Housing bailout backlash
posted at 8:38 am on December 7, 2007 by Bryan
For every political action, there’s usually an outraged reaction.
The agreement has sparked bitterness and anger among those who either sat out the housing boom or endured friends’ snickers when they stuck with a traditional mortgage and a smaller house. To some who watched prices rise out of their reach or who moved to cheaper cities, the agreement looks like a penalty for those who didn’t gamble.
“What about those of us who played by the rules? Can we get six months of free gasoline? Isn’t there something for the rest of us?” asked Tim MacKinnon. After watching a friend use his home as an “ATM” for years, MacKinnon left Washington for New Jersey, where the $25,000 he had socked away went further.
The resentment is apparent on blogs that chronicle the mortgage crisis. It has some Republican lawmakers worried about a backlash.
As always in Washington, politics as opposed to principle is driving the response.
“The epicenter of this problem [is] places with key electoral votes,” said Christopher Mayer, director of the Milstein Center for Real Estate at Columbia Business School. “I think both sides have to figure out what to do. I don’t think they are going to find it such an easy” thing.
Politicians need to appeal not only to people at risk of losing their homes but also to those such as Ben Sullivan, who sees the agreement as a undeserved bailout. After the 2001 technology stock bust, many people lost significant value in their retirement plans, Sullivan said. “No one was offering to pay for their 401(k) losses. Why should they do it for their housing losses?” said the 28-year-old commercial banker.
That’s a good question.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It is all smoke and mirrors in an election year.
RobCon on December 7, 2007 at 8:41 AM
I have no sympathy for those companies that told people they could ‘afford’ significantly higher mortgages than was prudent. We bought our house in 1999, and HSBC wanted to give us more than twice what we were looking for. I’ll be damned if my taxes should be used to bail them out.
Mr. Bingley on December 7, 2007 at 8:45 AM
This problem has been caused by greedy lenders selling stupid mortgage scams and greedy consumers who thought they could buy much more house than they could afford. Now they simply walk away or get a big government mandated bailout. And the rest of us sit on the sidelines paying our monthly mortgages and annual taxes month after month after month. Yup…sounds fair to me!
sabbott on December 7, 2007 at 8:45 AM
When we bought our home near Houston we saved our pennies for 5 years bought what we could afford — not what we really wanted — with a conserative fixed rated loan. We got a cheaper home in a school district we felt was worth the higher tax rates. Now we find our that our conservative approach is going to cost me more by bailing out companies and others whose conspicious consumption was unchecked by reason — the get it now and cover it later instance gratification — ELECTION YEAR B>S>….makes you wonder why we try….sickening.
jimwesty on December 7, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Is there a bill coming up for folks that lose their wallet?
How about for women who leave their pocketbooks on the top of the car and drive away?
Hening on December 7, 2007 at 8:54 AM
What about all the people that foreclosed and walked away in the last few months?
Do we owe them a new house now?
Won’t they be supremely hacked off since the bailout came too late for them?
Valiant on December 7, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Agree completely. In a free country, people are free to make mistakes – and they do. It doesn’t make a stronger country if the government borrows money to give to people who made mistakes.
ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Point of clarification from some folks in the industry who posted in the other thread: this covers only subprime loans. So it’s not like everyone who got one of those interest-only for five year deals or a 5-year ARM qualifies or something. Only covers the subprime (no/bad credit and high rates) lending market.
I am curious to know if this bailout covers illegal aliens, too. Illegals always get subprime mortgage loans to buy their houses. So this could be a bailout of illegals, too.
RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Think of the people who have played by the rules and are just barely getting by. Why not stop paying your mortgage right now? It’s apparently going to the best, cheapest way to lock in a low rate. I mean really, why wouldn’t you? The government wants to take all of the stigma out of not honoring a contract you signed. Hey, it wasn’t your fault. Who loses? As always, taxpayers. The mortgage companies get as much benefit out of this as the “poor, ignorant, fooled consumer.”
Long term, the worst thing about this is it absolutely encourages Wall Street and the financial sharks to take even bigger chances in the future. Hey, when the government will always step in so your mistakes don’t really matter, why not push the envelope even more. They’re playing with house money; i.e. yours and mine.
