Here was a chance for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. to admit he was wrong, and to conclude publicly that government intervention in the private sector doesn't always result in the best of outcomes.
McCain appeared on CNN's Oct. 11 "State of the Union" in a pre-recorded interview and was asked by host John King if the lackluster recovery of the economy warranted more government intervention.
"The president has said he's considering new initiatives to help job creation," King said. "They passed one stimulus plan and most Republicans, including John McCain, have been pretty critical of this $787-billion stimulus passed early in the year. Should the President do more now through government spending, though tax incentives or should he wait because, as you have said many times, we have so much red ink, we can't afford much more?"
McCain, whose home state of Arizona is suffering from 9.1 percent unemployment, responded, "I would certainly look at any proposal that helps small businesses in America. I would look at proposals that help create jobs. This unemployment in my state is devastating - devastating around America."
However, he added his thoughts on the previous instances of government intervention - where Congress, through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), authorized the federal government to bailout the troubled financial sector - giving the Treasury Department broad authority to act as they saw fit.
"What we've done, unfortunately, is we bailed out Wall Street, now they're making billions, they're making the deals, they're giving the bonuses, and because they were too big to fail, we pumped - I don't know, we still haven't had a full accounting - into those major financial corporations and told financial institutions."
However, during the 2008 financial crisis, McCain was at the forefront of supporting the bailout. Both he and his opponent, then-Sen. Barack Obama, voted for the TARP bailout. And just two weeks after McCain's election defeat, his chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, admitted it was a "strategic blunder" for McCain to support a bailout designed for Wall Street financial institutions.
The question remains - because King didn't ask it - whether McCain regrets voting for TARP in 2008. But McCain did express his disappointment in how the bailout unfolded and how it was perceived by other Americans.
"We told them they were too big to fail," McCain continued. "We told the guy on Central Avenue that just shut down his storefront that he's too small to save. There's something terribly wrong with that picture and we were off on the wrong foot by bailing out these financial institutions instead of addressing the housing crisis. And Americans have figured it out and they're very, very unhappy."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ And it cost him big time
October 12, 2009 - 07:13 ET by Cool ArrowHe could have stood squarely against both Bush and Obama, but he weaseled out and threw in with the crowd.
DISMISSED, Sen McCain
McCain was always "one of the crowd"
October 12, 2009 - 08:36 ET by JohnMcGrewAfter all, how else did he get the moniker "maverick" bestowed upon him by the MSM? It certainly wasn't for standing against Democrats or their agenda.
Just another example of how a McCain presidency wouldn't have been all that different from an Obama presidency, perhaps except for some of the drama, anti-Americanism and Nobel prizes.
Strategic blunder?
October 12, 2009 - 07:19 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, it was never about doing what was right, but rather what would score you the most political points? Good job RINO.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Right on Rocko
October 12, 2009 - 07:25 ET by Cool ArrowHe's so used to selling out, he couldn't help but join in on the boondoggle.
Rock and CA
October 12, 2009 - 07:51 ET by jon_torlinI agree with both of you, after what he did with his involvement with the bailouts, there's simply no way to take him seriously about anything anymore. Granted, he introduced us to Sarah, but we thought that she would have ended up taking over(I wouldn't have been upset with that at all) if he had won the presidency and he retired. Everything was golden up to that point when he returned to DC for the bailouts.
I think a lot of people are tired of him to put it mildly, as well as the other RINOs.(Graham, Snowe too)
-Jon
No win situation 2008
October 12, 2009 - 07:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKIs what I said when our two choices were Senators.
McCain - talk about the lesser of two evils??
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Not sure about that
October 12, 2009 - 08:07 ET by jon_torlinI don't think I would have called McCain the lesser of two evils. He's more like Jimmy Carter but without the anti-Americanism that the peanut farmer apparently has, IE a bit harmless, and would have had a very solid Vice President that many conservatives love(not Republicans, mind you).
