Anyone else see the irony in what is happening with the bailout?
According to Democrat leaders, this debacle is all a result of "failed Bush economic policies" and Wall St. greed.
Last time I checked, this is another "Bush economic policy." The Secretary of The Treasury serves at the pleasure of the President. Hank Paulson, our SOT, amassed a half-billion dollar fortune as a Wall St. executive. Many of his former colleagues are counting on Paulson to rescue their companies from certain disaster.
If Bush's economic policies really are to blame for this fiasco, why would we be in such a rush to trust his administation to have the right solution?
Because they are all we have until the new administration comes into office.
You Republicans have given us another very compelling reason why you deserve to fail.
You put politics ahead of country. You want some irony? You've given it to us -- big time.
You people are totally irresponsible.
We delivered our votes. You can't cut the mustard.
Even lifelong Republicans are telling me it is time for a change and they mean it's time to elect Obama.
Your October Surprise happened in late September and it is your own doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Anyone else see the irony in what is happening with the bailout?
According to Democrat leaders, this debacle is all a result of "failed Bush economic policies" and Wall St. greed.
Last time I checked, this is another "Bush economic policy." The Secretary of The Treasury serves at the pleasure of the President. Hank Paulson, our SOT, amassed a half-billion dollar fortune as a Wall St. executive. Many of his former colleagues are counting on Paulson to rescue their companies from certain disaster.
If Bush's economic policies really are to blame for this fiasco, why would we be in such a rush to trust his administation to have the right solution?
I agree that we should question this bailout. I'm not sure I agree that their motives are in question though. They are simply looking at the problem from their perspective and thus devising a plan that will utilize that perspective. To put it in local terms, it was the same process that guaranteed the failure of The Channels.
Irony? I don't think so. The expectation of leadership forces the executive branch to mobilize and propose a plan for fixing this mess. Its matters not that Bush is the particular leader at this time, or that his administration may have fomented it. Its simply his responsibility to lead. If Congress had proposed this bailout plan it would have been an affront and received as such. Blame may be helpful for the candidates but not for plan.
It was interesting to see David Sirota make the point that it was the far right and the far left combined to kill this plan and that it should have been expected. I have long made the argument that those two groups have more in common with each other than you would imagine. This failure gives a chance to take a breath, watch financial privateers squirm, and come up with a better plan.
What a boost for America's ego to see the rest of the world quiver at the signs of illness here.
There's good news in all this yet. Even a little bit of time will allow the worst offenders to collapse.
You know, the one's which should.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You put politics ahead of country. You want some irony? You've given it to us -- big time.
Really? As I recall, Obama wasn't the right choice for President. But due to your loyalty to the Democrat party, now he is.
Does your political house have any mirrors in it, HT?
From your boasts, sounds as if you profitted nicely from this real estate orgy. Ever wonder if the person who bought your former digs in the bay area defaulted on their loan obligations and is praying for taxpayers to step in and keep them from losing their home they bought at an over-inflated price?
Unless you ploughed that profit back into the stock market and sold it when it bottomed out, I don't think I'd be biznitching too loud right now. But that's just me....
If the credit markets contract further there is a strong possibility we can't drag ourselves back from the brink.
You Republicans gave us the first depression.
And you couldn't do what you had decided was right for the country because Pelosi made a partisan speech that stirred bad feelings in you. Even the most uneducated among us can see that for what it is.
Country First. Ha ha ha. Covering your a** first.
You are irresponsible. Not fit for office.
Yes, I saw the writing on the wall and I got out. So did a lot of other people.
I plowed my profits into lil ole Tulsa. Silly me. And plenty of locals got paid.
I see more writing on the wall. We are in deep sh** and there aren't any states left to move to where I can be safe.
We are in this together. Unfortunately. Because I sure would like to throw you guys overboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
If the credit markets contract further there is a strong possibility we can't drag ourselves back from the brink.
You Republicans gave us the first depression.
And you couldn't do what you had decided was right for the country because Pelosi made a partisan speech that stirred bad feelings in you. Even the most uneducated among us can see that for what it is.
Country First. Ha ha ha. Covering your a** first.
You are irresponsible. Not fit for office.
BRAVO!
So surely today's Republican party is just the same as it was 70 years ago. What? Trying to establish a legacy of incompetence? Good job establishing your own legacy of fatuous thinking.
Very nearly every politician in this country is an expert in one thing - getting (re)elected. Their motivations are selfish and you are hilariously naive if you think the Democratic politicians will come to the rescue, putting the nation first. I'd refer you to the last ten years of self-serving, uninformed legislation from BOTH parties that directly relates to the current shenanigans, but I doubt it'd make any difference to you in your addled state.
Give me a break. Blind hatred and intolerance from the a member of the party that claims to stand for just the opposite.
You've had a break and it's over.
Yes, I've seen newsreels and your party was making the same arguments 78 years ago. There's only so many ways to package your greed.
Many Democrats took a hit when they gave Clinton the only balanced budgets in my lifetime and were voted out of office.
We can deliver. You can't.
We left the nation a surplus. You are leaving us a major financial disaster. Again.
Did you hear the brokers on the floor of stock exchange yesterday when the heard the news of your failure? They shouted "Idiots."
Traditionally, the Republicans have embraced fiscal responsibility, yet the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson initially proposed a bailout free of any constraints. It's diametrically opposed to their usual fiscal policies.
For that reason, it seems this situation has more to do with cashing out after 8 years of lax regulation, knowing that there's a big change just over the horizon.
Fiscally responsible Republicans?