Sugar Land on December 7, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Living within your means and personal responsibility are for chump-sucka’s…
elgeneralisimo on December 7, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Here is an old story in the LA Times of a future bailout recipient. An ILLEGAL ALIEN.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-housing8oct08,1,232295.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=2&track=rss
RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Illegals do not get subprime loans, but ITIN loans. See WSJ Misses Fraud Behind Alien “Mortgage Boom”
Valiant on December 7, 2007 at 9:04 AM
It was greed on both ends, business and the consumer.
I have a 30yr VA loan…when all the refinancing calls and mail started a few years ago I was tempted. Then I did the one thing everybody needs to do…ask questions. Once I learned about ballons I bailed the idea completely.
But the lenders kept pushing, and the comsumers kept buying.
I don’t feel sorry for either.
Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Exactly right. Most of these buyers never have seen a down market. They think all they had to do is sign, and their building’s value will go up 50 to 75K a year. It’s like the stock bubble…”what do you mean stocks don’t make 27% every year?”. I got hammered. Nobody bailed me out. F–k them. And any Repub that goes along with this.
LtE126 on December 7, 2007 at 9:07 AM
The trick is to not borrow money at all.
save your money and pay cash.
For investment buy gold and rental property.
When the proverbial shi-t hits the fan you’ll be glad you did.
Extravagant houses, cars and all your stocks can and eventually will become worthless over night.
Land, Gold and other useful physical commodities like food stuffs, weapons and ammo are the only hedge against this.
TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Hmmm, okay. I’ve seen a few articles mentioning subprime loans specifically. Including the LA Times article above. Could they be using a fake SSN? Just asking, appreciated your info on the other thread very much. Just looked at wikipedia and they also said illegals get subprime (yeah, I know it’s wiki, but have a few articles though they could be wrong or misinformed).
RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 9:09 AM
I’ll look into it.
Valiant on December 7, 2007 at 9:14 AM
I don’t understand. Adjustable mortgage rates are “adjustable”?
Why didn’t somebody tell me?
aunursa on December 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM
There is an old saving of being “too clever by half”. This is what happened when dishonest lending institutions hooked naive (but equally greedy) consumers into adjustable rate loan agreements (often with balloon clauses) secured by real property. These lending idiots should have realized that when you lend to people over their heads financially and when the higher rates kick in there will be massive defaults (Eco 101).
Many of the consumers didn’t want to “keep up with the Joneses” but instead wanted to get “well ahead of the Jones” and came up short and now they’re asking the people they were trying to get ahead of to bail them out. Pish tush.
As for the lenders-they are little better than white collar criminals caught in a massive scam. It is ironic that Wachovia Bank(which just took over stockbroker A G Edwards)just wrote off $1 billion in bad mortgage debt.
Economically the good news for stockholders is that Real Estate may have marginally affected the stock market but as a rival to stocks it is NO place to invest in at this time. And, as long as interest rates remain low there will be no massive flight from equity into debt instruments.
MaiDee on December 7, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Given his pro-amnesty position on illegal immigrants, this bailout of irresponsible morons and quite a number of his other policies, I’m beginning to think that Bush is trying to displace Jimmy Carter as the worst democrat president ever…
rbb on December 7, 2007 at 9:27 AM
As I understand this will only cover those that were good payers until the interest rate went up. I was in the subprime auto business in the past. Subprime people rarely pay on time. So net effect is that very few people will receive anything. Of course, a few people in my opinion is too many since the majority of the subprime candidates don’t care about the payment amount since they have no intention of paying anyway.
indianaconservative on December 7, 2007 at 9:29 AM
No sympathy from me for the underwriters of the borrowers. The first mortgage I ever had was a 7/1 ARM (fixed for 7 then adjustable each year). My wife and took out an ARM because we knew our income would rise enough over the seven year period to enable us to refinance into a fixed 15 or 30 year loan before any adjustment.
The loan docs clearly said that the variable rate would be based on fannie mae 90 day rate plus 3% with a max rate of 15%. I knew the risk was there and agreed to it to get the loan.