The difference between That One and McCain is that McCain wouldn't have sold us out as easily as Duh One did. Senile or not, McCain is still an American. He certainly wouldn't have been even a third as dangerous as "I Won" is. And he would have granted the request of the extra troops a helluvalot sooner than Obeyme is hem-hawing about. Not to mention no Nobel.
That's my take on it.
-Jon
VP? Eh..
October 12, 2009 - 08:13 ET by Sergeant ROCKMaybe I could tolerate Secretary of Defense.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
McCain would be a good
October 12, 2009 - 10:23 ET by Free StinkerMcCain would be a good SecDef.
I don't want to see him in any other post either, nor as Senator.
After his honorable military service, introducing Sarah Palin to the country was the greatest thing John McCain has every done. --Ann Coulter
Just Remember...
October 12, 2009 - 08:00 ET by GeneralAlJust remember, this was the man who bragged "I can reach across the aisle!!" Now that he stands to lose his job, hes trying to give the impression of thumbing his nose to his "friends across the aisle!"
The problem with the U.S. Senate
October 12, 2009 - 08:06 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. is that there's too much getting along. How many times a day do you hear about how 'we need to pass' something? Not something that works, smart or grounded in commonsense - just something.
Of course, they will 'see, we did something' .. eh? ..eh? Meanwhile, the taxpayer and liberty get screwed.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
End direct election of Senators
October 12, 2009 - 09:13 ET by Kingfish17I think it's past time that we end the direct election of United States Senators. Let the State Assemblies appoint their Senators to represent the States. The Senate has turned into a national popularity contest that only represents huge national special interests. The founders knew what was best. The direct election experiment has been a long and dismal failure.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
U.S. Senate
October 12, 2009 - 09:16 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou are exactly right. And that's 'meaningful campaign finance reform' I can believe in!!
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Re Senate
October 12, 2009 - 10:20 ET by slickwillie2001I agree, but it's never going to happen. That was just another step in the long decline of the power of the states over the federal government.
Perhaps a good idea, but
October 12, 2009 - 15:53 ET by bre1227it won't help here in Illinois. Look at Roland Burris "voting for ACORN"
No sh|t Sherlock....
October 12, 2009 - 07:26 ET by supercon" And just two weeks after McCain's election defeat, his chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, admitted it was a "strategic blunder" for McCain to support a bailout designed for Wall Street financial institutions."
Is that some sort of revelation....? The majority of the country was screaming at the top of their lungs to not do it. He was trying to outleft the leftie and what did he get ? He got to go to the dustbin of history. Americans don't want compromise. They want leadership. McCain sunk his own ship.
" if Republicans are able to stop Barack Obama on health care, 'it will be his Waterloo, it will break him...." -Sen. Jim DeMint
The Final Analysis
October 12, 2009 - 08:29 ET by Kingfish17Years from now, the final analysis will show that the TARP Bailout was not designed to "bailout" Wall Street, but was designed to be a government take over of America's financial system. Simple accounting policies designed to eliminate 2007 mark-to-market changes would have prevented all of these financial firms from melting down and imploding. (This was pointed out again today on CNBC by Ed Yardeni, head economist at Deutsche Bank.)
The crime here is that real people lost real money and will never get a chance to make that money back, ie., the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. The financial crisis was an accounting problem that spiraled out of control and gave the government the opportunity to sieze power away from Wall Street and the private sector.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
CNN is a celebrity dating
October 12, 2009 - 07:34 ET by 10ksnookerCNN is a celebrity dating channel.
Challenging politicians
October 12, 2009 - 08:07 ET by KC Mulville(Bear with me here.) I see this whole topic as another version of a same old question: how do you handle expert advice? The experts assured us that the TARP was necessary. Bush pushed it and McCain voted for it, based entirely on their experts' advice. But later, we discovered that the chief expert (Paulson) changed his mind about his own advice.
