They're both the same!!!1

so vote republican

^YEAH!

I mean- no?

Yes. Setting up a fund to help people in trouble is exactly the same as federalizing giant companies. Exactly the same.

I was expecting him to say something about the Fannie and Freddie buyout in the clip. Did I miss it?

All this sounds like a good idea to me.

FYI, when I bought my home, the lender kept trying to quote me monthly payments assuming I wanted an ARM. I had to repeatedly, and exhaustively remind them I was not interested, under any circumstances, in an ARM, so quit it.

Had I been just a hair more trusting, or hadn't done my homework (no pun intended), I might've wound up in one, likely without hearing an explanation of what the ARM was.

Even with my fixed rate loan, they kept calculating payments based on the points they automatically paid for in the first year, and only showed me the payment for my second year at my request.

I get that it's not asking much for people to be aware of those kinds of things beforehand, and be careful with their money & contracts, but should lenders really be able to try those sorts of gambits on people legally?

The Fannie/Freddy buyout is not intended to help families. At all. Ever. The buyout *only* allows for the investors to get some of their money back. The investors = all of the people and corporations who invested in the companies.

If they went bankrupt, some company (right now, my bet is on BOA) would buy the loans for pennies on the dollar. BOA would never foreclose on the loans, because all they'd have to do is get 5 to 10 years of solid payments, and they'd have made their money back, since they bought them for so much less than what they were worth.


Thats why everyone, republicans and democrats, are pissed. Us democrats aren't pissed because we're using public money, we're pissed because it's not going to help those who need it (the people being foreclosed on), but rather the CEO who is walking away with 15 Million in severance.

ARMs have nothing to do with it. People actually being "careful with their money" is a wonderful thought, but that can't be our contingency plan. And neither can federal guarantees on bad loans!!!! Especially not while private citizens have made millions off those loans.

Of course he didn't mention the recent buyout. This is from Feb of '08. My point is that he suggests using federal money to support Fannie and Freddie in Feb, and then slams the idea after the public outcry in September!

FYI: If you pick any 30 year period from recent history and calculate the interest paid on a fixed rate mortgage over the life of the loan and compare it to the interest paid on an ARM during the same time period, guess which one is lower. Adjustable Rate Mortgages have NEVER been more expensive in the history of the mortgage loan in this country.



>> ^NetRunner:
I was expecting him to say something about the Fannie and Freddie buyout in the clip. Did I miss it?
All this sounds like a good idea to me.
FYI, when I bought my home, the lender kept trying to quote me monthly payments assuming I wanted an ARM. I had to repeatedly, and exhaustively remind them I was not interested, under any circumstances, in an ARM, so quit it.
Had I been just a hair more trusting, or hadn't done my homework (no pun intended), I might've wound up in one, likely without hearing an explanation of what the ARM was.
Even with my fixed rate loan, they kept calculating payments based on the points they automatically paid for in the first year, and only showed me the payment for my second year at my request.
I get that it's not asking much for people to be aware of those kinds of things beforehand, and be careful with their money & contracts, but should lenders really be able to try those sorts of gambits on people legally?

I am mystified by these odd little 'gotcha' videos that keep popping up on Obama. While McCain/Palin stuff is blatant and actually funny, these are always a bit obtuse and I have to strain to see the connection, if there really is one.

It's sort of a theme I'm seeing with this election: the illusion of a legitimate race, but really one side is vastly more sensible and appropriate for the country.

You can easily guess which way I'm leaning, but it really seems like an objective fact.

Asynchronice I really agree with you... I've really only started following politics the last few years, even living in Texas... the very Reddest of Red states it's hard not to agree with that.

Really it seems to come down to what 'side' people have identified with... they now have adopted it... and identify with it... 'facts' just get in the way... and it's closer to cheering your 'team' on than it is agreeing with the politics of it... conversly it isn't so much someone disagreeing with you... as it is an assult on your way of life.

Just kind of sad to see things so polarized...

It's hard to say "GOTCHA" when Obama doesn't like to take a firm stance on any issue that might be considered remotely controversial. He likes to cover his bases so that he could go either way when he's backed into a corner.

I'll will make one observation about the republicans: McCain and Palin are good at making themselves look silly.

>> ^asynchronice:
I am mystified by these odd little 'gotcha' videos that keep popping up on Obama. While McCain/Palin stuff is blatant and actually funny, these are always a bit obtuse and I have to strain to see the connection, if there really is one.
It's sort of a theme I'm seeing with this election: the illusion of a legitimate race, but really one side is vastly more sensible and appropriate for the country.
You can easily guess which way I'm leaning, but it really seems like an objective fact.