What pi$$es me off about this whole thing is that the lenders knew their risk for subprime and took it on. The bundlers knew the risk profile on the loan packages and sold them to investors willing to trade that risk for a much higher return. The borrowers knew the loans would adjust and should have planned for the “what if” when the adjustment came due.
That’s the way it is supposed to work. Risk vs return for the investors, know what you’re signing for the borrower.
If I start investing in penny stocks because I am willing to assume extreme risk for the potential of a huge payday should the government bail me out if it turns to crap?
Nothing more than election year pandering and I am ashamed of the GOP for even considering taking actions like this.
BacaDog on December 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM
The illegal aliens getting non-ITIN mortgages do have Social Security numbers. Like this guy:
Since subprime loans top out at $300,000, I doubt this is a subprime mortgage.
Valiant on December 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM
One of the thus far unexamined aspects of the housing problem is the fact that banks and lenders decided to monetize illegal aliens in the past few years by extending mortgages and other lines of credit to them, and the government let them. The inherent problem of putting long-term debt in the hands of people who a) shouldn’t be here and might be forced to leave at any time and b) probably committed some form of ID theft to stay here seem not to have been an issue.
I have no idea how much of the housing problem is fed by this. I suspect that it’s a small percentage in the grand scheme of things, but even that might be sufficient to tilt the scales enough to cause wider problems. Maybe our resident housing experts can weigh in.
Bryan on December 7, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Hi. I work for the gummint. Specifically, in a sector where i deal with illegal aliens pretty much daily. I go through their financial records, etc., as part of my job. I’d say about 1/3 of the illegals i run across own (are paying mortgages) on their own homes. I’d say 50% of these are trailers/lots in the 30-75k$ range, with the other 50% rising steadily from that range. Believe me, there are quite a few in [my large southern urban area] who own 200-250k$ houses, and MANY of them are in default. I couldn’t say what types of loans they’re [not] paying on, but i can say definitively that it least in [southern state] illegals make up a huge percentage of the risky-loan sector.
jdub on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM
One way or antoher we are all going to pay for greedy lenders and idiotic borrowers.
elBarto on December 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I resent this bail out too and I am one of the 2001 ”
significant losers” but, the alternative scares me more. This could be worse than 2001 if we don’t do it and either way the taxpayer pays. Either we bail out these dumb homeowners and their crafty lenders and realtors or we shore up the market and banks with significant influx of funds for them. It’s a lose , lose situation and we have government to blame once again since it’s their lack of rules and oversight which contributed to this.
jeanie on December 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Maybe I misunderstand this, but isn’t this really a re-negotiating of credit terms and not a taxpayer bailout? The fewer houses that are foreclosed on the better for everyone who owns a home as it helps stabilize property values.
That being said, I am very angry at the banks because I have been negatively impacted by their actions. Thousands of homes were built in my area that targeted sub-prime borrowers, and all that extra inventory has pulled down the value of everyone’s home precipitously yet no remedies are available to those of us who played by the rules with down payments and traditional mortgages.
What have the people with sub prime loans lost exactly? The cost of a moving van?
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Anyone remember the Ketting Five? Remember Texas Oil Bust in the mid-80′s, or when the bottom fell out of Boston, or the other Kalifornia Bust in the 80′s. How about when interest rates on mortgages was 12-15% and the ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) was born. Who was punished for all this. All I remember is that the builders/bankers got bailed out and walk away scott free.
Nope, let these people rot and let the market “re-adjust” to a true value. The only ones who really made money were the mortgage brokers who work on commission, and the hedge funds that Silky Pony worked for.
Wuptdo on December 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I think you may be right, but why does the gov’t have to step in then? If it’s in the banks interest to re-negotiate so the borrower doesn’t go into default, they can initiate that transaction on their own.
If the market needs a correction, so be it. If it means a hard road out for the economy, so be it. We won’t, as a society, learn the lesson any other way.
Or, we could band-aid the bubble and keep inflating it.
TexasDan on December 7, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I sure this will make Bush feel Oprah-esque.