From what I read, it wasn't the details of any recovery program that mattered, it was only the confidence that the government would prevent the economy from failing. So, if it was all confidence anyway, how useful were the experts, when you get down to it?
This is why, I argue, we need to challenge the arrogance of politicians. They're as clueless as we are, and are as helpless in the face of uncertainty as we are. They love to come on TV and declare that their ideologically-slanted guesses are slam-dunk analyses, when they're repeating what their "base" fanatics tell them. Put these guys' feet to the fire, and challenge them. Make them ask the right questions of the experts. Force them to be reasonable.
What "experts"?
October 12, 2009 - 08:40 ET by JohnMcGrewMost of the "experts" they relied upon were the bankers partially responsible for this mess looking to cover their asses. I saw little expertise in DC outside of that circle. And I'd disagree that "they are as clueless as we are". The bubble they live within surrounding Washington sees to it that they are much more so.
So-called 'experts'
October 12, 2009 - 08:50 ET by Sergeant ROCKTell me something, didn't Adjustable-Rate Mortgages play a large role in this foreclosure, housing mess? Are banks still marketing this scam? I think the answer is yes on both counts. Good job, experts.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Boo Hoo
October 12, 2009 - 08:58 ET by Cool ArrowAnd a whole bunch of these were "home owners" cashing out equity every time the market said their home values had gone up.
Boo Hoo?
October 12, 2009 - 09:04 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo? I seriously doubt they were the same ones that were stupid enough to sign on for an ARM.. then again.
The point being that ARMs played a role in the housing debacle and would've been the easiest thing to address. But instead, we just give the banks, etc. a boatload of money. How much do you want to bet it happens again??
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Sure they were
October 12, 2009 - 09:20 ET by Cool ArrowInterest rates were falling and they just couldn't talk themselves into locking in the current rate at 6% when it might fall further.
They didn't know nuthin' about no 21% mortgage rates under Carter.
So yes, they kept adjustable rate mortgages and cashed out equity at the same time.
Cashing out
October 12, 2009 - 09:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKI don't think that anyone that signed up for an ARM was smart enough know anything about 'cashing out'.
Again, my question: How much do you want to bet it happens again? What has been 'fixed' so that it won't happen again?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Nothing's been fixed
October 12, 2009 - 09:36 ET by Cool ArrowNot that I'm aware of anyway.
Full Disclosure; I lost a house 20 yrs ago. Picked myself up and moved on without any Government help.
Mea maxima culpa. I can't blame anybody but myself.
ARMs are not complicated. They're certainly easier to understand than a credit card agreement.
Recession, yes. Crisis and Debacle, no.
October 12, 2009 - 09:23 ET by Kingfish17If left to take it's course, the housing mess would have resulted in a recession. The severity of the recession is of course, arguable.
The "Crisis", of course, was perpatrated by the government in passing TARP and allowing the financial system to get to the point it did, by allowing mark-to-market accounting rules to be changed in the first place in 2007. The crisis was one of design.
ARMs, in and of themselves, are not evil. Allowing people to buy houses with zero money down and backing the loans with the guarantee of the government is evil. Housing prices would never have run up if FNMA and FreddyMac had been forced to keep their 20% down policies in place.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
So, the answer is..
October 12, 2009 - 09:27 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. to allow banks to continue marketing this ARM scam? And when they over-extend themselves and it blows up in their face (again), the taxpayers can bail them out again thereby eliminating any risk to the banks?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Not the answer
October 12, 2009 - 09:31 ET by Cool ArrowThe answer is to go back to the 20% down requirement.
Only then does the home buyer have any skin in the game.
I'm thinking that with 20% down, they will avoid the ARM like the plague. Renegotiating is no problem if the rate goes down sufficiently, and no action is necessary if rates go up.
20% Down
October 12, 2009 - 09:38 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, what's the sense in having the ARM as an option? Why do you defend the ARM?