Really Deedub81 more than anything I think it is directly attributed to the intelligence gap between the candidates... Real or perceived... It sure seems like there is one... whats incredible is how many people seem to think that being the 'smart' guy is a bad thing...

>> ^deedub81:
ARMs have nothing to do with it. People actually being "careful with their money" is a wonderful thought, but that can't be our contingency plan. And neither can federal guarantees on bad loans!!!! Especially not while private citizens have made millions off those loans.

I agree. What would your solution to this mess be?

My point is that he suggests using federal money to support Fannie and Freddie in Feb, and then slams the idea after the public outcry in September!

He wasn't talking about bailing Fannie and Freddie out here at all -- he's saying $10bn to help cut deals that give "lenders and borrowers a way to maintain their current payments so they don't see huge spikes because of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (aka ARMs)".

I suppose in a sense that's probably a mild bailout for the lender, but it also lets the borrower keep their home.

It's a far cry to go from a $10bn fund to help support those sorts of deals, to a potential $5 trillion bailout of Fannie and Freddie. That's something that wasn't even on the radar in February (at least, I never came across an article suggesting a need for it).

I'd have to review his recent comments on Fannie and Freddie, but I think mostly he was slamming the fact that the current buyout structure is letting the management keep their golden parachutes, and also pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans saying, in essence, "we're the only ones who can fix the mess we made".

I don't think that people who can't afford a home should get to keep it. That's not how our economy is set up! When Fannie and Freddie could no longer afford to own all those loans (and therefore, all those homes) they should have stopped buying more.

More recently (last month), Obama has voiced his support for the $300 Billion Mortgage bill that Bush signed on July 30th. According to a TIME magazine article, Obama wants to extend the reach of the FED and increase regulation on the financial markets ("A Voter's Guide to the Economy" by Kristina Dell and Alexandra Silver. Aug 11, 2008).

He's managed to rack up more in donations from Fannie and Freddie in 3 years than almost any other lawmaker in the last 20 years (Dodd has more, but it took him a while).

We've got to let the politicians now that we won't vote for them if they keep this kind of stuff up.

>> ^deedub81:
I don't think that people who can't afford a home should get to keep it..


So the guy who lost his job to some outsourced Indian company after paying 25 years into his morgage should lose his home, but the CEO of his loan company, who has run the business into the ground should keep his 15 million dollar severance?

Sorry, but you sir are the walking definition of douche bag.

EDIT: Also, please state your source as to money taken from Fannie/Freddie by Obama, I would like some context as to how much money, and where these funds went (IE campaign finance, lobbiest luncheons.)

Woah. I NEVER said that Mr. CEO should get a $15 million severance. Mr. Default who has been paying into his home for 25 years would have a considerable amount of equity, right? He could have easily made a deal with the bank to refinance or sell his home (granted, probably for less than market value), rather than simply lose it.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses.

Mr. Default-because-my-job-was-outsourced isn't what this discussion is about. I feel bad for this guy and we've got to find away to reverse the trend of outsourcing everything to the lowest bidder. But he's not in trouble because of what's going on with the sub-prime loan defaults. Poor example.

I can empathize with people who are having financial difficulties right now. My business relies heavily on new home construction. I'm hurting. ...but I didn't get in over my head with a mortgage I couldn't afford. People have to understand when they can and can't afford to take financial risks, and that includes getting a mortgage that you know you'll have to refinance in 5 years when it starts to adjust. A lot of people took on more risk than they could absorb simply BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO. Now that their irresponsible decisions are staring them in the face, they want the gov't to take care of them by making me pay their mortgage.

Fannie and Freddie showed the primary mortgage market that they would continue to buy increasingly risky loans. As a result, the loan officers sold them and consumers signed 'em. Many people are now in trouble but it's not because of outsourcing.

You're quick to call me names and jump to conclusions. Maybe you should skip the political talk in favor of an in-depth discussion on video games. So far, that seems to be what you're best at.



>> ^arekin:
>> ^deedub81:
I don't think that people who can't afford a home should get to keep it..

So the guy who lost his job to some outsourced Indian company after paying 25 years into his morgage should lose his home, but the CEO of his loan company, who has run the business into the ground should keep his 15 million dollar severance?
Sorry, but you sir are the walking definition of douche bag.
EDIT: Also, please state your source as to money taken from Fannie/Freddie by Obama, I would like some context as to how much money, and where these funds went (IE campaign finance, lobbiest luncheons.)

I'm curious as to your reaction deedub81... now that McCain and Palin are clearly altering their language... seemingly in favor of regulations... She chose to call it 'oversight' in her latest 'interview'...but McCain as well is clearly backing away from any sort of 'free-market' policies... It's fairly obvious he doesn't personally believe any of this and yet he is bowing to the present political climate...

While I think it's unfortunate a lot of people don't seem to have the knowledge available to make informed choices I think it's even worse of these companies to take advantage of them. These people are unwisely relying on the lenders as experts, who tell them they can afford and distort the facts, withhold information, and outright lie to get them to sign over. Buyer beware markets are criminal in my opinion, especially with something like a house loan.

I don't like that the government is having to bail out these people, but what makes me even madder is the complete lack of regulation that allowed these conditions in the first place. Obama does at least in the video propose one form of regulation, complete disclosure to borrowers, but I'm not seeing anything to prevent the companies from making these bad loans, nor from investment firms from using their customer's money to invest in these. Its not as if the CEOs care, all they have to do is make sure they offload the loans before they get stuck with them. Now the game has stopped, a few people have made a whole lot of money at the expense of a lot of people, and there's nothing that can be done to reverse that unless they've actually broken a law.

Further more for years all I've been hearing from the Bush administration is, KEEP BUYING THE ECONOMY IS FINE, KEEP SUPPORTING IT KEEP BUYING. Keep buying with what, the money they don't have by using credit? An economy sustained on loans and credit can't persist forever, eventually it'll come home to roost.

^"While I think it's unfortunate a lot of people don't seem to have the knowledge available to make informed choices I think it's even worse of these companies to take advantage of them."

I agree. But, being naive is still not a good excuse.


@Januari: Double speak pisses me off. I hate it when politicians change their talking points in favor of more popular language. I want to hear about some real solutions. I don't support a candidate simply because my party nominated them. I would criticize them HERE for the things I don't agree with but there is already an overabundance of criticizm towards the republicans on this site.

@arekin:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailmoney9-2008sep09,0,1969729.story
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
http://blip.tv/file/1268421
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html
http://cjonline.activote.com/obama-got-big-donations-freddiefannie

>> ^deedub81:
Woah. I NEVER said that Mr. CEO should get a $15 million severance. Mr. Default who has been paying into his home for 25 years would have a considerable amount of equity, right? He could have easily made a deal with the bank to refinance or sell his home (granted, probably for less than market value), rather than simply lose it.


Actually that is exactly what the argument is about, Obama is against benefits to big business while the little guy suffers, Its kinda the message that hes been delivering since day one. Thus his objection to financial institutes getting bailed out for shady lending practices while the people they have lent money to lose their homes.

And since home values are actually decreasing rather than increasing, Mr Default's equity means very little. Financial institutes are reluctant to lend (and thus refinance) because the market is so poor, so even with decent credit (or less than decent since Mr Default now has several past due home loan payments on his credit report) Mr Default is still likely to lose his home.

As to financial risk, not everyone understands the risks that were involved. My brother and sister in law are seriously screwed on their home loan because they were lead to believe that she was getting a great deal for being a teacher. They didn't understand completely the terms that were given to them and their lender was very quick with half truths so he could get his sale. these aren't idiots, they just didn't have an accounting or law degree to understand the complexities on a ARM.

And seriously, I doubt a conversation about video games precludes me from knowing a bit about politics and the financial state of our nation.

Now to the subject of Obama's contributions. Those contributions make up about 0.02% of his total fundraising effort. Also the manner by which he has recieved these funds is not listed. If they are funds by individual employees of these companies it would be impossible to determine intent.

And the numbers from OpenSecrets.org, A site you yourself listed, (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) seem to agree with this statement. Total PAC contributions $1,635, far less than the reported $105,000 listed on the same site.

To further support this allow me to quote the site (under Obama's Top Contributors.)
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

Finally if you mean to imply that Obama recieved funds that lead him to approve a bailout of this company, then explain why Lehman Brothers didn't get bailed out and their contributions are about 3x that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs.

Maybe he just didn't get the message...

^Do you mean to tell me that you don't believe that money has any influence on Obama's (or any politician for that matter) political positions?

I don't want to speak to Arekin... i will of course... and feel really bad about it later... But i don't see anywhere in that statment where 'that is what he means to tell you'... i just see him countering your argument about point about Fannie and Freddie... effectively I might add.

*length=3:51

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:51 - length declared by ReverendTed.