That hasn't happened in DECADES.
Since Eisenhower, actually...
http://bunkinthewest.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/republican-democrats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/
In 2000, when Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today, after seven years of George W. Bush, it is $9.6 trillion. Bush has almost doubled our national debt in eight short years.
------------------------------------------------
Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let's summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
Looking further at federal spending, we find that between 1978 and 2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9% while Republicans increased federal spending by 12.1%. Further, in the same period, Democrats increased the national debt by 4.2% whereas the Republicans increased it by 36.4%. It is true that the Republicans held 4 terms during this time while Democrats only held 3. However, looking at each president since 1978, we see that Reagan increased the national debt by a whopping 89.2% during his two terms. You read that right, Reagan nearly doubled the national debt in 8 years.
Now, you might say, "Well, but productivity increased more during that spending." Using GDP as a measure of productivity (which is standard procedure), you'd be dead wrong. During the years 1978 – 2005, the Democrats increased the GDP by 12.6% while the Republicans only increased it by 10.7%. The president responsible for the largest increase in GDP, or the productivity of our country, during this time was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who increased the GDP by 28.4% during his eight years in office.
Some people argue that GDP is an imperfect measure of productivity. So let's look at job creation. Of all the presidents since 1933, Bill Clinton has created by far the most jobs. During his tenure, he created 22.7 million jobs, a 4.9% increase. The worst president in terms of job creation is George W. Bush. During his first term, he created only 100,000 jobs, a 0.002% increase. On average, between 1933 and the present day, Republican have increased jobs by 0.21% while Democrats have increased jobs by 3.24%.
(A note about Reagan: All of the economic growth experienced during Reagan's presidency was subsidized by the federal debt. Our federal debt almost doubled during his presidency. Talk about a big spender! He mortgaged our future, and it is abundantly clear by the widening gap between rich and poor that the policies he enacted, Reaganomics, if you will, are not sustainable.)
We can also get an idea of how "big" government is by looking at the national debt as a percentage of GDP (or, to put it another way, how much the government is spending relative to everyone else). Republicans advocate for small government. They portray the Democrats as people who want big government. Looking at the facts, we see that government spending is biggest when a Republican president is in office. Republicans historically have bigger governments than Democrats. Five out of the eight presidential terms held by Republicans since 1945 have seen an increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, an increase in the size of the government. Zero of the seven presidential terms held by Democrats since that time have seen an increase in the size of the government. In fact, every single Democratic president since 1945 has reduced the size of the government by reducing the amount of national debt as a percentage of GDP.
Irony, Anyone?
Kucinich: Bailout 'Driven by Fear Not Fact'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGzLfmV4Ks
Kucinich on Why Bailout is being Rushed & Why It Shouldn't Be 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6k369DbA4&feature=related
Kucinich on the bailout-2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWn5UQtvItU&feature=related
As a Democrat, I can't begin to explain how embarrassing it's been to watch our "leadership" push this horses*#t on the public. I am glad the far right and far left shut it down.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Irony, Anyone?
Kucinich: Bailout 'Driven by Fear Not Fact'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGzLfmV4Ks
Kucinich on Why Bailout is being Rushed & Why It Shouldn't Be 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6k369DbA4&feature=related
Kucinich on the bailout-2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWn5UQtvItU&feature=related
Kucinich, as a rarity, sounds completely rational on this issue. Where was
this Dennis in the POTUS campaign? Yeah, I agreed with Kucinich. You might want to date stamp it, print it, and save a few copies on disk, I doubt it happens again.
What Irony is there in Kucinich's statements? Not poking you personally, just curious what irony you saw in it.
The point of irony referenced in the original post was the haste with which Democrat leaders were wanting to follow the direction of President Bush and Sect'y Paulson, who they fault for failed economic policy.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You've had a break and it's over.
Yes, I've seen newsreels and your party was making the same arguments 78 years ago. There's only so many ways to package your greed.
Many Democrats took a hit when they gave Clinton the only balanced budgets in my lifetime and were voted out of office.
We can deliver. You can't.
We left the nation a surplus. You are leaving us a major financial disaster. Again.
Did you hear the brokers on the floor of stock exchange yesterday when the heard the news of your failure? They shouted "Idiots."
Your credibility is completely shot, HT.
You are nothing more than a
petty looter in this debacle. You got your share, and now you are trying to blame others for the overall fall-out when you were part of the problem at street level.
You remind me of a "man-on-the-street" interview that took place in Long Beach in 1992. The guy had a shopping cart full of looted goods and his friend was carrying a new TV still in the box. Buildings were burning in the background and they were blaming Terry White for their neighborhood being totally ****ed.
Yeah, Rodney King's prosecutor wrecked their neighborhood. Their own greed and wanton disregard for losses to anyone else down the road never crossed their mind.
Go peddle your partisan claptrap somewhere else. There are Democrats and Republicans with this puke all over their hands. You still don't see the pandora's box that was opened when the government started telling lenders to make loans to people previously thought to be poor risks. That got bottom rung real estate moving which got those sellers upwardly mobile, which begat... get the point?
There's more-and-more damning evidence emerging that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ran interference in Congress for the mortgage giants before they were in the majority.
We will see the damning evidence repurcussions come Novembers vote!
Conan, you keep insisting that the govt. told these bankers they HAD to make loans to unqualified buyers. Its just not true. Many mortgage lenders did not participate in the lunacy and are doing just fine. My brother and sister-in-law work for a couple of those lenders in Minneapolis. Their jobs are secure (for now) because their companies continued their standards and refused to participate in the greed fest. They also held their own loans rather than greedily pushing them off for immediate gain. Their loans are well performing and profitable. Not all of the lenders were CountryWide status.