20% down is fine. But, eliminate the ARM.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ I'm sorry
October 12, 2009 - 09:47 ET by Cool ArrowYou're going to have to show me where I defended ARMs or said they were a good thing.
An ARM certainly isn't something I'd be interested in.
You are avoiding a simple solution
October 12, 2009 - 09:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat is, to abolish ARMs. It's not the end all answer, but it is helpful to that end, Who does it hurt? Those that can't afford a house in the first place?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ You are avoiding a simpler solution
October 12, 2009 - 10:00 ET by Cool Arrow20% down.
The ARM was a selling point on the way down from 21% rates. Somewhere it lost its luster, but we should never have abandoned the concept of requiring a down payment.
Bent Arrow
October 12, 2009 - 10:04 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhere are you getting that from? You better try reading the post again.
You, for some reason, want to preserve the ARM. I guess so that we can bail-out banks again in the not so distant future.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Again?
October 12, 2009 - 10:11 ET by Cool ArrowI've got no use for Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
You're in favor of more Government regulation toward more "Nanny State" I get that.
No, Crooked Arrow
October 12, 2009 - 10:16 ET by Sergeant ROCKDon't get all pissy. You are bloviating on and on about 20% down, which I think is exactly right. However, in a number of posts you dodged another piece of the solution which is to do away with ARMs. No need to throw a fit.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ I just don't see
October 12, 2009 - 10:24 ET by Cool ArrowI just don't see the ARM as the root of the problem.
Government intervention got us into this situation more than some poor schlub who didn't understand ARM meant "adjustable rate" or that 6% was a pretty durn good deal he should've locked in.
What happened was that home values sunk below the owed equity, and those "owners" who had nothing invested other than the rent they'd already paid, walked away.
And bloviating? Actually my posts are usually pretty short.
Government intervention
October 12, 2009 - 10:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd government intervened when these fools engaged in scams like ARMs and NINJA loans.
I know of a guy that did that. He was alarmed that the value of his condo went below what he paid for it. It wasn't that he couldn't afford the payment. He's an idiot and he foreclosed.
People need a place to live and prices will recover.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Maybe they will
October 12, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Cool ArrowBefore the mortgage crash, I was of the opinion that home prices were overinflated.
It's possible that home prices are still falling to a state of recovery.
That's not a bad thing for home buyers. It doesn't bother me in the least that my home is worth less today than it was a year ago.
ARMs are not a scam
October 12, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Kingfish17SGT ROCK:
When a mortgage is made, the lender, (or subsequent investor), actually wants to get the loan repaid! They do not want the home owner to default on the loan. So the lender judges the borrower's ability to repay the loan based on an interest rate after the loan resets at higher rates. This is how is SHOULD work.
But when governement entities such as FannyMae and FreddyMac guarantee mortgages, no matter the equity in the mortgage, there is no incentive for lenders or investors to actually care if the borrower is capable of making the loan payments, regardless of whether the loan is adjustable or fixed.
So the scam happens when our government guarantees loans that have absolutely no chance of being repaid.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
SHOULD work
October 12, 2009 - 09:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd socialism 'should WORK' if you follow the recipe. However, in neither case has it done so. So, why continue having it as an option? Who is dumb to believe that interest rates do not go up?
Banks are not doing you a favor by offering you an ARM. They are banking on interest rates going up. Reminds me of car dealers and 'leases'. They're doing you a favor too.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Rock, your argument is the socialst one
October 12, 2009 - 10:16 ET by Kingfish17Rock,
I hope you can see that it's your argument that is the socialist, or government regulation, one.
Telling a lending institution and a borrow that they cannot enter into an adjustable rate contract is more governement control, not less.
Mortgages work the way they SHOULD work when government doesn't get itself involved in the contracts or the guarantee of the underlying loans or the rates or anything else. Mortgates and the housing market implodes when government immerses itself in all aspects of how the free markets work.
With all due respect, you are arguing the socialist viewpoint, not I.
And socialism can never work, not even theoretically. There are no recipes for socialism, only recipes for tyrany.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Horsesh:t!
