too big. On the other hand you can't make cars efficiently and for the market in Guerilla's driveway.

Big world, big markets end up in big businesses. You don't like it? Move to the Brazil rain forest and get away from society.


Blackwater mercenaries make more than our troops. Yup. I agree. An E-1 to E-5 or so (that is a US soldier enlistee at a relatively lower rank regardless of whether army, navy, air force, etc) makes around $1300-$3000/month exclusive of any kind of additional pay for special circumstances.

That maxes out at about $36,000/year. Those are many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq. Some Blackwater mercenaries from the US are reportedly making over $100,000 in less than a year.

That does s*ck.

Never in recent history has the US govt used mercenaries for a big long lasting war effort. It didn't happen in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. We did use European mercenaries in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812....and further during the Civil War there were violent protests against the draft by the North by poor Irish Immigrants who found that wealthier people could buy their way out of the army.

Oooooh!!!!! Life is tough.

I guess that means, according to your writing above, that we were fascists in the 1700's and 1800's and weren't fascists in the latter part of the 1900's...but we are fascists now.

Frankly, I think it is an example of Bush lying/being disingenuous/misleading the American public. We are fighting this war.....and active troops/reserves/natl guard are forced to fight on extended tours beyond what has been the norm/mercenaries are being used in place of American soldiers ......and Bush is tellling the public that its the norm and okay.

Its not the norm. Its not great with the troops who have their tours extended beyond what they anticipated. Its not good for the overall troop level and defense of the nation and its not true.


Since you mentioned it so much....yup....nothing has happened with regard to impeachment. It certainly was never going to happen from 2001-2006 when Republicans were in the majority in Congress. It didn't happen last year and its not going to happen this year.

But impeachment of one guy (Bush) and what you define as fascism innately existing because of big government big businesses and collusion between them are logically opposites. If the whole system is defined by fascism....why bother impeaching one guy. What a waste of time.

I can't understand how you can claim all these government/business people are fascists and then in this thread....http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=706538

call that democratic congressman, (Silvestre Reyes) brave.

What is he in Ron Paulist speak? Brave or a fascist. I'm surprised you didn't label him a (uh oh....uh oh.....uh oh/close your eyes...this is scary) liberal because he is a democrat.


Of the many comments about Ron Paul, his support, his theories, his comments.....this is my favorite to date, from Will.Spencer (Ron Paul Campaign Updates/Feb. 13/comment 1045)

yup...between conspiracies and problems and moaning and crying and more conspiracies and more fascists and more conspiracies.....and kids not visiting their grandparents......and being able to tell everyone the future.....Ron Paulism is definitely a movement to keep an eye on, bet the house on, and trust that has the solutions to all the problems in the world.

 

Because you are incapable of debating them on points of merit, so you have to resort to name calling, strawmen and evasive discussion? I'll reply to the rest of your post later. After this opening line and a quick scan, it looks like you are changing the topic to Ad Hominem attacks, instead of staying on the topic at hand and again, presenting rational points with merit.

 

Introducing this is irrelevant to the thread topic but consistent with your strategy of attacking the post (if you even chose to reply directly) instead of challenging the post content. It's basically a weak form of personal attack. I imagine weak minded and weak willed people make these sorts of attacks.

Your definition of a liberal is lacking. Although socialist might be more appropriate.

Your second line shows an ignorance of how the country is constructed. The Feds don't have the choice to let the states try things first. Everything not explicitly spelt out as a responsibility of the federal government, belongs to the states. The only thing that can change this is a Constitutional Amendment. The Feds legally cannot assume the responsibility of the states without such an Amendment.

Of course you don't mind spending money on liberal stuff. It's not your money. That's the great things about liberals. Their hearts always bleed, but with someone else's blood unfortunately.

When the government functions as a business, and competes with it's citizens, that is fascism. Plain and simple, it is fascism.

Universal Healthcare is not an "issue". Healthcare should either be ratified into the Constitution by an Amendment as a "right", or it should be left to the states. The federal government has no jurisdiction or legal justification to provide a mandatory healthcare service. You talk of costs, I'm concerned about quality of care. About privacy. About corruption, and collusion with business and special interest groups.

Paulites don't have it all figured out, but you're unwilling to debate me on the merits of liberty. I'm here everyday. Whenever you are willing to debate these ideas (which you have tried to marginalize numerous times), ideas which the Founders of this nation held near and dear to their hearts, then I will be happy to do so, in the hopes that you realize that (sic) Paulites may not have all of the answers, but we have a pretty good idea where the moral divide is.