“You get a
carbailout, you get acarbailout, everyone gets acarbailout!”BohicaTwentyTwo on December 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM
OK maybe this is overly simplistic but if the financial industry made tons of dough making these types of loans
and stands to lose X number of dollars if they go bad …
wouldn’t they be better off voluntarily offering some customers refi options and only losing a percent of X number of dollars … ??? This doesn’t seem like rocket science, what am I missing?? (other than the obvious, if
they do nothing and the Fed get’s involved they migh even lose less)
Paul
pbary on December 7, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I believe the focus is on the wrong issue. It’s not that some people will be given a break to hold onto their mortgages, because as elBarto said above “One way or antoher we are all going to pay for greedy lenders and idiotic borrowers,” it’s why government agencies tasked with monitoring and overseeing industry practices allowed this to happen in the first place. Because it will happen again , just in a different high impact industry. When businesses know that all they have to do is create a massive crisis that will affect the economy and the sacrosanct Market, risky behaviour will be protected by the government and the burden will fall on the US taxpayer.
So…
Who has been fired or charged for permitting these practices in the first place?
What foreign investors will benefit from a taxpayer bailout?
When will accountability and responsibility trump stupidity?
Where are the administrative and RICO criminal investigations of the lending industry?
Why do we taxpayers sit back and take it?
blue sky on December 7, 2007 at 11:35 AM
How about we concentrate on finding the middle-men, the ones who made the dodgy loans, then sold the notes to off-shore mortgage houses. THAT’S where all the money went, folks.
mojo on December 7, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Yes, we’ve experience a similar thing in our neighborhood (which is a nice area). There’s many high end houses sitting empty and foreclosing because the builders keep building and there are no buyers. Our property values have plummetted. We couldn’t give our house away today if we wanted too. I’d support this legislation if I thought it would help stabilize property values. The bleeding has to be stopped somehow.
I’m kind of amazed at all the people here that think we should just let it play out, let the chips fall where they may. A recession will effect all of us–we are all in this together.
Not all of the borrowers were greedy jerks. Some, like my cousin, were just not savy enough to figure out that they were put in a bad position by their lender should the market go bad. Her husband is a Marine that served 3 tours in Iraq and she works full-time to support her family. They will probably lose their house, which is nothing fancy, just a one story 3-bedroom home in a neighborhood full of young families.
If this bill will help out just a few hard-working people like my cousin, and not effect me negatively, what’s the big deal? The truth is, the lenders used very shady business practices to make a profit off of many Americans that really wanted their own home, were marginally capable of affording it, and probably not sufficiently educated on the potential pitfalls.
drflykilla on December 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM
My understanding is that Bush is NOT bailing the consumer(s) out of this crisis. He is leaning hard on the Lenders to work with the borrower(s) so that are housing market doesn’t continue to crumble – in hopes of “stabilizing” our communities/economy.
Am I happy about this? Yes and no. I am a homeowner who has always played by the rules and also a casualty of this catastratrophe. I have been in the Industry from the early ’80′s and went into subprime 10 yrs ago. Unless you have been in the trenches – completely lived and breathed this – you have no idea of all the components that have led to where we are today. Most people are observing from the “nose bleed” section of this “event”, giving their commmentaries and fingering pointing. Enough –
In the last 15 months I have been involved in 3 closures of major Companies. I am currently in jeopardy of loosing my home in the next several months. I have embraced the fact that I may just have to walk away. Do I deserve this? Hell no but neither do the tens of thousands of my peers. Not all of us sold our souls. We are normal people just like you who now have nothing to turn to and are being black listed. Having to start over when we should be focusing on our retirements.
What we should be questioning is who is being allowed/approved for these extensions? What is the list of criteria? For example, some very savvy Brokers and borrowers were refinancing (aka churning) their Option Arm’s loans over and over again to take advantage of the teaser rate and going “stated”/”NINA”/No Doc (they were not required to provide income documentation – before you jump, there was typically nothing wrong with this because of their much higher ficos, credit depth/excellent payment histories, etc etc) and are they now being required to provide income documentation and are the Lenders processing a 4506? (form used to validate income reporting through the Government) If they can qualify to make the higher payments then they should not be allowed? Are they a United States Citizen?