October 12, 2009 - 10:24 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd you want to have it both ways. So, when ARMs help lead to another fiasco, then you'll b:tch about bailing out the banks?
Can I conclude that you endorse bailing out banks that make reckless decisions? THAT, sounds like socialism to me.
Here's an idea, if you engage in a scam like ARMs, then you should live with the consequences, be that both the loaner and the borrower.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ I agree
October 12, 2009 - 10:27 ET by Cool Arrow"Here's an idea, if you engage in a scam like ARMs, then you should live with the consequences, be that both the loaner and the borrower."
Who is disagreeing with this?
I know.. I know..
October 12, 2009 - 10:32 ET by Sergeant ROCK20% Down!
20% Down!
20% Down!
20% Down!
20% Down!
Who is disagreeing with that??
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ Nobody
October 12, 2009 - 10:36 ET by Cool ArrowBut I didn't claim you disagreed with it.
It's something banks required before the Government started backing the providing surety to unqualified buyers.
Really?
October 12, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Sergeant ROCKI guess I misunderstood the 'You are avoiding the simpler solution - 20% down' post.
Which I wasn't. Indeed, that's a good way to get a better deal and avoid that insurance thingy for not putting 20% down.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Yeah, that's great and all,
October 12, 2009 - 11:26 ET by redmikeYeah, that's great and all, except the average home price in my neighborhood is still about $675,000 for a home that in other parts of the country sell for about half that or less. Maybe after the next generation of tele-commuting and computer connectivity get out, we can push those down payments back up to 20%. It was a gradual slide to no money down, it needs to be a somewhat gradual slide back up although an immediate bump would be good.
20% Down
October 12, 2009 - 11:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou still have to pay for that insurance for not putting 20% down which is added to your payment - as far as I know.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
It's called PMI Private
October 12, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Free StinkerIt's called PMI
Private Mortgage Insurance.
PMI
October 12, 2009 - 11:35 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, that's it.. what exactly does that do for you? I've never had to get it.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Pays the Bank
October 12, 2009 - 11:37 ET by general companyIf you defalt
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Yep! The bank makes *you*
October 12, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Free StinkerYep!
The bank makes *you* pay for *them* to be insured.
To Free Stinker
October 12, 2009 - 13:45 ET by Kingfish17The bank doesn't "make" you do anything. You are required to have PMI if you don't have enough of a down payment. The alternative is to save up and get enough to have a decent down payment, which I highly recomend.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
PMI
October 12, 2009 - 11:45 ET by Sergeant ROCKI figured as much. I am curious to know how many claims have been processed for 2008 and 2009. And how many of these banks received bailout money.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
You can advoid
October 12, 2009 - 11:47 ET by general companyPMI if you take out your own policy, I highly recomend this. It is cheaper and protects you as well. Least in this State you can?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
PMI again..
October 12, 2009 - 11:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, I avoided all of that by putting 20% down on a recent purchase.
Though, I remain curious as to what impact, if any, have PMI claims by banks had on the current situation?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I doubt any. The Insurer
October 12, 2009 - 11:54 ET by Free StinkerI doubt any.
The Insurer has to cover the loss, not the bank.
There has to be some impact
October 12, 2009 - 12:00 ET by Sergeant ROCKI would assume that claims were up, therefore insurance companies would react by increasing their premiums.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I doubt there has been much impact
October 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by general companyConsidering this is insurance, the Insurance Co gets the propety witch has still has some considerable value.
I beleive the impact would be far less then someone getting say cancer on your group policy.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
→ Great idea
October 12, 2009 - 11:35 ET by Cool ArrowThat works if you assume prices have nowhere to go but up.
I think they are still going to fall for a couple of more years.
So, if you get them started at 5% down, it still won't be long before the buyer is underwater.
People have to ask themselves:
"20% Down! Who is
October 12, 2009 - 16:22 ET by ckc1227"20% Down!
