July 19, 2010

A Missed Opportunity

A report from the Washington Examiner. “When President Obama signs a new financial regulatory overhaul bill this week, he’ll have a new reform measure to campaign on. The wide-ranging bill creates a new consumer protection agency, overhauls the process for getting a mortgage, gives the government new powers to stave off industry collapse, regulates the derivatives market, limits credit card fees and more. ‘This recession was not the result of your typical economic downturn,’ he said. ‘It was the result of recklessness and irresponsibility in certain corners of Wall Street that infected the entire economy.’”

The Washington Post. “‘We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers,’ said Hank Paulson, who served as Treasury secretary when the financial system melted down in 2008.’ And he’s right: The next time there’s a financial crisis, regulators will say a quick prayer of thanks to Sens. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for giving them the power and information to quickly figure out what’s happened and how to respond”

“Many of the weaknesses and imbalances that led to the financial crisis escaped this regulatory response. The most glaring omission: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the crazed housing market that led to the crash.”

The Daily World. “Currently, the long-awaited comprehensive financial reform bill awaits the president’s signature. No sooner was the agreement reached in the House than Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, admitted ‘no one will know until this is actually in place how it works.’”

“I think the citizens of this great country should reserve judgment regarding the details of the 2,000 page bill that has emerged. At issue are several points: whether ‘de-supervision’ rather than ‘de-regulation’ were the proximate cause of the crisis, whether regulators and politicians owe a fiduciary duty to taxpayers and should be held accountable to their actions in the same manner as trustees of private financial institutions, and whether the true cost of taxpayer financed safety-net bailouts should be disclosed by private sector firms.”

“According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at least 56 financial services industry lobbyists have served on the personal staffs of the 43 Senate and House members who worked up the legislation. In addition, the members of Congress who negotiated the reconciliation have received more than $112 million in campaign contributions from the financial services industry over the last 20 years.”

The New York Times. “The new consumer bureau mostly will be staffed with employees transferred from the consumer divisions of the existing banking regulators, which have been excoriated by Congress and other critics for failing to protect borrowers from obvious and widespread abuses. Administration officials said they were confident that providing new leaders for those employees and granting them new powers, would produce better results.”

“It creates a council of federal regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to coordinate the detection of risks to the financial system, and it provides new powers to constrain and even dismantle troubled companies. It also creates a powerful new regulator, appointed by the president, to protect consumers of financial products, which will be housed in the Federal Reserve. The first visible result may come in about two years, the deadline for the consumer regulator to create a simplified disclosure form for mortgage loans.”

“‘The financial industry is central to our nation’s ability to grow, to prosper, to compete and to innovate. This reform will foster that innovation, not hamper it,’ Mr. Obama said Thursday. ‘Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear.’”

From Veterans Today. “The underlying problem is that the bill doesn’t do anything to change the basic balance of power between Wall Street and Washington, which is partly based on the fact that it’s a lot better to be a banker than to be a regulator, and the only reason to be a regulator (if you believe in free-market incentives) is so you can then become a banker. As Bill Gross, king of the bond market and no one’s populist, said to The Wall Street Journal, ‘Wall Street still owns Washington. Better to have appointed [Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker ‘Dictator-In-Chief’ than to have let the lobbyists dilute what needed to be done.’”

“I’m still sticking to my position that the bill is better than nothing. The alternative was sticking with the environment that gave us a bloated, predatory financial system and the financial crisis. But it’s still a missed opportunity.”

The Commercial Appeal. “The bill is named for Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairmen of the main congressional committees that wrote the 2,319-page bill. Old system: A key cause of the financial meltdown stemmed from subprime mortgages, which are home loans with high interest rates made to people with bad credit scores. Lenders were allowed to engage in NINA loans (No Income/ No Asset), where the borrower didn’t have to prove he could pay back the loan.”

“New system: Mortgage lenders now must obtain proof of a borrower’s ability to pay back the loan. Borrowers will have to provide proof of income. Mortgage lenders must disclose how high the interest rate can go in an adjustable rate mortgage.”

The Pittsburg Post Gazette. “Before the last Senate vote was cast, Republicans vowed to rescind the measure. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called for a repeal, and several Senate Republicans joined him. If they gain control of Congress in November, GOP lawmakers said, they will try to roll back elements of the bill. For the second week in a row, Obama took on Boehner directly, saying in a statement touting the bill’s passage that the top House Republican is out of touch. Last week, Obama knocked Boehner for comparing the Wall Street reform bill to ‘killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.’”

“‘Now, already the Republican leader in the House has called for repeal of this reform,’ Obama said. ‘I would suggest that America can’t afford to go backwards, and I think that’s how most Americans feel, as well. We can’t afford another financial crisis, just as we’re digging out from the last one.’”

“But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill would not address the root cause of the crisis — namely, the lending practices of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — that nearly brought down the U.S. economy. McConnell called it ‘a bill that was meant to rein [in] Wall Street’s biggest banks but which is now supported by some of Wall Street’s biggest banks and opposed by small community banks in my state.’”

The Aiken Standard. “Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said, ‘There is little in this legislation that will fundamentally change the way that Wall Street does business. There is probably no economist who believes that this bill will end the risks of too-big-to-fail financial institutions. The six largest banks will still enjoy the enormous implicit subsidy that results from the expectation that the federal government will bail them out in the event of a crisis.’”

From Reuters. “Faced with a lose-lose proposition, Congress put off its decision on the fate of mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, perhaps hoping the housing market recovers before losses get too big. Both political parties agree a hybrid system that lets shareholders profit in the good times while taxpayers pay in the bad is unsustainable. But neither has come up with a workable plan to do that without inflicting more harm on the still-suffering housing market and the broader economy.”

“Given the bruising fight that took place over new rules for Wall Street in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, wholesale changes to the U.S. housing finance system could be too much for Congress to handle. Edward Pinto, a former top official at Fannie Mae who now works as a consultant to private sector mortgage lenders, notes that each passing day makes it harder to change the system.”

“‘The longer this goes on the less likely they are going to be able to undo Fannie and Freddie and we are going to get stuck with them in some sort of zombie-like structure,’ Pinto said.”

“The government is now directly or indirectly backing 97 percent of newly issued mortgages, including loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has 30 percent market share. That’s up from just a few percent during the housing boom years. Some analysts see the market share of the FHA, which insures loans, climbing to as high as half of all new mortgages.”