Its also a hell of a lot more than loosened lending practices. Securitizing of mortgage packages that basically changed assets into liabilities, failure to diversify the economy and a failure to discourage exporting of our jobs overseas as Nep has pointed out, ALL were more important than loosening of home mortgage requirements. Actually, 2/3 of the home loans in this mess would easily have qualified for lower rates. That means they were not only overpaying for their loans, but the loans were not that risky.
The high foreclosure rate triggered the crisis, but unlike McCain, non partisans understand that the foreclosures exposed that there is an underlying WEAKNESS in our economy. People losing jobs, suffering uninsured catastrophic illnesses, and death of principal wage earners are the main causes of foreclosures.
Conan, you sound like a Communist.
Now, I've got to go and write a check to the French Drain man and another check to the Tree Man. I'm still pumping up Tulsa's economy with my solid profits. And there's more to come.
I don't know if I ever told you about the second property I sold at the peak of the market.
Can't stand to see a hometown guy do good? You should have gone looking for foreclosures in the nation's most expensive housing market at the bottom of the market and then sold them at the top of the market -- like I did. I took a big risk and it paid off.
Word to the wise. Cash is king in a depression.
Now, Conan, what are you going to tell your grandkids? "Kiddies, let me tell you about how I never went anywhere, never challenged myself, never took a risk, never changed."
Be careful about attacking Conan.
Did you ever see him in those movies?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Now, Conan, what are you going to tell your grandkids? "Kiddies, let me tell you about how I never went anywhere, never challenged myself, never took a risk, never changed."
Is that the best you got? I've got a lot more going for me in life and business than flipping a couple of pieces of real estate.
For someone to do so well then crap on the system, with a bunch of sophomoric partisan coments, which brought them personal wealth boggles my mind. That's why liberalism gets such a bad rap from thinking people. It's the hypocrites like you who preach liberal values that gives it a bogus ring. When someone like Ruf preaches it, it's got a sense of honesty about it.
If the Federal Government would give me $700,000,000,000.00 I promise I would stimulate the economy.
Who said that's all I've done.
I believe that my economic well being is directly tied to that of my community and I've always tried to vote with that in mind.
That's why I'm a Democrat and a liberal.
You know, Roosevelt (the Big Democrat) saved Capitalism.
So yes, Conan, our lives are fraught with irony and you are adding to the irony by the minute.
I say buy low, sell high. Radical huh?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Conan, you keep insisting that the govt. told these bankers they HAD to make loans to unqualified buyers. Its just not true. Many mortgage lenders did not participate in the lunacy and are doing just fine. My brother and sister-in-law work for a couple of those lenders in Minneapolis. Their jobs are secure (for now) because their companies continued their standards and refused to participate in the greed fest. They also held their own loans rather than greedily pushing them off for immediate gain. Their loans are well performing and profitable. Not all of the lenders were CountryWide status.
Its also a hell of a lot more than loosened lending practices. Securitizing of mortgage packages that basically changed assets into liabilities, failure to diversify the economy and a failure to discourage exporting of our jobs overseas as Nep has pointed out, ALL were more important than loosening of home mortgage requirements. Actually, 2/3 of the home loans in this mess would easily have qualified for lower rates. That means they were not only overpaying for their loans, but the loans were not that risky.
The high foreclosure rate triggered the crisis, but unlike McCain, non partisans understand that the foreclosures exposed that there is an underlying WEAKNESS in our economy. People losing jobs, suffering uninsured catastrophic illnesses, and death of principal wage earners are the main causes of foreclosures.
Non partisans don't start a sentence by saying:
"but unlike McCain..." [}:)]
Wrong, the government DID strong-arm lenders in local markets into the risky loan business, it's not that friggin' hard, WB:
"The Fed, for instance, warned banks that failure to comply with government guidelines regarding the delivery of "equal credit" could subject them to "civil liability for actual or punitive damages in individual or class actions, with liability for punitive damages being as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor's net worth in class actions."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_590330.html
You are correct that not every mortgage company jumped into the pool. The CRA was aimed at local-level lenders, not companies like Countrywide, though national lenders were buying bundled assets from local level lenders. Not once have I ever denied the ****ed up existence of creating a hedged security system.
Let's examine the economy a little closer:
Countrywide claims that income curtailment is the leading cause of mortgage defaults. The percent they attribute it to doesn't fit the facts. Up until a few months ago, unemployment has been under 5%. It's still just barely over 6%. These defaulted home loans did not just hit the market, and no, not all troubled defaults are attributed to unqualified borrowers.
"So what's driving foreclosures? Here is Countrywide's breakdown -- based on information from its servicing portfolio -- when "cause of foreclosure" is known (80.3%), the breakdown is as follows:
--Curtailment of income: 58.3%
--Illness/Medical: 13.2%
--Divorce: 8.4%
--Investment Prop./Unable to sell: 6.1%
--Low regard for property ownership: 5.5%
--Death: 3.6%
--Payment adjustment: 1.4%
--Other: 3.5%"
"There is one plausible explanation: borrowers were so aggressive -- and so hopeful -- that they essentially planned for economic perfection, and the slightest negative deviation from that plan -- say, an unexpected drop in overtime earnings for hourly workers -- is sending them into default and foreclosure.
But here is an equally plausible explanation: That the "research" is really spin -- Countrywide is eager to answer critics and argue that its own underwriting was not a factor in the foreclosure spike -- that it was entirely unforseen and driven by economic events out of the company's control."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2007/09/what-causes-for.html
Neptune has some validity in his points. You either need fresh cash infusion into an economy or borrowed funds to make it grow. If you don't manufacture or offer products the rest of the world wants on your turf, it's hard to attract fresh cash infusion. A lot of the expansion we've seen since recovering from the recession of 1992 has been on borrowed funds. Remember the IPO offerings of the late '90's and all the white collar jobs created on fledgling companies who'd never before turned a profit? How'd that work out? Not all that great if you recall the fall-out from that.
BLS stats show there were 17mm more jobs in the U.S. in 2007 than there were in 1997. There is no underlying crisis other than being over-mortgaged on over-valued real estate. All other fundamentals are strong up to now. However, fear is starting to creep into the economy which is curtailing investment in healthy industries, including new job creation, as of now.
Unemployment has hovered between 4 and 6% under Bush, pretty much the same as it was under Clinton and lower than it was during any point in the Reagan years with the exception of 1988. Median family income has been pretty much stagnant for decades, while per capita has increased.
There was a significant bump in income in 1999, then a drop the following year. The only logic I can seem to find is the massive borrowing going on with telecom, internet, and bio-tech start-ups and all the speculative IPO's. A lot of freshly-minted MBA's were being paid $100K per year with money borrowed from pension funds, venture capitalists, and individual investment accounts.
Many of the tech jobs were in areas where they now have high mortgage default rates. Why? Real estate got way over-valued in a hurry with people jockeying for a limited number of homes close in to work. Others wanted a home they thought befitting of their newly-found income status. There's also more consumer goods wrapped up in the American dream than there were 20 years ago. Everyone has to upgrade their home computer every couple of years. Consumer electronics keep evolving. It takes cash or credit to have all those toys.
Individuals, corporations, and our government have borrowed their way to prosperity ever since the last recession. It cannot sustain itself forever, especially for those who can't seem to exercize fiscal restraint or use common sense in borrowing or lending practices.
Mortgage defaults in high tech areas? You don't know what you are talking about.
Get on realtor.com and look at properties in the Bay Area -- "The" High Tech area.
The condo in SF that went for $800,000 now is going for $720,000. Same is true for Oakland and San Jose. There is so much pent up demand in these areas that their market has been largely maintained and of course Silicon Valley is one of our major economic engines. San Jose has the highest household income in the U.S.
It's the distant outlying, less desireable areas where you have neighborhoods sitting empty. Those homes were sold to folks with modest incomes who qualified simply because of lax subprime requirements. Brokers pushed people into subprime loans telling them that real estate always goes up and they could refinance before their initial low rates reset to higher rates.
By the way, Tulsa has a very high rate of subprime loans. Many Tulsans who could qualify for standard loans get pushed into subprimes.
I had pretty much reconciled myself to high home prices for the rest of my life, but if you Republicans push us into a depression again, you will see many bargains emerge.
There were fortunes made in the depression by folks who had cash to take advantage of the buying opportunities.
A recession is bargain hunting time for rich folks. A depression is that multiplied by 20.
You don't consider over 8200 defaults in San Jose to be a problem???? How about 5400 in default in the Oakland area???
You are aware also that the front range of Colorado is considered a high tech haven as well?
Who is talking out of their arse?
Realty Trac (//%22http://www.realtytrac.com/MapSearch/MapSearch/MapSearch.aspx?txtCity=san%20jose&txtCity=CA#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%22)
I expanded my search to include Ghetto areas in Oakland and San Jose and you are right -- it's softer than I thought.
But you aren't talking high tech workers. You are talking low income workers from other industries.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I expanded my search to include Ghetto areas in Oakland and San Jose and you are right -- it's softer than I thought.
But you aren't talking high tech workers. You are talking low income workers from other industries.
High demand and higher incomes in high tech meccas drove the market and over-valuation of real estate when real estate markets started heating up again in '97 '98 or so. In real estate, a rising tide lifts all ships and a shoal sinks 'em all. Take a look at where high tech jobs were going in the late '90's and look at what real estate did at the time and continued to do in those areas.
Did you luck out, or do you really have zero concept of how regional home valuation works?
Honey, I was there when realtors packed buses full of foreign high tech workers with huge amounts of cash and drove them around the Bay Area looking for houses. That was the beginning of the bubble.
What you don't understand is that everyone, even Tulsa is still eating the profits that were made.
Why do you think housing values have seen signficant increases in Tulsa? When I bought my home here I set a record for price by square foot in our neighborhood. That record has since been eclipsed.
Give money to a billionnaire and it buys a $50M painting. Give money to the middle class and it ripples and bounces around the economy creating jobs.
Luck? I am a snake, the Chinese say that snakes and dragons are the luckiest signs. I never discount the value of luck and I have always been very lucky.
But real estate has been a very small part of my life. I'm a minor celebrity in the art world. I was what they call a golden boy.
Don't let that get to you. You're are still young and you have time to turn your life around. I've always been drawn to beautiful losers.
lol @ "Honey."
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Honey, I was there when realtors packed buses full of foreign high tech workers with huge amounts of cash and drove them around the Bay Area looking for houses. That was the beginning of the bubble.
What you don't understand is that everyone, even Tulsa is still eating the profits that were made.
Why do you think housing values have seen signficant increases in Tulsa? When I bought my home here I set a record for price by square foot in our neighborhood. That record has since been eclipsed.
Give money to a billionnaire and it buys a $50M painting. Give money to the middle class and it ripples and bounces around the economy creating jobs.
Luck? I am a snake, the Chinese say that snakes and dragons are the luckiest signs. I never discount the value of luck and I have always been very lucky.
But real estate has been a very small part of my life. I'm a minor celebrity in the art world. I was what they call a golden boy.
Don't let that get to you. You're are still young and you have time to turn your life around. I've always been drawn to beautiful losers.
Do billionaires become billionaires by buying 50 million dollar paintings? Didn't know it worked that way. Always wondered how they spent their time.
I don't think I know any billionaires, but I know a bunch of millionaires. Most of them employ hundreds of people in their various businesses.
I suppose Billionaires are different. [;)]
Gosh Gaspar, if only you had landed a little further left in the political spectrum, I could get excited about you.
I imagine there are as many ways to become a billionnaire as there are billionnaires. One billionnaire family I knew of inherited from a gay uncle.
But I guess I'm still a guilt ridden protestant at heart. I think $50M paintings are sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Honey, I was there when realtors packed buses full of foreign high tech workers with huge amounts of cash and drove them around the Bay Area looking for houses. That was the beginning of the bubble.
What you don't understand is that everyone, even Tulsa is still eating the profits that were made.
Why do you think housing values have seen signficant increases in Tulsa? When I bought my home here I set a record for price by square foot in our neighborhood. That record has since been eclipsed.
Give money to a billionnaire and it buys a $50M painting. Give money to the middle class and it ripples and bounces around the economy creating jobs.
Luck? I am a snake, the Chinese say that snakes and dragons are the luckiest signs. I never discount the value of luck and I have always been very lucky.
But real estate has been a very small part of my life. I'm a minor celebrity in the art world. I was what they call a golden boy.
Don't let that get to you. You're are still young and you have time to turn your life around. I've always been drawn to beautiful losers.
If I had a dollar for every minor celebrity from the art world I've met, I'd be buying up $50mm paintings. I've Googled you and it's as if you don't exist. Your self-proclaimed celebrity status sounds a bit narcissistic to me. I generally don't make it a habit to label people I've not met winners or losers, myself.
I don't know why you are proud you set a record for price per sq. ft. on Reservoir Hill, paying more for real estate than anyone else in my neighborhood doesn't make much sense and it's nothing I'd brag about.
You do sound more and more like a typical out-of-touch limousine liberal. You think donating to Democrat campaigns is the same as donating to charity. You've benefitted from GOP-backed tax cuts on cap gains, and have likely never earned enough payroll income to put you into one of the punitive tax brackets, nor been a creator in the economy so that you might actually understand the foibles of liberalism. You're just a worker bee.
Sweetie, Give it a rest.
You don't know my name. What did you Google?
My realtor thinks I could make $175,000 profit on my home on Reservoir Hill. But that's basically just getting my money back. I've only been there a few years.
Clinton pushed through the $250,000 capital gains exclusion on personal residences. Truly the greatest wealth creation tool for the middle class in my lifetime.
I did well in the art world and then retired to worker bee status at Bay Area law firms and made out like a bandit. I love the legal business. I'm loving the legal business in Tulsa too.
And I am a proud late model Ford liberal.
Hang on Conan, your hide tanning isn't today. I'm still saving up. Now you have a good night and I'll chat with you later.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Sweetie, Give it a rest.
You don't know my name. What did you Google?
My realtor thinks I could make $175,000 profit on my home on Reservoir Hill. But that's basically just getting my money back. I've only been there a few years.
Clinton pushed through the $250,000 capital gains exclusion on personal residences. Truly the greatest wealth creation tool for the middle class in my lifetime.
I did well in the art world and then retired to worker bee status at Bay Area law firms and made out like a bandit. I love the legal business. I'm loving the legal business in Tulsa too.
And I am a proud late model Ford liberal.
Hang on Conan, your hide tanning isn't today. I'm still saving up. Now you have a good night and I'll chat with you later.
Mission accomplished, you've been exposed for the fraud of a liberal that you are. Or do they call you guys "cafeteria libs" sort of like cafeteria Catholics take the parts that fit your lifestyle and 86 the rest?
Let's just say your boasts have inadvertently un-masked you. You are chatting amongst a lot of very clever and well-connected people.
Conan, I'm confused as to what your mission is with Ht? And just exactly what and how you exposed him?
He's perfectly able to defend himself, but I can't stand by and watch unfounded personal criticism without comment. Having been in contact with Ht online and in person, since before he moved here and since, I assure you he is genuine, intelligent, artful, and quite interesting. He is a pragmatic liberal who loves Tulsa and has invested in it.
Like you, he values his privacy.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Conan, I'm confused as to what your mission is with Ht? And just exactly what and how you exposed him?
He's perfectly able to defend himself, but I can't stand by and watch unfounded personal criticism without comment. Having been in contact with Ht online and in person, since before he moved here and since, I assure you he is genuine, intelligent, artful, and quite interesting. He is a pragmatic liberal who loves Tulsa and has invested in it.
Like you, he values his privacy.
A) I've not divulged his identity to anyone.
B) It doesn't concern you.
C) Hometown is a bull**** artist and that's about it. I'm sick and tired of hearing his rantings about how Republicanism has ruined the country while he's been a direct beneficiary of the very fiscal policies which have enrichened him.
That's all fine and good if someone has made out well as a result of the inflated housing market or any inflated investment market, that is the whole idea. But, as one of the winners in the market, don't sit around and rail publicly about how the system has ripped off so many people. Especially when you are holding a bag of what he would consider Republican ill-gotten gains.