I could go on and on…but I think that is where the focus needs to be. This newly founded “process” should be for the borrower(s) who truly cannot afford the higher payment now.
This is my daughter commenting and I agree 100%!
sharinlite on December 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM
It seems to me that one thing which would help would be for the I.R.S. to allow people to take losses on their homes under certain circumstances if they have to sell – for instance to take a job in another state or somewhere beyond commuting distance.
We have to pay capital gains taxes if we make money on a sale (under certain circumstances) but there is no corresponding vehicle to take a loss.
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Not only should the Fed not bail these people out, they should permanently strip voting privilages to all those who apply for the bail-out.
awake on December 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Many of the “Stated Income” adjustable mortgages and other creative financing methods were based on FRAUD. People with no business getting a home loan were suddenly eligible for loans, and the government and institutional lenders were HAPPY.
Each customer seeking help/bailout should be held accountable if they turned in fraudulent numbers on their 1003 in order to qualify for a loan. THAT should be the first criteria for offering assistance. I’ve talked many clients out of option arms, etc….trying to show them the dangers. Most people wanted immediate gratification, took out the loans (with FULL understanding, I hit them over the head with the facts)…I guess they thought tomorrow would never come.
Personally, I’ve gone a little overboard on my Christmas spending, and I don’t know if I can make my payments next month. HELP, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Can you make the CC companies lower interest rates for me?
nyrofan on December 7, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Do you all actually read what this supposed “bailout” is or do you just take your cues from the media.
The only thing being considered is to freeze the rates which are usally 7-9% at their current rates and to increase the amount of loans the FHA can buy. These rates are suppose to go up to 12-15%. I don’t know about you but I bet not many on this board has a 14% rate on their home loan. That type of loan with the FED rates at 4.5% is nothing but loansharking. That is as bad as 30% credit card rates. It is no wonder that people are having problems paying.
2) The government is giving no one any money. No one is getting ahead of the line.
3) without this we WILL go into a recession. The dot.com bubble will look like child’s play when the market sells off because noone can get credit.
4) People that are saying “but I saved I lived within my means” why don’t I get something? You are. You are getting to save your jobs, your house, your pensions,ira,401ks. Because without this freeze there is a very,very,very, good chance we will go into a major DEPRESSION not a recsession but an honest to goodness 1930′s style DEPRESSION.
5) why don’t all you outraged people take a minute and study the market, the economy, and the cliff on which this economy is on and take another moment to thank GOD that Bush had enough political courage to do what is needed to save this country’s economy from total collapse, instead of saying selfishly “but what about me?”
unseen on December 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Danish, I believe they can take losses unlike the early 1990′s.
awake: what are you smoking? Or, are you one of those that can actually say they can “throw the first stone”?
unseen: AGREE! Most just see the headlines or hear the teaser by the MSM and then jump over the cliff.
Today is a good day for me because I have just discovered that the corporations that I believe started this “ball” rolling downhill and lost total control due to greed, are being subpoenaed by Cuomo in New York…let the action begin. I, for one will be paying attention, closely.
sharinlite on December 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I agree that these rates need to be frozen and that doing nothing probably would lead us into a recession (at least regionally) and possibly a depression.
However, the fact remains that the banks (with perhaps , little encouragement from the government) pushed these loans, invented new lending formulas like “interest only loans”, and ultimately all of us were hurt by this virtual ponzi scheme.
Would it be wrong to take some steps to tighten rules so this doesn’t happen again? I most definitely not someone who favors a lot of government regulation, but in this case it seems to be warranted.
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 2:49 PM
What about those people who worked for Enron??? Who came to their aid when they lost their entire retirement fund? People who ended up working when they were ready to retire, taking dangerous positions like working as a linesman, or police officer etc.
What a disgusting display that our goverment would use our tax money to reward those who are irresponsible.
The dollar will be worth the peso soon because of this idiocy – with inflated housing comes devalued dollars, simple as that.