Who is disagreeing with that??"
I do. It's not a bad idea, but I don't think that's necessarily part of the problem. I know plenty of people who didn't have 20% down who pay their mortgages on time, and who aren't one heartbeat away from foreclosure. I'm one of them.
Making sure people can actually afford the mortgage would work a lot better. If your take home is $2,000/month, you can't afford a mortgage that costs $1,600/month, I don't care if you put 50% down.
Funny stuff Rock
October 12, 2009 - 10:50 ET by Kingfish17Since you know exactly how I think and what my arguments will be, maybe I should just give you my logon and password and you can post for me? Hehe.
I don't want banks to be bailed out. Never said I did. I agree that bailing out banks leads to socialism and government power and control. See my above post about TARP and accounting rules.
All loans, including ARMs, have consequences. Borrower and lender, (investor), should live with the consequences.
I want less government involvment, not more. ARMs are a legitimate type of loan that can benefit both lender and borrower. I don't want the government to tell people what they can do with their money and how they should structure contracts.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Less government?
October 12, 2009 - 11:26 ET by Sergeant ROCKWell, I could've wrote the same thing about you calling me a 'socialist'.
So, aside from not bailing out banks and borrowers, the status quo should remain? That being the case, how does that prevent the same thing from happening again? By your estimation, the government should not ever be involved in protecting the consumer?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Never called you a socialist
October 12, 2009 - 13:15 ET by Kingfish17There you go again, Rock.
I never called you a socialist. I don't believe you are a socialist, far from it. But wanting to restrict banks from making adjustable rate mortgages does lead us down the road to socialism or tyrany or whatever. It's a road away from freedom. If it's your belief that we should restrict banks from making ARM loans, then I believe you subscribe to misguided populism, and not full blown socialism.
And I really don't know what you mean by Status Quo. I think we need to do away with the current status quo that allows people to purchase homes at no money down under government programs. No money down loans only become financially feasable for banks to underwrite if they are guaranteed by the government. So if we want FannyMae and FreddyMac to still exist, we need to change the rules and require that these entities go back to 20% down and stricter underwriting requirements. That's the "Old Status Quo" that I am in favor of.
I'd like to go back to the old status quo, where people had to put a good chunk of money down in order to buy a home.
And I am not opposed to regulations that assist the borrower in understanding exactly what they are getting into when they enter in a mortgage contract. Spelling out rates, payments, baloons payments, and where monthly payments could go if interest rates change is a good thing.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
By your estimation then..
October 12, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. there are no financial products out there, currently or in years past, that require or required attention?
Would not forcing banks or people to put 20% down constitute 'government intervention'? Not that I think it's a bad idea.
Though, I think that the finance industry could survive without an ARM product.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ ARM
October 12, 2009 - 13:34 ET by Cool ArrowI might be wrong, but IIRC, ARMs became popular when buyers sat out waiting for rates to fall, which they were certainly prone to do.
The buyer was betting that the next adjustment was going to be downward rather than upward. They didn't want to get stuck with 8% when the rates dropped to 6% a couple of years down the road.
For a couple of thousand extra, the buyer of a fixed rate loan could have gotten the lower rate later, but that's not what they signed up for.
ARMs a bad idea? Yes, for me it would be.
Examples of a good ARM
October 12, 2009 - 14:14 ET by Kingfish17ARMs can be a great mortgage product for the right house buyer but it depends on the person's financial situation and shorter-term future.
An ARM can be a great mortgage for someone who will always have enough assets to buy their house outright. Some people want a mortgage even though they have tons of assets so they can keep their assets and a certain amount of liquidity.
Another example would be for someone who plans on living in their house for only a few years.
Another example would be if the yield curve was really steep, and the cap on the upper end of the adjustable rate mortgage wasn't very high over the existing 30 year mortgage rate. Someone might be willing to take the chance that rates would stay low.