“‘Uncle Sam is likely to be the lender of choice for the foreseeable future,’ said Howard Glaser, a former housing official in the Clinton administration. ‘It’s very hard to see what a normal market looks like anymore.’”

The San Francisco Examiner. “President Barack Obama lauded Senate passage of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, saying that ‘because of this bill, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.’ That statement is untrue.”

“The only thing Dodd-Frank has changed on bailouts is this: Before the bill was passed, bailouts had to be approved by Congress, as with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program first proposed by President George W. Bush and then extended by Obama. But in the future, thanks to Dodd-Frank, instead of congressional votes, Treasury Department bureaucrats will unilaterally decide under the bill’s ‘orderly liquidation process’ how much of the taxpayers’ money to hand out to troubled firms.”

“Worse yet, according to the Judicial Conference of the United States, Dodd-Frank makes tax-paid bailouts of selected corporations permanent in a manner that overrides the bankruptcy process established by the U.S. Constitution. ‘This is a substantial change from the bankruptcy law because it would create a new structure within bankruptcy court and remove a class of cases from the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy code,’ the Conference said in a recent letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy.”

“To paraphrase Mark Twain, despite consuming more than 2,300 pages, Dodd-Frank bears the same relationship to reform as ‘lightning’ does to ‘lightning bug.’”

“Nor does the bill do anything to remove the elephant in the living room, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout. The costs of this will reach nearly $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and could approach $1 trillion before all is said and done. Roughly 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are held by Fannie and Freddie, which between them hold $5 trillion in their investment portfolios. Fannie and Freddie are still losing billions by the month on bad mortgage investments and taxpayers are still on the hook. This means the housing crisis is far from being resolved, and, thanks to the continuing high rate of foreclosures, could plunge the economy back into recession at any time.”

The Star Tribune. “After nearly two years of recession and a jobless economic recovery, record numbers of Minnesotans are filing for personal bankruptcy. The state has never seen so many people go bankrupt during the first half of a year since it began tracking the number in 1982.”

“Years of super-sized lifestyles on borrowed money, a depressed housing market, persistent high unemployment and stock market losses are fueling the increases. People in industries once considered secure and well-paying — real estate agents, financial industry workers, tool-and-die makers, plumbers and chiropractors — are filling attorneys’ waiting rooms after being out of work or making do with reduced incomes for too long.”

“During the boom, Maggie Miley bought a house for $245,000 with an option-ARM mortgage. The payments were affordable, especially with her boyfriend paying half. But then he moved out and her hours performing facials were cut. She tried to sell, but owed far more than her St. Paul house is worth today. With a new commission-based job as an educator and salesperson for a skin care company, she hoped to modify her loan but was denied. The only way to get out from under the $50,000 second mortgage was bankruptcy.”

“Before housing values plummeted and the recession settled in, ‘I had never paid a bill late.’”

“Bankruptcy attorney Barbara May said her once middle-class clients used to have an average debt level of $70,000. But that’s rocketed to $100,000 in this recession, as jobless or house-poor clients used credit to hold onto their lifestyle. There is one thing May is seeing less of in her Roseville office: shame. ‘They come in and say ‘What else can they do to me? I’ve lost my job. My house is in foreclosure,’ she said.”

The Chicago Tribune. “”For the year ended March 31, personal bankruptcy filings nationwide rose 28 percent, to almost 1.5 million cases, according to the administrative office of the U.S. Courts. Cash-strapped, jobless and denied a loan modification, Del Phillips faced the same straits as millions of homeowners who risk losing their homes to mortgage lenders. Phillips decided he wanted revenge and was willing to ruin his credit record for it. When a short sale didn’t work out as planned, the 32-year-old Chicagoan opted for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. That will leave Phillips with little except for the scant possessions in his one-bedroom condo. It also will leave his lender, Chase Bank, with little except for, eventually, a condo that has lost value.”

“Meanwhile, Phillips continues to live there, mortgage-free. ‘I don’t feel shameful for what I’ve done,’ Phillips said. ‘I’ve gotten past being shameful.’”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

129 Comments »

Comment by Eddie
2010-07-19 03:56:16

2300 pages for this bill

2000+ pages for Obamacare

And by total and complete coincidence lawyers give more money to Dems than to any other party.

In both cases the industries needed some reform. In both cases Obama took a system that worked pretty well but had some flaws and transormed it into a system that will work less efficiently, have bigger flaws and cost taxpayers and consumers more.

Comment by AmazingRuss
2010-07-19 07:33:24

So you’ve read the bills?

Comment by rusty
2010-07-19 10:32:00

nobody has, not even the bozos voting on it. That is the problem.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 10:59:22

That was the strategy. Write a bill that is long enough and sufficiently convoluted, and nobody will bother scrutinizing it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by HottyToddy
2010-07-19 11:26:54

If you’ve ever looked at these bills, they are written where they make reference to the old laws and add or delete words, phrases, senteneces or paragraphs, instead or repealing the old law and writing a new one.
The effect of that is if you don’t have the old one, it is impossible to determine what all the adds and deltes do. Yes there are new whole sections added too, but the scary loopoles are those things where you can’t read all the text in one place.
That is where the lobbyists get the grvay for their clients.
I tried to read the health care bill before it passed to see how it would impact my company. After six hours of trying to follow the references, I was not very far in and couldn’t follow half of what I read. That is what they want.

 
 
Comment by DaveGardena
2010-07-19 15:20:51

you’re talking about the GOP, right?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-07-19 14:29:03

I think the passage of the two bills is the story more than the content of the bills.

Any intelligent person of any party would now have to respect Obama’s ability as a politician.

1. Although part black, inexperienced, possessing a Muslim sounding name and very young, Obama was elected president beating a War Hero and a ……
2. Obama passed a health-care bill with aspects in it that had been attempted but failed since as far back as Harry Truman. Obama passed it. It is a big ——– deal that some can’t deal with. So be it.

The nutballs have gone nuts but who would have expected more from them? It’s what they do. We’ve always had 10% nutballs on both left and right. Enjoy them. They are funny. They don’t think much but they’re here.

The big mistake the Republicans are making is letting the nutballs take over the party. Sure they can foam at the mouth, idiotically mistake corporatism for socialism and fire up the other nutballs but who cares? The 70% non-nutball Americans are the key anyway.

Republicans should have worked more with the Democrats on both bills but they didn’t. It’s the choice they made and now they have to deal with it. I guess some deal with it by freaking out.

No one knows who will win the next election but to count out Obama at this stage would be foolish.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-19 16:07:12

“Republicans should have worked more with the Democrats on both bills but they didn’t.”

I think you are showing your complete ignorance of what has happened in the past couple of years.
Republicans got defeated because we were angry at BUSH for having spent too much, providing proscription drugs we couldn’t pay for, and pushing a “comprehensive immigration” bill. NONE of the majority of Americans wanted this stuff.
Therefore, the Democrats took over both houses and and we got Obama. They had both houses already, so that just meant the could ram-rod any legislation they wanted through the Congress.

Republicans provided massive amounts of counter proposals, like Tort Reform, elimination of State restrictions on Health plans, etc.
All their proposals were IGNORED by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and all the leftists in the Congress because they could count votes.
They didn’t need the republicans to ram their legislative scams through and teleprompter-reading, vacationing Obama did basically nothing but talk up the proposals. He basically let Nancy and Harry and friends write up whatever they wanted so long as he could claim “health care reform”. It’s a sham and most Americans are finally beginning to see that.

The Bills that have been past are opposed by most Americans, but we couldn’t stop them. The Dem’s had the votes and their agenda.
I think the house cleaning will be massive in November. However, I also expect the criminally-insane Congress will ram-rod more massive legislation through in December just before they are thrown out. My new sign on my car is going to read: 1-20-2013 CHANGE.
It is my sincere hope that no democratic congress or president will take charge of this country again in my lifetime.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-07-20 10:40:36

Republicans provided massive amounts of counter proposals, like Tort Reform, elimination of State restrictions on Health plans, etc.

Yea. But “providing proposals” is different than getting things enacted–different than political achievement. Republicans dropped the ball and now it’s all sour grapes and history re-write.

If the Republicans were better politicians and cared more about Americans than themselves, they could have gotten some of these things into the bill. I wish they had. Republicans did America a great disservice by not working in good-faith with the Democrats. Obama almost begged the Republicans at first for some kind of cooperation but it was no go with the party of “No”. Too bad for them and all of us.

My new sign on my car is going to read: 1-20-2013 CHANGE.

Yea, that will work….just like it has in the past. It’s a shell game dude.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 19:42:15

+1 Rio…

 
Comment by GotRocks
2010-07-19 19:44:16

“Republicans should have worked more with the Democrats on both bills but they didn’t. ”

LOL. Let’s see, as posted above, when the Republicans start to “work” with the Democrats, they get their heads handed to them, as in what happened when Bush’s father raised taxes, or when Bush worked with them on Amnesty. Now, when Republicans OPPOSED the Democrats, they did quite well - as in 2 election victories by Reagan, and Bush’s father promising to NOT raise taxes (while his opponent promised the opposite). And there are many, many, more examples.

When the country is 40/20 Conservatives over Liberals, it seems that the Liberals should be doing a lot more to work with the Republicans, than vice versa. Unfortunately, the Republicans have a habit of electing STUPID leaders who can’t seem to figure that out.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-07-19 16:30:02

Goldman Sach’s feeble slap on the wrist is going to translate into a windfall for Democratic Party coffers going into the November elections.

 
Comment by Reuven
2010-07-19 16:43:12

I don’t find (what summaries I read of) this bill that bad. The problem is, he put 100% of the blame on the banks, and nothing on irresponsible borrowing.

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-21 09:17:08

Works less well? Are you kidding??

“It creates a council of federal regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to coordinate the detection of risks to the financial system, and it provides new powers to constrain and even dismantle troubled companies.”

It creates a completely fascist regime, deciding who lives, who dies, and who gets political patronage. The government has no place intruding in businesses like this, and if the companies are so large they will impact the financial system, that’s what ANTI-TRUST legislation was all about.
Let’s see …………..Lehman, no, sorry can’t help you. Oh! Goldman….yes indeed we can take ALL your bad loans and give you 100% back on them……………and, we’ll make you a bank holding company, so you can pull up to the FED window to load up on some cash.
IT’s a total crock. And, as i wrote many posts back, unless the TOO BIG TOO FAIL are broken up and the GLASS-Steagel reinacted, there is NO financial reform that will help American people, just Bankers and their political cronies. That’s what we got.

 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-07-19 04:27:53

“But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill would not address the root cause of the crisis — namely, the lending practices of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — that nearly brought down the U.S. economy.”

Well, at least they stopped blaming poor black people, even though that worked for them in the early 1990s.

The problem with this bill is not that it did too much. Were it up to me, I would have broken up the big banks. Do I dislike JP Morgan and Goldman? No. I like them so much, I wish we had three or four each. New York would have ended up with more jobs, too.

As it is, NY’s financial companies remind me of Detroit’s big three — overpaid and relying on political clout.

Comment by Michael Fink
2010-07-19 07:22:04

FNM/FRE’s lending practices were NOT the root of the problem. Perhaps FHA, and certainly subprime/Alt-A, but not Fannie and Freddie. AFAIK, they only insure loans with 20% down.

That’s not the problem. Low (or no) down loans were the big problem that caused the huge run up, if 20% down was required (even today) this type of thing would never happen again.

Comment by CrackerJim
2010-07-19 10:42:21

From About.com article 12/29/2009

Government regulations preclude Fannie and Freddie from buying mortgages that don’t meet down payment and credit requirements. However, as the mortgage market changed, so did their business. Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional fixed-interest loans with 20% down. Fannie Mae’s loan acquisitions were:

•62% negative amortization
•84% interest only
•58% subprime
•62% required less than 10% downpayment.
Freddie Mac’s loans were even more risky, consisting of:
•72% negative amortization
•97% interest only
•67% subprime
•68% required less than 10% downpayment.

 
Comment by elladeon
2010-07-19 11:03:20

Actually, I believe Fannie and Freddie backed virtually all of the loans, good and bad, below $417,000. IIRC. Also, they were big on “community lending,” meaning high-risk loans, and defined the loan standards that a lot of banks followed.

All part of their government charter, of course, and with the approval of their government-apparatchik-stocked boards.

Comment by Mark in LA
2010-07-19 12:51:08

No this isn’t true. If Fannie and Freddie were the major players, all the banks, mortgage companies and Wall Street brokerages would not have collapsed like they did. Fannie and Freddie were late to the sub-prime market and only had about 20% of the loans in their portfolios.

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/fanniefreddie-only-account-for-20-of-subprime-mortgage-failures/blog-215951/

These places bought loans and repackaged them as Mortgage Backed Securties abd Collateralized Debt Obligations. Once they sold them to a sucker they never gave those people a penny back and some brokerages are being sued for it now. However, Fannie and Freddie have to stand stand behind every loan they bought even after they off-load them as bonds to maintain their ability to go to the market in the future.

Even with the very small amount of loans that the mortgage houses, banks and brokerages bought but weren’t able to pass on to the next victim they still were technically insolvent since the value of those loans were so little compared to what they lent out it destroyed their capital base. The CNBC show said Merril Lynch sold their CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar before BofA had to rescue them.

The real problem was not Freddie or Fannie but what happens in a so-called free market when too many players enter the game. Initially, somebody makes alot of money and can keep his standards high since he is the only game in town (Fannie and Freddie). More players enter (banks and Wall Street) and the available pool of good customers (prime and high grade Alt-A borrowers) is quickly exhausted. Soon the standards are lowered to keep the game going. If someone leave the game the standards would tighten up and those left in it go back to making alot of money easily so nobody leaves.

Standards keep getting lowered until the whole thing collapses. This is what happend in the junk bond era when other people moved in on Drexel and Micheal Milken. It happened here when Wall street money entered the mortagage business so they could have mortgages to make bonds out of.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 20:44:47

“…but what happens in a so-called free market when too many players enter the game.”

Read Sowell’s book, The Housing Boom and Bust, and learn how some big-name Congress folks, who are currently spearheading financial reform legislation, pressured lenders to make loans which would never, ever have been made under free market conditions, where throwing away money would result in loss of loan and business.

A banking system protected by bailouts of lenders who succumbed to Congressional pressure to make bad loans is not free.

 
 
 
Comment by potential buyer
2010-07-19 11:11:30

So up until recently, other countries have managed quite well using no down loans. I have issues believing that was the problem. What happened was that those cheap loans reset.

Pure and simple.

To high monthly payments that ‘buyers’ could not meet.

 
Comment by bluto
2010-07-19 12:38:21

However, both bought a whole lot of AAA tranches of securities (hundreds of billions worth) backed by the crappy loans, to meet community lending goals set by Congress/HUD. It was the massive declines in price of those securities that led to their own debt crisis and the government take over.

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-19 16:12:57

if 20% down was required (even today) this type of thing would never happen again…………….
and, of course, the reason we can’t have that requirement and had all the insane lending was that “poor black people” can’t come up with the 20% down, and the government needs to intervene to give them an “equal opportunity”. We need government programs to provide the “proper” outcomes. Remember all the “equal housing signs” with the blue background and yellow bars. Government agents always intervene to make the world “fair”…Understand?

 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 04:40:40

It’s amazing how true this is for so many people. and add job loss hours cut pay cut….So how are we going to get out of this when millions are denied credit (or credit cards) for basic needs.

Try renting a car for cash…
——————————-
“Before housing values plummeted and the recession settled in, ‘I had never paid a bill late.’”

Comment by LA Wallflower
2010-07-19 09:42:03

Well really, nobody should be using credit for “basic needs.” if you’re doing that, you’re in big trouble right out the gate. Debit card with actual cash behind it, that’s different.

Also, I personally wouldn’t call renting a car a “basic need,” but everyone’s different…

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-19 16:15:10

Take a ride through government subsidized neighborhoods.
Cell phones with the latest capabilites, satellite television reception and 22″ rims are all “basic needs”.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-07-19 16:31:24

Bling is a right, my friend.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by LA Wallflower
2010-07-19 19:27:13

Sammy, anyone who believes that is already so distorted that they’ll always be behind the eight-ball. Caveat dumb@ss, folks!

 
 
Comment by sfbubblebuyer
2010-07-19 10:10:34

You can easily rent a car for cash. You just have to put up a massive security deposit. In cash.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 10:40:24

Yes SF that’s my point……. our country is based on having at least 1 viable card with a decent limit….Take that away from millions and what recovery????

And LA can you live without a car in LA???? I can in NYC…

Comment by LA Wallflower
2010-07-19 16:15:50

OK, I think i understand where you’re coming from better. I’m self-employed too, and my brother is one of those NYC photographers that rents gear and vehicles for gigs.

And you’re right, that’s how a lot of small business is done in the US. It’s the way the system functions. I sometimes have to buy work-related stuff on credit, other times I can pay cash, for which I can use checks or the debit card from my business account.

I would never carry $2500 cash on me as you describe, but I don’t understand why, if you need to front $2500 for gig/gear and you actually have the money in the bank, why you, NYCdj, can’t use a debit card? I know you can’t rent a car with it, but what about the rest?

Even if your credit sucks, you could get a secured credit card by fronting some cash. It might help you do credit rentals and would sure help you fix your credit score.

If you’re trying to run a cash business in order to hide income, well… Yer on yer own there, pal. :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 16:47:28

If I am not mistaken you cant just debit an account and then put it back in….you have to re-deposit the money..and you cant do that immediately.

if you need to front $2500 for gig/gear and you actually have the money in the bank, why you, NYCdj, can’t use a debit card?

 
Comment by LA Wallflower
2010-07-19 19:23:49

I guess I’m not understanding the transaction you’re attempting. You’re right, you can’t debit money and then put it right back in, but I don’t understand why you would do that?

Why wouldn’t the rental house you mention do the same hold on your debit card, assuming you actually have the cash in the bank? Are you saying they charge your card the $2500, then refund it when you return the gear?

Or are they physically holding onto your credit card when you take the stuff? Then I get it.

I think though that there is a way for them to treat the debit card as credit and do the same kind of hold. I may be wrong… In which case I see your frustration!

 
 
 
Comment by LA Wallflower
2010-07-19 13:36:34

You don’t need a credit limit on a debit card. Your limit is how much cash you have.

Of course, the millions who are in such bad credit/debt trouble that they can’t put money in a bank without the govt taking it, well they’re screwed. If you’re using check cashing places and paying your bills with money orders…

…you don’t get to have nice things.

You can get around LA pretty well on the Metro, as long as you’re patient. A month pass is $68.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 14:41:41

You still don’t get it……..all sorts of people say photographers video heck even dj’s rent equipment and a car or take a cab to get to the gig.

Its not whether you are good or bad with credit its the way we are accustomed to conducting business….

maybe a lot of you have no problem getting $2500 cash from a bank, waking to the metro with the cash in your wallet, and giving it to a rental house to use their equipment for a day….

When a simple credit card which they put a hold on for the $2500 will make potentially getting mugged seem like a stupid way to run your life.

Yes someone will notice you have a wad of cash and are walking to the metro…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Mike in Miami
2010-07-19 05:05:32

““‘We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers,’ said Hank Paulson, who served as Treasury secretary when the financial system melted down in 2008.’ And he’s right: The next time there’s a financial crisis, regulators will say a quick prayer of thanks to Sens. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for giving them the power and information to quickly figure out what’s happened and how to respond””
…and how to respond? Well that’s easy. Loot the treasury and give the money to the most reckless gamblers on Wall Street. Then fake some outrage and wait for the next campaign contribution. See, that was easy.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-19 16:21:08

Loot the treasury and give the money to the most reckless gamblers on Wall Street……………an apt description of the shenanigans on the street.
Now, the “treasury secretary”, working directly for Wallstreet Gamblers caN raid our money without the consent of the government in power, because a previous government in power gave them the explicit right to do so. It’s a lot like the Passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, done on December 23, 1913, just as congress was leaving for recess. It’s been a criminal enterprise ever since and destroyed 95% of the value of the dollar and rising, but still it’s a “LEGAL” enterprise, with the added value that it can coherse CONgresssssssssssssssss.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-07-19 05:30:04

““During the boom, Maggie Miley bought a house for $245,000 with an option-ARM mortgage. The payments were affordable, especially with her boyfriend paying half. But then he moved out and her hours performing facials were cut. She tried to sell, but owed far more than her St. Paul house is worth today. With a new commission-based job as an educator and salesperson for a skin care company, she hoped to modify her loan but was denied. The only way to get out from under the $50,000 second mortgage was bankruptcy.””

The bolded parts are all I need to know.

Performing facials has “renter” written all over it. The dream of “home ownership” should never have been called that. Home ownership should be a luxury to aspire to, not a god-given right. The real dream should have been “be successful enough to buy a home.”

Comment by WT Economist
2010-07-19 06:35:03

“Performing facials has ‘renter’ written all over it.”

Not of the price of a very modest home falls low enough. Two people like that should be able to afford it.

What has rental all over it is her personal situation — unstable, unmarried, no kids. You buy a house when you are willing to say “this is where we want to be indefinately.”

Comment by oxide
2010-07-19 09:47:41

I know…I shortened my original comment. I do think that there should be some sort of ownership housing available to almost any income level, even it means living in a shack.* Or in cities where land is limited, even in a condo. There should be low-end housing to match low-end income, with some rental at the very bottom.

Maybe when i get home this evening i’ll look up what the low end was in St. Paul. It can’t possibly have been $245K. And she was obviously speculating. Option ARM with boyfriend to pay half? Just what part of “30 years” do these people not understand? (well I guess it was the “0″ part “30″.)

——
*At the height of the housing bubble I used look out the window in my crappy high-rise and joke to myself that the stereotypical “rednecks” didn’t know how good they had it.

Country folk: We have a broken stove out on the porch.
Me: You have a porch?
Country folk: My car is up on blocks in the yard.
Me: You have a yard?

Comment by WT Economist
2010-07-19 11:50:50

“Maybe when i get home this evening i’ll look up what the low end was in St. Paul. It can’t possibly have been $245K.”

Perhaps she paid $245K for an $80K house.

Don’t confuse overpriced low-end homes with low-end people buying high-end homes. Both happened in the bubble.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-07-19 16:26:02

There were lots of people here in Florida “buying” $80,000 houses for $245,000. That’s about the average price “appreciation” from 2001 to 2006. It was a joke. I knew it.
Ben’s blog confirmed it. and now, you and I get to pay for it, even though we didn’t choose to participate in it.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by palmetto
2010-07-19 05:38:31

If this bill was a mouth, it’d be gumming its food.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-19 05:45:08

It expected to provide 1000s of additional government/regulatory jobs funded with our tax dollars while offering no benefit. Obama’s version of job growth sucks.

Comment by arizonadude
2010-07-19 06:27:47

That all we need, more govt jobs.Seems like a lot of people in CA work for the govt.The private industry is going down the tubes here.This is a welfare state for sure.

Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 07:26:06

The private industry is going down the tubes here ??

The worst I have seen including 1981-82….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by potential buyer
2010-07-19 11:24:47

I can think of some really, really good government jobs that we need to hire for.

How about each town or city hiring 1 - 50 people (depending on size of town/city) to look into medicare fraud, which is costing us up to $90 billion a year!!

Now there’s money well spent.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Hard Rain
2010-07-19 15:14:15

Add a few more for disability and mortgage fraud, Might not recover much but it would certainly do wonders for the mental well being of the honest folk in this country….

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 05:50:20

“Nor does the bill do anything to remove the elephant in the living room, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout. The costs of this will reach nearly $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and could approach $1 trillion before all is said and done.”

Damn elephants — their carcasses remain hidden under the living room rug, and the house stinks so badly now that nobody even dares enter it.

Comment by Natalie
2010-07-19 06:41:18

Just a few months ago those trying to explain how bad the bill was were called all sorts of names on this board by those that didn’t bother to read or understand it.

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 05:53:33

“The government is now directly or indirectly backing 97 percent of newly issued mortgages, including loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has 30 percent market share. That’s up from just a few percent during the housing boom years. Some analysts see the market share of the FHA, which insures loans, climbing to as high as half of all new mortgages.”

Bend over, U.S. taxpayers, as the lenders who are making these federally-guaranteed loans will soon be collecting claims on the inevitable wave of foreclosures, which you get to pay.

Comment by arizonadude
2010-07-19 06:30:49

FHA requires 3.5% down and a low credit score of >540.I dont know about you guys but I would not loan money to anyone with a scroe of <700.The govt is just loaning money to anyone to get bodies in foreclosures and short sales.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 07:55:08

And the trouble with getting bodies into those properties is that they’ll quickly realize that they need a lot of work. As in, major repairs, if not renovations.

Methinks that a lot of those bodies won’t be up for the task.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 11:02:01

“I dont know about you guys but I would not loan money to anyone with a scroe of <700.”

With federal guarantees on mortgages that are likely to go into default, you could say in a sense that all American taxpayers are loaning money to those with scores under 700.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 05:55:54

“It also will leave his lender, Chase Bank, with little except for, eventually, a condo that has lost value.”

I guess that loan was made before Uncle Sam began guaranteeing 97 percent of all new mortgage loans?

Comment by combotechie
2010-07-19 06:03:45

It ain’t over yet. If events are engineered correctly the condo could be offloaded to some overpaying smuck who will get his loan backed by Uncle Sam. This will indirectly but effectively mean Uncle Sam takes the mortgage from the bank’s balance sheet and sticks it onto its own.