Sorry double-standard types just really, really get under my skin it's one of my OCD issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Conan, I'm confused as to what your mission is with Ht? And just exactly what and how you exposed him?
He's perfectly able to defend himself, but I can't stand by and watch unfounded personal criticism without comment. Having been in contact with Ht online and in person, since before he moved here and since, I assure you he is genuine, intelligent, artful, and quite interesting. He is a pragmatic liberal who loves Tulsa and has invested in it.
Like you, he values his privacy.
A) I've not divulged his identity to anyone.
B) It doesn't concern you.
C) Hometown is a bull**** artist and that's about it. I'm sick and tired of hearing his rantings about how Republicanism has ruined the country while he's been a direct beneficiary of the very fiscal policies which have enrichened him.
That's all fine and good if someone has made out well as a result of the inflated housing market or any inflated investment market, that is the whole idea. But, as one of the winners in the market, don't sit around and rail publicly about how the system has ripped off so many people. Especially when you are holding a bag of what he would consider Republican ill-gotten gains.
Sorry double-standard types just really, really get under my skin it's one of my OCD issues.
A. Its unlikely you know his identity.
B. You posted on a public forum about a man I consider a friend. That made it my concern. Someone goes off on you, I'll do the same.
C. Turn abouts fair play. You have always grossly exagerrated the contributions of Republicans and how they are responsible for fiscal and social gains yet Dems and Libs are the root of tax and spend, corruption, social irresponsibility and naivete. Frankly, that comes from living in Tulsa too long. I got news for ya' bub, Liberal Democrats all over the country know how to achieve wealth, how to structure economies to produce and how to balance budgets. Its not a Republican thing. Its a business thing.
He gets under your skin just like a lot of historical, political revisionists around here who pose as independents or Libertarians yet never vote outside of the republican party get under mine. I deal with it. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
B. You posted on a public forum about a man I consider a friend. That made it my concern. Someone goes off on you, I'll do the same.
He gets under your skin just like a lot of historical, political revisionists around here who pose as independents or Libertarians yet never vote outside of the republican party get under mine. I deal with it. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.
I didn't see you go off when he suggested I'm a loser. Did you happen to gloss over that? Do you think I just randomly went off? Not my style.
Who's revisionist, Waterboy? Someone who admits to their own party's contributions to the current financial debacle, or someone else denying that government-mandated low-income homeownership opened a pandora's box of unintended consequences to housing markets and the economy. Faced with documented facts, people like you and HT are still in denial of any Democrat involvement.
There's a boat-load of election year myopia floating around.
You obviously aren't talking about me if you are referring to Repubs posing as independents or libertarians, considering half the candidates I voted for in the last mid-term election were Democrats, I'm working on a Dem campaign this year and know of at least three or four Dems I will be voting for this year.
This has gone way, way OT. The original point was that there's some serious irony in Democrats getting behind a bailout proposed by the administration who is behind all the failed fiscal policy which supposedly led to this debacle.
Dems haven't offered anything constructive, only blame, seems to be a common mentality, even with posters here. The impotent speaker of the house went off-script to take another election year pot-shot at Republicans. The house vote failed and it was still all the GOP's fault for not passing. Nevermind that 40% of the Democrat caucus didn't vote for it. All they needed were 12 more votes. The Dems didn't manage to deliver that and they are in the majority.
If you wish to continue discussion along those lines, I'm game, otherwise consider the topic dead.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
B. You posted on a public forum about a man I consider a friend. That made it my concern. Someone goes off on you, I'll do the same.
He gets under your skin just like a lot of historical, political revisionists around here who pose as independents or Libertarians yet never vote outside of the republican party get under mine. I deal with it. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.
I didn't see you go off when he suggested I'm a loser. Did you happen to gloss over that? Do you think I just randomly went off? Not my style.
Who's revisionist, Waterboy? Someone who admits to their own party's contributions to the current financial debacle, or someone else denying that government-mandated low-income homeownership opened a pandora's box of unintended consequences to housing markets and the economy. Faced with documented facts, people like you and HT are still in denial of any Democrat involvement.
There's a boat-load of election year myopia floating around.
You obviously aren't talking about me if you are referring to Repubs posing as independents or libertarians, considering half the candidates I voted for in the last mid-term election were Democrats, I'm working on a Dem campaign this year and know of at least three or four Dems I will be voting for this year.
This has gone way, way OT. The original point was that there's some serious irony in Democrats getting behind a bailout proposed by the administration who is behind all the failed fiscal policy which supposedly led to this debacle.
Dems haven't offered anything constructive, only blame, seems to be a common mentality, even with posters here. The impotent speaker of the house went off-script to take another election year pot-shot at Republicans. The house vote failed and it was still all the GOP's fault for not passing. Nevermind that 40% of the Democrat caucus didn't vote for it. All they needed were 12 more votes. The Dems didn't manage to deliver that and they are in the majority.
If you wish to continue discussion along those lines, I'm game, otherwise consider the topic dead.
Who put you in charge?
Your world view is narrow and partisan Conan. Knowing you, that is tough to hear. This will be even worse, you are FB/Wrinkle without the overt racism. And you've been after HT for some time. He represents to you symbols of liberalism that you despise. They are popular myths and since I know him, I can assure you they don't apply.
Look, you are sitting in the nexus of conservativism, fundamentalism and Libertarianism. This state gives McCain a 30% edge over Obama. Even Arizona, his home state, gives him only plus 8%!! A Democrat here is a moderate Republican in California. Its not surprising then that your group doesn't take to criticism very well and endeavors to spin history and politics with a religious fervor. Its as though aliens have invaded. You all feel...mandated, obligated to clean up any inconsistencies or incongruencies with your vision.