Again, if you choose not to debate me, you're totally unqualified to make generalized statements like you have, and attribute positions from a base of ignorance on the topic at hand.

Of course the system breeds corruption. You give the power of law, the power of regulation, the power of taxation, and the power of coercive force to the government, and then you expect all of that power, not to lead to corruption?

The problem is, the government is WE THE PEOPLE. The government's #1 job, is to maintain liberty and law. Not to dole out foreign aid. Not to choose a viable new energy source. Not to rebuild New Orleans. Or to decide what should go in text books. Or to decide how much money the economy needs, or to push foreign policy agendas. It is to maintain liberty and law at home. That is it's #1 job.

The right to free speech, to worship, privacy etc. Contract law. Protection of the individual.

As to your argument that "que sera sera" everyone on both sides have corporate sponsors, I'm not talking about both sides, although that was implied. It's when people point fingers at the Republicans, when the Democrats have been just as dirty. I could care less about either ideological side, except that I find more support on the right. Both are dirty, Obama, the great agent of change, is indeed very dirty. All of your front runners are bought and paid for by special interests, more so than the American people themselves.

It's statements like this, that make me wonder if you are just really ignorant about that time period, or if you actually have some bizarre perspective that leads you to hate the pre-WWI USA and it's capitalist roots.

Jefferson was no fascist, he closed the first National Bank. Andrew Jackson (who is probably rolling in his grave at the thought of being on a Federal Reserve Note) abolished the second National Bank. These are your early liberals, classic liberals, the anti-Federalists who mostly got their way in the drafting of the Constitution, and established America as a country of great freedom. Jefferson founded the Democratic Party.

Back when Liberals were libertarians, not socialists. Yes, despite your aversion to "Paulists" or "libertarians" or "austrian economics", these ideas have a history in the roots of the freedom movement, and the early days of the Republic.

I didn't mention impeachment as many times as it is mentioned in the Constitution. With the Clinton fiasco, we've been led to believe that impeachment is some terrible examination of the nation's soul. On the contrary, it was meant to be used as a means to keep elected officials responsible to law, faithfully executing their office and oath of allegiance.

Why impeach one guy? One guy who condoned taking the country to war on a pack of lies? One man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands, friendly, enemy and otherwise? One man who has ordered torture?

You need to ask me why?

So the next guy thinks twice about this. And of course the Republicans behaved like mindless pigs at the trough, and totally dishonored themselves. But the Democrats ran on change, and it's taken them over 1 year to find their balls, if Pelosi had her way, they still wouldn't have found them. And yet, the beat goes on, business as usual. More funding for the war, less action against the administration, approving Mukasey, who has turned out to be another Bush toad etc.

I'm not familiar enough with Silvestre Reyes voting record, to determine if he is a fascist or not. If he blindly votes with the party, or if he votes based on principles and morals, as well as his oath to the Constitution.

But he was very brave, much braver than many of his counterparts, who continue to gutlessly approve almost everything the Bush admin wants, and when they occassionally do something the people want, need and respect, it's out of political convienence, not some sense of integrity.

There is no need to taunt me with the "Ron Paulist speak" garbage. I can speak for myself, and perhaps your problem understanding my position, is that for all of your attributing ideas and thoughts to me, you don't actually have a clue where I stand.

I'd hope you'd be better than this, but apparently you're not. The only thing that separates you and GTech, is that he is not dishonest about attacking the poster, instead of attacking the post.

Just as you won't engage me in a debate of the issue, without writing large posts with anecdotal experiences loosely related to the subject matter, and without clearly defining a position. It's just a fancy way of being dishonest. A long winded way of saying nothing.

There is no "Ron Paulism". It's just a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. So when you reject Ron Paul, you're rejecting the Bill of Rights. You're rejecting checks and balances. You're rejecting the rule of law and separation of powers. You're rejecting all of it.

The sad thing is, you diminish those things by making jokes, I can only assume to provide a defense of your lack of position.

Attack away Earl. But like GTech, Will.Spencer et al, you'll eventually either avoid me, or give up. Because your personal attacks and cheap shots don't bother me. I'll still be here, pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

You can blame the problem on the leaders but a big issue is the 'Schumer Politics'

The average middle and working class person expects the government to provide for them or bail them out. As soon as someone cuts spending there is a public outcry. It's envitable that spending will continue and the situation will get worse.

The current tax rebate with borrowed money is the most stupid scheme I've seen in a while.

From what I've been reading about Clevland the city is shot. 27% of the population is living below the poverty line and 70,000 home have been foreclosed on. Sure sounds like a depression to me.