Free tubes of KY should be included with every taxpayer’s tax return.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 06:28:58

Why doesn’t the IRS just put an extra line on U.S. federal tax forms with the description “Bailout Tax”? That way, all Americans could know exactly how much taxpayer largess their central banker Treasury secretary is diverting directly into the hands of banksters.

 
 
Comment by Natalie
2010-07-19 06:04:35

“It also will leave his lender, Chase Bank, with little except for, eventually, a condo that has lost value.” I disagree. I would characterize Chase’s education on the consenquences of crappy lending practices and the reward of originations by any means as highly valuable. I assume that the person that originated that mortgage had a great year at the time.

 
 
Comment by Brian
2010-07-19 05:57:13

I love how Frank and Dodd now appear (with this POS bill) to be titans for responsibility when the are the same two as$holes who pretty much caused this disaster by encouraging Fannie and Freddie to make all of the high risk loans and for having no forsight that it was about to explode.

Comment by arizonadude
2010-07-19 06:32:19

Bumbleing barney should be fired asap.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 06:33:16

“What’s that smell in this room? Didn’t you notice it Brick? Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?…There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity…You can smell it. It smells like death.”

– Big Daddy –
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2010-07-19 07:14:49

That’s the smell of Hope and Change.

Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 07:40:52

That’s the smell of Hope and Change ??

Elections have consequences….

The Reps lost the middle when they let the neocons high jack the party in 2004 with fear & anger…No moderate republicans pushed back..They went with the flow in fear of the neo’s….Then they try to triple down with McCain & the dim wit…

Obama was just in the right place at the right time and walked in the door…The republican party can cry and moan all they want but for me I place ALL the blame squarely in their lap…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 07:57:30

And just wait until you see Election Year 2012. The neocons will have a very hard time fielding a nationally viable ticket, and that means that Barack Obama will waltz right back into the White House.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 08:15:51

I dunno slim, my take is people will realize Palin is a whole heck of a lot smarter then the Big O, and just might win.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 08:21:01

Obama’s future fate depends on the economy Slim…Our problems right now have little to do with Obama…IMO, Its all about the two D’s….Debt & Deflation….If you try to cure one you inflame the other…We are in a very tuff spot…

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 08:46:07

my take is people will realize Palin is a whole heck of a lot smarter then the Big O, and just might win ??

Obama has forgotten more than Palin knows…

The right wingers learned their lesson in 08…Personally, I think there is a zero chance that she would get the nomination..She can’t get votes beyond her base therefore, can’t win…

Although he brings a boat load of bad laundry to the table If I had to place a bet right now on one person I would say the Rep’s will nominate Newt particularly if he moves to the middle which I think he would.

 
Comment by Eddie
2010-07-19 09:11:43

“The right wingers learned their lesson in 08″

WTF does that even mean? McCain was as “moderate” a republican as you can have. And he lost. So what is the solution according to you? Do the same thing again in 2012. Brilliant.

Reagan won twice by being a conservative.
Bush Sr. won in ‘88 by being a conservative. He lost in ‘92 by acting like a liberal.
Bush II won both times by running as a conservative.

Republicans win when they run conservative and lose when they don’t. If another McCain runs in 2012 it will be an Obama win. If a Reagan type runs, he/she will win.

“Personally, I think there is a zero chance that she would get the nomination..She can’t get votes beyond her base therefore, can’t win…”

I take it you didn’t see the poll that came out last week showing Palin and Obama tied at 46%? Google it.

 
Comment by Sean
2010-07-19 09:26:11

Palin will never get the nomination. For every one of her fans there are two who think she is a dumb pile of rocks - People who consistently vote ‘R’ who just see through her craziness. You’ll see Palin 2012 stickers on their Kias pull into the voting booth, pull the lever for Obama, then walk outside and tell the exit poller “Yeah, I voted for Palin”. We saw that in 2004 - people saw Kerry as a “goober” candidate, supported him in public then secretly voted for Bush.

Speaking of Bush, I read an article that there is a push to set up Jeb Bush for the nomination. They touted him as a moderate who can get the Hispanic vote since he is one of the few people who oppose the Arizona law.

 
Comment by REhobbyist
2010-07-19 10:04:41

If they’re smart, the Republicans will nominate Mike Pence. He’s well-spoken and informed, and doesn’t seem to have any dirty laundry. He could beat Obama. Nobody else could that I can think of.

 
Comment by ddx12000
2010-07-19 10:10:22

I never understood the ‘Obama = Brilliant’ line of thought…the guy is an incomprehensible mess when off the teleprompter, has accomplished absolutely nothing in his career as a politician or any other line of work. Sure, he gives a good speech that others wrote for him, but that just means he can read out loud. Basically, he’s a talented orator, that makes him nothing more than an actor portraying the role of a leader…and portray is all he does because in all other facets he fails.

So, tell me, what is it that this so-called ‘brilliant’ man knows more about than Palin, Hillary, or any other candidate aside from reading other people’s words out loud in a convincing manner?

 
Comment by Sean
2010-07-19 10:37:51

Again with the TelePrompTer. I’ll give you a hint - ALL Presidents use those. Obama didn’t start the trend. Geez, come up with some new material. Next thig we’ll see is people making fun of Obama for wearing suits or living in the White House.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-07-19 10:53:20

I see the Rushbots have arrived.

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-07-19 11:37:23

“If they’re smart, the Republicans will nominate Mike Pence”.

The republicant’s are their own worst enemy. They trot out the same old worn out clowns over and over. If they could find a decent candidate, a true conservative, not just some gas bag, they could win. Not much to Barry, reads well, that’s about it.The state of the economy will sink him.

All those folks who voted for him to get their “free stuff”, are not doing to well in that dept.

P.S. They can forget Palin, she does not stand a snowballs chance in hell.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 11:51:13

McCain was as “moderate” ??

Oh E.D. you are such a right wing hack…

And your appropriate word here is “WAS” as in “was” in the year 2000….

So your trying to tell us that this so called “moderate” picked a right wing nut job as a running mate ??

has accomplished absolutely nothing in his career as a politician or any other line of work ??

ddx12000 do you room with Eddie ??

Harvard Law Professor that became the first African American elected President of the United States…

No…Nothing accomplished there…

 
Comment by CrackerJim
2010-07-19 12:10:33

Harvard Law Professor NOT

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-07-19 12:28:38

“Harvard Law Professor NOT”

True, but once a myth gets going, over time it’s hard to kill, and many believe it.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 12:45:33

Obama was a lecturer in the University of Chicago’s law school. AFAIK, he never taught at Harvard.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 13:09:35

I thought he taught constitutional Law ??

And if not, I guess he will just need to be satisfied with that “minor accomplishment” of becoming President of the United States…I mean, anybody can do it right ??

 
Comment by oxide
2010-07-19 13:13:14

McCain did marry well… :roll:

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 13:37:07

McCain did marry well… ??

Yeah….Did not like the “fat lady” wife anymore that went through all those years waiting for his return….

 
Comment by potential buyer
2010-07-19 13:42:24

He was a student at Harvard and served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years - constitutional law.

Him and Palin as intellectual equals?? What planet are you on?

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-07-19 15:33:55

Him and Palin as intellectual equals?? What planet are you on?

I’m guessing its planet “Mavericky-you-betcha!”

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-07-19 16:34:10

Jesus/Palin in 2012.

 
Comment by Julius
2010-07-19 16:42:32

“McCain was as “moderate” ??”

Uh, yes he was.

There’s a reason why McCain was even considering switching parties for a time.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 16:49:22

That is HEY-seus to you…bro

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 19:49:13

There’s a reason why McCain was even considering switching parties for a time ??

That was 2000 my friend…He became a whore in 2008…

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 20:49:28
 
Comment by Wolf
2010-07-20 09:29:21

McCain=RINO. Except for Lindsay Graham, I can’t think of another Republican who’s less conservative than McCain. Of course, he’s now talking tough about the border since he’s in a close battle with J.D. Hayworth, but that’s only because it’s a popular position with the voters.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 05:59:52

“There is probably no economist who believes that this bill will end the risks of too-big-to-fail financial institutions. The six largest banks will still enjoy the enormous implicit subsidy that results from the expectation that the federal government will bail them out in the event of a crisis.”

At least when the next crisis hits (or perhaps even before the current one ends), there will be no uncertainty whether too-big-to-fail Megabanks will get bailouts in case they are teetering on the brink of collapse.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 06:18:40

July 18, 2010, 12:01 p.m. EDT
Financial follies
Commentary: Wall Street reform does nothing for Main Street
By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — It took Congress about 2,400 pages to document its plan for reforming America’s financial system, but the appropriate reaction for the nation’s consumers can be summed up in just three words: Thanks for nothing.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is a big sham, and all of the back-slapping and spin-doctoring that will hail it as a grand success as it gets signed into law is pure hogwash.

If the premise of this legislative exercise was to promote substantive change so Mom and Pop Investor — trying to build a retirement nest-egg in their 401(k) plan — or Joe and Jane Average — hoping to pay off their mortgage someday — could be more secure and confident, it’s a near-complete failure.

But if the aim was full employment for lawyers and lobbyists, then it worked like a charm.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-07-19 06:38:48

The issue is this. Does this mean Wall Street will never be in a position to dictate to the government as follows: bail us out and take responsibility for the consequences, or we will collapse and take the economy with us?

Lest we forget, the government tried to draw the line on Lehman — and ended up rolling on AIG a few days later.

We can say the government “gave” them money, but for those with good memories it was extortion pure and simple.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 10:43:33

“…bail us out and take responsibility for the consequences, or we will collapse and take the economy with us?”

That’s the essence of the too-big-to-fail financial extortion threat which the financial reform bill fails to repudiate.

 
 
Comment by Sean
2010-07-19 06:46:45

Why do people get so wrapped up about how many pages are in a bill? It’s not the amout of pages - it’s what is written on those pages. I don’t care if it’s 350,000 pages - if it gets the problem right then so be it.

Comment by combotechie
2010-07-19 07:00:49

“Why do people get wrapped up about how many pages are in a bill?”

Because so many pages usually means the bill is intended to OBSURE rather than INFORM.

Same goes for mortgage applications, as many FBs have discovered.

Comment by Spook
2010-07-19 07:11:09

It takes more words to lie than to tell the truth.

Comment by rms
2010-07-19 11:20:01

Ever once heard Nancy Pelosi directly answer a simple question?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by polly
2010-07-19 07:27:52

Actually the number of pages is generally more indicative of the number of other laws with which a bill interacts. Takes a lot more verbiage to insert the needed modifications into a dozen or more other laws than it does to create something new that doesn’t interact with anything else. Just the nature of legislation.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 07:59:17

Good point, polly.

And, here’s another point from good ole Slim: I look at this bill as Financial Reform 1.0. Meaning that there are more reforms on the way.

Recall from American history that the Gilded Age wasn’t instantly transformed into the Progressive Era. The transformation took place over a period of years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Sean
2010-07-19 08:34:25

It just seems like the media or whomever spout out the “2300 pages” to the LCD voters/viewers. I’m picturing a diner in Gulfport MS with some know-it-all old timer who can solve the worlds problems without ever leaving his county: “Can you believe this there bill is 2,300 pages! I can’t believe they write a bill with 2,300 pages. 2,300!” The minions then shake their heads in agreement.

To me, success is in the details. Brass tacks. My union contract is about 250 pages and there are plenty of vague areas where we and management disagree. If they have to add a few dozen more pages to clarify something, so be it. I’m a big boy - I can read a book without Sesame Street characters.

Comment by Eddie
2010-07-19 09:13:12

“My union contract”

Says it all.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Sean
2010-07-19 10:46:10

Yeah, it says I’m not some shlub who let’s management take advantage of me. It says I am my brothers keeper. It says I have a skill that I work and continue to work hard on and I have a sense of self value.

There is a REASON for unions. Usually management gets the union it deserves. Crap management = stronger union. Good honest management = softer union. We have a good relationship with ours because they treat us fair.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 11:30:56

There is a REASON for unions. Usually management gets the union it deserves. Crap management = stronger union. Good honest management = softer union. We have a good relationship with ours because they treat us fair.

I grew up in a household with a union member, so I’m a bit biased.

That being said, I agree with Sean. Treat your workers fairly, and they’ll return the favor. Even if they’re unionized.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-07-19 13:16:31

Unions are a touchy subject. They did a really good job getting safe working conditions and weekends, but there has to be a line somewhere where the employees actually have to give back. UAW and teachers crossed the line, IMO. And be careful, manufacturers: union going on strike usually results in company going to China.

 
Comment by Timmy Boy
2010-07-20 02:13:20

“It says I have a skill that I work and continue to work hard on and I have a sense of self value.”