Another good example would be someone who wants to take out a five-year fixed rate that converts to an adjustable who plans to pay off their house as quickly as possible but wants some financial flexibility.
There are many more examples like these.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
You are right, Rock.
October 12, 2009 - 14:04 ET by Kingfish17Forcing people to put 20% down would constitute government intervention. But I never said I was for a blanket government rule that requires that people put 20% for a mortgage.
There are two mortgage markets, private markets and government involved markets. FannyMae and FreddyMac, government entities that insure mortgage securiteis, is of course a governement involved market. The Veterans Administration and other government entities are also involved in mortgages. A long time ago when, believe it not, the government was actually more responsible, Fanny and Freddy required that people put 20% down on a mortgage. The VA had looser standards for veterans, which I don't have a big problem with.
Liberal politicians saw an opportunity to get homes into the hands of "poorer people" so the 20% standard was relaxed, first under Carter, and eventually leading to the mess we got into in 2008. Now IF we are going to have government backed mortgage markets, I think we need to go back to the old standards of 20% down. (And this may shock you.......Since this is a government backed mortgage program, I don't see anything wrong with saying that Fanny and Freddy cannot issue ARMs!)
As far as the private mortgage market is concerned, there should of course be absolutely no government regulations as to the percent that people put down for a mortgage and whether or not they can get an ARM. It's private and has nothing to do with the government, (besides some consumer protection laws).
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Please stop....
October 12, 2009 - 16:09 ET by ckc1227ARMs are not scams. It makes you look silly when you argue that they are.
→ Right you are Kingfish
October 12, 2009 - 09:29 ET by Cool Arrow0 Down is nothing more than Rent 2 Own. Ain't no big deal to walk out on something you've been renting.
Anybody who's ever looked at an amortization table knows the principle paid for the first 5 years of a 30yr fixed is beans.
Feet to the fire?
October 12, 2009 - 09:06 ET by FaulknerFanPut these guys' feet to the fire, and challenge them. Make them ask the
right questions of the experts. Force them to be reasonable.
The problem with this is the media, except Fox, isn't going to challenge The One or anyone who supports him on anything. Beck has it right. Our entire political system/media (democrate propaganda machine) is so corrupt that it is now tottering on the brink of collapse. And our dear leader and his party are ready to take absolute control of it all.
disgrace
October 12, 2009 - 08:42 ET by Libertydudebeing in the navy, a life time ago, we had to watch a movie. The movie was an aircraft carrier burning, the Forestal I think. mccain climbed out of a jet on fire. Then he was a hero.
now he's just a disgrace.
The
October 12, 2009 - 09:20 ET by jessieHThe govt., including McCain, have no clue as to how to fix what they broke. It wasn't the people that put us in this mess. It was the govt.. The bailouts for the banks was stupid. The cash for clunkers- failure. The stimulous- con game. Only the rich have been helped. Don't feed me bulls**t and tell me it's steak!
McCain's chief economic
October 12, 2009 - 09:36 ET by ConservativeMissourianMcCain's chief economic advised admitted it was a blunder for McCain to support TARP. I don't think he is the first one to support something, and then realize it wasn't the best, or even a good decision. McCain came to realize it wasn't the correct thing to support.
Term Limits
October 12, 2009 - 09:52 ET by iveseenitallTerm Limits --- fat chance! Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
RINO John McCain also said the following on CNN's
October 12, 2009 - 10:25 ET by Rush FanState of the Union:
Recall that leftist Rahm Emanuel said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
Now that McCain has lost the election he has again become the favorite Republican spokesman for the leftist media.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican. These guys are not even mavericks. They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter. They don't care who's in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is. That's the name of the game and they want press adulation. They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that's the Washington establishment." ~ Rush Limbaugh
The best analysis of McCain I've read yet.
October 12, 2009 - 11:45 ET by Mike76This was written right after Walter Cronkite died:
"Walter Cronkite finally died.