I enjoy a conservative viewpoint that is unapologetic and based in fact. George Will, Pat Buchanan, even Bates locally, but there isn't a thing in your post above that fits into my view of the truth. We are viewing the world through different prisms. But you and FB, Wrinkle, IP, Gas et. al. think your prism is superior. I have to deal with being told that Conservatives are Progressive? That Inhofe is well respected outside of OK? Wow. Well, fine with me. Just don't expect me to line up and debate each fine point based on images that I'm not seeing.
Lately, I have started to use the same tactics used on me the last year or so; ignoring well thought out logically presented posts, demeaning links, making glib hit and run posts, relaying partisan talking points, and name calling. Its not much fun and isn't received too well. Can't keep that up. However, it gave me some insight and that was worthwhile.
Challenge your paradigms Conan. Otherwise you're doomed to FB status.
Who put me in charge? I started the topic. If you want to start a topic about my narrow-minded, Republican, Rovian, Inohofe-supporting superior mind-set, go for it.
When you run out of cogent points or are presented with facts contrary to your deeply-held beliefs, you obfuscate and call everyone else partisan or revisionist because they don't agree with your opinion or world-view. I'm not the one with an absolute view of the world and I seldom make an assertion I'm not prepared to back up with documented fact.
At least some people on here are willing to admit when they are incorrect or are willing to listen, learn, and deviate from deeply-rooted prejudice (not racially-speaking prejudice). You just don't seem to be one of those. You and HT can't seem to tolerate it when your baseless assertions are repuidated by fact.
Other than not consistently posting a bunch of moonbat libtard non-sense which isn't your own work, I fail to see how your kind of blind liberalism is much different than FOTD/Aox.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I had to run over to the bank and deposit an interest check from one our big fat cds.
Gosh I was worried all night that I had mispelled "hide." That's the legal secretary in me.
Thank you Waterboy. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Conan, It looks like I struck your nerve.
Well I'm going to tell you what you already know. I enjoy your company. I like you.
Now don't get confused. I know Republicans inside out and I am your sworn enemy. And I delight in letting you know that outside of Republican enclaves you are not well thought of.
Waterboy, you and Conan have a friendship and I think the important thing to do today is to hug and make up (no knives allowed).
So smack, smack, smack. That's me giving you some big sloppy kisses. HMMMMGrrrrrrrrrr. That's me giving you both a big bear hug.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Irony, Anyone?
Kucinich: Bailout 'Driven by Fear Not Fact'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGzLfmV4Ks
Kucinich on Why Bailout is being Rushed & Why It Shouldn't Be 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6k369DbA4&feature=related
Kucinich on the bailout-2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWn5UQtvItU&feature=related
Kucinich, as a rarity, sounds completely rational on this issue. Where was this Dennis in the POTUS campaign? Yeah, I agreed with Kucinich. You might want to date stamp it, print it, and save a few copies on disk, I doubt it happens again.
What Irony is there in Kucinich's statements? Not poking you personally, just curious what irony you saw in it.
The point of irony referenced in the original post was the haste with which Democrat leaders were wanting to follow the direction of President Bush and Sect'y Paulson, who they fault for failed economic policy.
Your predictable reaction to Dennis Kucinich is the irony.
Especially when you BLAME the working poor and minorities for a crises that involves a $700 billion bailout.
$700 billion dollars could literallly BUY THE WORKING POOR a $250,000 house per family....
How dare you parrot the views of Michelle Maulkin and her subtle racism and outright classism.... the people Maulkin blames for America's problems don't have enough money or power to do the kind of damage Maulkin alleges...
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/index.php/punditry/they_make_you_embarrassed_to_be_a_conservative/
Put simply, the freezing up of the credit markets doesn't have anything to do with either affirmative action or illegal immigration, and people who believe it does are on a par with the conspiracy theorists who think fluoridation is a Chicom plot.
When you look at the data, it's true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn't all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don't find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian.
------------------------------------------------
Most subprime loans continue to be held by whites. Having said that, it is true that there is evidence of pricing disparities between white and minority borrowers. What's striking, however, is that "black and Hispanic borrowers were far more likely to be steered into high-cost subprime loans than other borrowers, even after controlling for factors such as income, loan size and property location." One might not unreasonably infer that discrimination drove much of the ethnic disparities in this market. Indeed, the data indicate that black homeowners who received subprime mortgage loans were much more likely to be issued a higher-rate loan than white borrowers with the same qualifications. (See 1693 PLI/Corp 655, available on Westlaw.) Indeed, it appears that many minorities who would have qualified for prime loans were unnecessarily channeled by predatory lenders into more expensive subprime financing. The Malkin case simply doesn't hold water. ------------------------------------------------
http://rismedia.com/wp/2008-07-23/report-shows-subprime-rate-lending-dominant-with-non-hispanic-whites-and-upper-income-borrowers/
When you blame lower income folks for the problems with subprime-rate-lending, you blame people like me.... if I had a different skin color, I'd be "part of the problem."
I know that I could have been screwed by Chicagoland real estate people into believing the only way I could ever own a home was through special programs so I could spend over 45% of my income on an overpriced mortgage.... housing prices kept getting higher and higher and higher so I figured this would be the ONLY WAY I COULD EVER OWN A HOME.
Instead, I moved to Tulsa. If there is no bailout at all, will I be able to get a home I should be able to afford?
Not sure.
I blame greedy condo-flipping speculation for the housing bubble in Chicago.... I don't blame hard working poor people trying to support their families... I also don't blame the people who owned their properties for years and years before "cashing out."
I know who holds the cards here; I'm a pragmatist. I don't want to eat this XXXX Sandwich.... unfortunately, the drumbeat of deregulation since the Reagan Administration continues to perpetuate the free market LIES that took this country from a union-influenced manufacturing base to a non-union service based economy...
I supported Dick Gephardt in 1988.
I consider Bill Clinton to be the best Republican president we've ever had.
I supported Ralph Nader in 2000.
I very much appreciated the appeal of Howard Dean in 2004, until he relied too heavily on political novices who volunteered to campaign for him in Iowa.
I have respect for Dennis Kucinich in this debate but understand that my job and my future will be at stake....
Did Hometown benefit from this? Of course he did..... at least he didn't support all the craptastic Grover Nordquist Cult policies Republicans have advocated over the years... so, all I gotta say is:
DON'T HATE THE PLAYA, HATE THE GAME! [B)]
Funny that all this crap takes place only a few days from Yom Kippur.....
SCAPEGOAT
1: a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2 a: one that bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Sorry for the delay in responding. I had to run over to the bank and deposit an interest check from one our big fat cds.
Gosh I was worried all night that I had mispelled "hide." That's the legal secretary in me.
Thank you Waterboy. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Conan, It looks like I struck your nerve.
Well I'm going to tell you what you already know. I enjoy your company. I like you.
Now don't get confused. I know Republicans inside out and I am your sworn enemy. And I delight in letting you know that outside of Republican enclaves you are not well thought of.
Waterboy, you and Conan have a friendship and I think the important thing to do today is to hug and make up (no knives allowed).
So smack, smack, smack. That's me giving you some big sloppy kisses. HMMMMGrrrrrrrrrr. That's me giving you both a big bear hug.
Hometown, there's no way to break this to you gently-
You are a CLOSETED REPUBLICAN!!!!!
Yes Baby.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Who put me in charge? I started the topic. If you want to start a topic about my narrow-minded, Republican, Rovian, Inohofe-supporting superior mind-set, go for it.
When you run out of cogent points or are presented with facts contrary to your deeply-held beliefs, you obfuscate and call everyone else partisan or revisionist because they don't agree with your opinion or world-view. I'm not the one with an absolute view of the world and I seldom make an assertion I'm not prepared to back up with documented fact.
At least some people on here are willing to admit when they are incorrect or are willing to listen, learn, and deviate from deeply-rooted prejudice (not racially-speaking prejudice). You just don't seem to be one of those. You and HT can't seem to tolerate it when your baseless assertions are repuidated by fact.
Other than not consistently posting a bunch of moonbat libtard non-sense which isn't your own work, I fail to see how your kind of blind liberalism is much different than FOTD/Aox.
[:O]FOTD/AoX wasn't too bad. I figured they only kicked him off to be "fair and balanced" since they had to kick off FB. But really, I would prefer to be listed with the RufNex brand of liberal. Chicago street fighter. Takes no s**# from anyone but glad to be a part of the community.
I learn Conan. Ruf pointed out my unrecognized bias against Broken Arrow. FB pointed out my naivete about the Tulsa power structure. FOTD actually energized my latent liberalism. You have taught me patience.[:D]
And thanks for pointing out to all our fellow posters that I am blind. Have you no shame!? Must you go after the handicapped as well?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
"black and Hispanic borrowers were far more likely to be steered into high-cost subprime loans than other borrowers, even after controlling for factors such as income, loan size and property location
One important piece of the credit puzzle was left out of this article- credit history and credit score. That is a major factor in tiered interest rates.
Ostensibly state and federal regulators regularly audit loan docs to make sure discrimination and abuses of consumer credit codes are not taking place.
When I worked in consumer lending, we had an internal audit once per year with an internal auditor, and an annual audit by the state department of consumer credit. Literally, every loan made or refinanced was reviewed by the auditors. Every credit app, every part of the promisory note and security agreements. Any hint of discrimination would have brought with it high penalties.
IOW- There's nothing scientific about "steering" blacks and hispanics to higher interest rate loans without taking into consideration credit history or lack thereof. Nothing I've managed to read so far mentions credit scoring or history, it only references income, race, home location, or price. Credit is an important piece of the puzzle.
If charging a higher interest rate to people with derogatory or no credit history is discriminitory, that's a new twist. If the case is that blacks or hispanics typically have worst repayment records, collection accounts, or no credit history, that's more a social and behavioral issue, not a racially-biased one, as credit scoring is supposed to be entirely objective.
I don't know where you were going with the whole Kucinich and irony thing. Look, we can't ignore the problem and make it go away, but we can't pass the largest economic recovery effort in history on impulse either. I'm most definitely concerned about impacts tight credit will have through construction, commercial real estate, manufacturing, and oil & gas- all industries my company serves. I have a vested interest in the credit markets not collapsing, as does pretty much every individual in this country. However, jumping at the first draft if it has hidden pitfalls isn't a wise idea with so much at stake.
It's also a concern to me that the dream of home ownership is looking unachievable right now to many Americans.
We are essentially going to borrow our way out of this borrowing crisis- so it better be right however it is done, if it is done. I've got a lot of mixed feelings about this, but most everyone I'm talking to, righties and lefties are saying: "What else can we do at this point?" I'm getting a lot of agreement this should not be politicized and finger-pointing needs to be replaced with honest and decisive action.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Must you go after the handicapped as well?
Always. It's the Repiglican in me.