If you are as “skilled” as you say… then your skills should speak for themselves… e.g. getting management respect (picture Iphone software programmer)… & you wouldn’t NEED to have a big, bureaucratic, socialistic organization negotiating your compensation for you.

Just a thought.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Captain Credit Crunch
2010-07-19 09:48:34

Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem took him his entire life, used obscure mathematics, is understood completely by only a dozen or so people in the world, and is over 100 pages long (monumental for mathematics). However, it is also right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

I’m so tired of the political back and forth on this blog. Just do what you want to do. Occasionally there will be war and revolution.

 
 
Comment by Lisa
2010-07-19 09:16:00

“Bankruptcy attorney Barbara May said her once middle-class clients used to have an average debt level of $70,000. But that’s rocketed to $100,000 in this recession, as jobless or house-poor clients used credit to hold onto their lifestyle.”

Their lifestyle? The one where they are debt slaves posing to be well off??

This is rampant where I live. I talk to people whose income is down 25% or more and they are still taking on new car leases, buying iPads, etc. Unbelievable.

No one wants to “do without.” We’re a country of posers.

Comment by combotechie
2010-07-19 09:23:13

“No one wants to ‘do without’.”

Wants are soon to become needs, IMHO.

What lifestyle changes these people refuse to do voluntairly will sooner or later be forced on them.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-07-19 09:29:53

Wants are soon to become needs, IMHO.

I can remember going to church and hearing a sermon preached on this very topic. Good sermon too.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-07-19 10:09:44

What lifestyle changes these people refuse to do voluntairly will sooner or later be forced on them.

Right after the BK. The will have no credit and will have to “make ends meet”. Oh the horror of it! No more designer purses or fancy leased SUVs. No more dining out at expensive restaurants. No more Disney vacations.

 
Comment by Timmy Boy
2010-07-20 02:16:03

Not if the gov’t declares that they are “victims” & that they have a right to own a home, have free healthcare, cable TV, Xbox & 22′ rims.

 
 
Comment by JohnF
2010-07-19 15:11:22

“Bankruptcy attorney Barbara May said her once middle-class clients used to have an average debt level of $70,000. But that’s rocketed to $100,000 in this recession, as jobless or house-poor clients used credit to hold onto their lifestyle.”

That $100,000 includes mortgage and auto debt right?……..please tell me it does……..

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-07-19 15:34:27

Maybe auto debt…no way it includes mortgage debt by the time they’ve become her clients. Sorry.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-07-19 15:41:57

That $100,000 includes mortgage and auto debt right?……..please tell me it does……..

A BK doesn’t absolve you of secured debts. If you don’t make the car payment it will be repo’d. The only think BK proyects you for is your upside down.

I don’t think people are filing BK because they have 10K in CC debt.

 
Comment by Lisa
2010-07-19 15:43:55

“Bankruptcy attorney Barbara May said her once middle-class clients used to have an average debt level of $70,000.”

$70,000 worth of debt for “middle class” folks? Wow. Just wow. That level of debt certainly isn’t my idea of middle class, rather a soon-to-be pauper. How does any “middle class” person expect to pay that level of debt off??

Comment by In Colorado
2010-07-20 05:23:28

$70,000 worth of debt for “middle class” folks? Wow. Just wow. That level of debt certainly isn’t my idea of middle class, rather a soon-to-be pauper. How does any “middle class” person expect to pay that level of debt off??

They don’t. That’s why they’re at the BK attorney’s office.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by swguy
2010-07-19 09:45:25

There is enough blame to go around the world several times. The solution is drastic to be sure, but the general population has got to take it to the voter booths and throw a whole lot of people out of office.
The remaining players involved in this disaster have to be dealt with one by one it will take years true, but the masses will get their point across very loud and clear.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 10:41:36

“It creates a council of federal regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to coordinate the detection of risks to the financial system, and it provides new powers to constrain and even dismantle troubled companies.”

Perhaps command-and-control economic dictatorship will work out better for the U.S. than it did for the former Soviet Union.

 
Comment by Doug in Boone, NC
2010-07-19 13:48:13

“And just wait until you see Election Year 2012. The neocons will have a very hard time fielding a nationally viable ticket, and that means that Barack Obama will waltz right back into the White House.”

Of course, in 2006 most people believed that Obama (if you even knew who he was) didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

 
Comment by Insurance Guy
2010-07-19 13:52:29

Another way to look at Fannie and Freddie is that they are a monopoly. They are just like a public utility. They can raise rates to whatever they need to and charge fees and being to recover their losses. Their cash flow is probably pretty good (no competitors) and they won’t recognize the losses on the mortgages they wrote in 2005, 2006 and 2007 for many years. The loans they are writing now are likely to be OK.

I think there is a bailout for Fannie and Freddie already implemented and it is called monopoly. I am not even sure if it is a bad idea.

As far as the new financial bill, it can’t be worse than the structure that collapsed in 2008. Lots of good news today.

Comment by Hard Rain
2010-07-19 15:40:37

The loans they are writing now are likely to be OK

Doubtful…..

 
 
Comment by JohnF
2010-07-19 15:19:36

“‘The financial industry is central to our nation’s ability to grow, to prosper, to compete and to innovate. This reform will foster that innovation, not hamper it,’ Mr. Obama said Thursday. ‘Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear.’

How is Wall Street and the mortgage/real estate industry going to survive then?

Comment by JackRussell
2010-07-19 17:05:19

They are going to have to make money the old-fashioned way. They are going to have to *earn* it.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-07-19 16:28:47

I ate some bad guacamole for lunch. I may be creating a green job shortly.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-07-19 16:51:21

From the valley of the Jolly Green Giant Ho Ho Hohhhhhhhhhh

 
Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 19:53:56

Thats disgusting Sammy…Go to bead… :)

Comment by scdave
2010-07-19 19:55:30

Bead = Bed…. To many Coors…

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb-thrower
2010-07-19 20:19:49

“Years of super-sized lifestyles on borrowed money, a depressed housing market, persistent high unemployment and stock market losses are fueling the increases. People in industries once considered secure and well-paying — real estate agents, financial industry workers, tool-and-die makers, plumbers and chiropractors — are filling attorneys’ waiting rooms after being out of work or making do with reduced incomes for too long.”

There you have it — the California Minnesota lifestyle in a nutshell!

 
2010-07-24 20:49:04

Although housing sales and starts have cooled to more typical levels, the housing market remains strong and sound. Without the expansion of homeownership and the strength of our housing market, our nation would not have the economic growth we are experiencing today.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post