In the 1980 election a lot of hard-leftists in the Democratic Party didn’t want to elect the first Southerner on their ticket since 1844. That was not bigotry like being against Obama. Liberal Republicans didn’t want Reagan. So John Anderson ran on his own far-left ticket.
Cronkite offered to be his vice-presidential candidate. Near the end of his career, Cronkite even told journalism classes about what conservative stories he specifically suppressed. That was the end, which you won’t hear mentioned, of his time as “The Most Trusted Man in America.”
Before that, Cronkite’s image was that of the Middle American.
In the intelligence business, as you know, such people are called “moles.” They are traitors, but they are more despicable than open traitors. A Cronkite or a McCain is far more useful to the enemy than a Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy stands openly for the left, a McCain does not back leftists except when the vote is close.
And that, of course, is the only time it really matters. McCain ran on an anti-gun control platform and voted against Kennedy-type gun issues when it was clear they stood no chance. But when a move against guns stood a chance, he was always there with liberals.
On every other liberal issue, McCain always tipped the balance by being “reasonable.” He ran on his being tortured in Vietnam, but he was generally recognized as being the best friend Vietnam had in Congress.
Our worst enemies are the ones like McCain, who wore a costume and sold us where it counted."
mcCain speaks who listens?
October 12, 2009 - 11:59 ET by frank l kinneyfrankkinney so sorry bail out now mcCain BS!!! SO SORRY about americans losing jobs? not one mention of a fair balance type of trade today? supports war? like iraqi illegal war of occupation for reason of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction LIAR??? yet evidence suggest it was ISRAEL influence that prompt promoted lobbyist for military invasion of IRAQ? condoleeza rice security of ISRAEL is key to security of the WORLD??? yeah mcCAIN we were wrong to bail out wall street jews now? worried about unemployment in arizona? how about cartel drugs smuggling joe arpaio under attack by homeland security for stopping him to enforce law and order security in arizona??? yes mcCain republicons democraps talk we pay in taxes and military lives? corrupt tarp bail out stimulus bull BS bills? results more outsourcing of industry and more lost employment news? more troops for afghanistan now after 225 billion in failures of fighting same force we taliban suppied to fight russian invassion force? 500 billion dollar war with IRAQ so bush the liar could secure permenant base for iraqi oil reserves greed and profits? the beat go's on! illegal this illegal that and more BS crap and amnesty homosexual to come? yes we pay we die and the illegal invaders and perverts prosper? the new world order of the gay brigade and uneducated citizens power of corruption regime? california uneducated parasites the illegal cesspool population gives them represenatives of 55 voices in washington DC BS? california picture of future america from shinning sea to shinning sea?mcCain we was wrong tarp? yes no accountability no transparency beat gos on? judicial corruption goverment legislation of corruption prosperity from coast to coast? we are not on this page period. just same old same old junk over and over next thing you know we will be in these new interment camps they are building for the ILLEGALS invaders NOW? UTAH goverment spending two billion on spy facility? billions on new interment camps? unemployment going up up up! crime going down down down FBI! we need more troops to fight the taliban AL QAEDA? F our borders? say mcCain think we should send troops to help MEXICO against them terrorist cartel groups? INDEPENDENT news lou dobbs but wait" conservative republiCONS and libral demoCRAPS are trying to silence his independent voice? conservative radio in michigan are blocking him out off AIR WAVES? WAAM ann arbor the home U.of M. AND A SANCTUARY CITY TO BOOT? yes the to party system putting up the screws on U.S. ALL? independent army for all are sakes! god bless america kate smiths america! AMEN.
Douche
October 12, 2009 - 12:14 ET by ThoreauMcCain's voting record puts him on par with Hillary Clinton in douchyness. This was never a secret. And it's no secret why he lost the election. If he's a Republican, then I'm a communist.
Just should have said,
October 12, 2009 - 15:35 ET by RR GOPJust should have said, "NO", John...pretty darn easy. At least you may have won a few more states.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.