KMC1 on December 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I don’t believe the administration nor many members of government considers extending credit to illegal aliens any kind of problem as there never has been any intention to let them go home.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Let the market force the Fed to lower interests rates.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 2:58 PM
This is a good story on the topic from Politico.
If you lower interest rates across the board too much, don’t you end up with inflation?
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Not when its a natural occurrence such as a housing slump or a credit crunch.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I don’t know about that. You can still have inflation from higher oil prices, higher wages, and so forth even if one sector has declining prices.
Anyway, the subprime mortgages are due to go up at a much higher rate than any Fed reduction would cover anyway.
Whatever the Fed decides to do, I just want them to act prudently and not make things worse!
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM
KMC1 on December 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM
The enron collapse did not cause the ENTIRE AMERICAN/WORLD ECONOMY to go into a MAJOR DEPRESSION. There is no tax money being SPENT. Those that have no understand of the risks and depth of this problem should take the time to study the problem instead of posting.
unseen on December 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Let’s fix the problem first then we can/will go after those responsible. We need to stem the bleeding NOW. The regs can wait
unseen on December 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM
No one thing ever stays the same price, its all about supply and demand.
If your last dollar goes to the mortgage your not going to spend much on gas, the supply goes up and the gas price goes down.
It balances out and so does inflation.
If the Fed has to respond to market pressure by lowering rates the economy gets a boost and right now that’s not a bad thing.
The Fed makes enough money, gasp, did I say that? Shame on me.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:02 PM
The Federal Government has no business intervening in this matter and as soon as they do, things go bad quickly! These are the same people that did Katrina and nominated Harriet Meirs, after all…
sabbott on December 7, 2007 at 6:08 PM
They are not doing it to save homeowners. They are doing it to save the banks
The banks just got wiped by current foreclosures and the next round dwarfs this one
If we don’t stop the balloon bursting the banks will dry up. Frozen credit ultimately brought on the Great Depression
From some financial info I saved:
June 2007 in its 2007 Annual Report the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) described as “the ultimate bank of central bankers” warned that the credit boom could spark a Depression
Aug 2007 Countrywide (CFC), the nations largest mortgage holders announced it’s drawing down an entire $11.5 credit facility from a group of 40 banks to shore up liquidity to make loans
Lehman Bros closed its subprime lending unit and took a $52 mil loss
Nov 2007 Wachovia takes a $1 billion losss
Nov 2007 Deutsche Bank analyst estimates sub prime losses for last qtr of 2007:
Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS each $5 billion
Merrill Lynch $1 billion, Bank of America $4 billion
Nov 13 2007 Bank of America (our 2nd largest bank) announced 3rd qtr loss of $3 billion
Morgan Stanley announces estimated 3rd qtr write down of $6 billion etc
Nov 26 2007 economist from Bank of England states he believes banks have reported only a small fraction of the subprime losses. In a report to its investors a Goldman Sachs analyst states that lenders will reduce lending by $10 for every dollar of loss
When does a Bank except at gunpoint cancel a mortgage contract and give the homeowner a break?
Never
They do it to save themselves. I suspect we will have to print a whole lot of money if the banks fail on this
entagor on December 7, 2007 at 6:17 PM
correction : countrywide had to borrow $11.5 billion, which was its entire line of credit
entagor on December 7, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Congress is nothing but a nest of thieves, liars and snakes! Would any body really care of congress went into recess for a couple of years?? Would we not all be better off?? What do they do but use their office and power completely for themselves?? When was the last time they did anything that was positive for the country??? Every vote,, every bill,,, every new law is about themselves!! To enrich themselves! To empower themselves! To steal for themselves! When they open their mouths they are lying! They consider the people their enemy! The enemies of the people are their friends! We are to be overcome! Their policies and meddling have damaged our health care system, our finance system, our education system, our food production, our food costs, our energy independence and needs, our auto industry,,, the list could go on and on! Every single one of them should be voted out of office. The whole capital should be swept, steam cleaned and fumigated! If people were picked from age 50 and up by random lot to replace them and I bet we could be no worse off!
JellyToast on December 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM