[CA renter]

What we have here is a truly global economic crisis that has been triggered by defaulting loans. There is plenty of blame to go around but make no mistake, if the powers that be do not address the coming wave of future defaults then things are get to get much much worse.
—————–

The “crisis” was not triggered by defaulting loans, but by the origination of those guaranteed-to-fail loans in the first place. Falling housing prices are NOT the problem; falling prices are the solution to too much debt and the resultant artificially-inflated prices.

Perhaps you consider falling asset prices a bad thing, but many of us think it’s the best thing that could ever happen to this country.

We’ve been trying to fake our way through the falling wages/inflated prices stagflation for too long. Best to have debt destruction (via foreclosures and bankruptcies) and deflation so we can get back to REAL growth, not this credit-driven, artificial eCONomy where we just pass paper back and forth.

Jobs will be lost and asset prices will tumble, but that is the pain we deserve for allowing Greenspan to paper over and inflate our way out of every recession that would have kept the economy in check.

[CA renter]

What we had is a confluence of events that worked to fuel the credit bubble.

From Glass-Steagall to the CRA programs to the GSE’s control of Congress (who wrongly slammed OFHEO/Armando Falcon who was doing his job) to Greenspan’s ultra-low interest rates to the elimination of the 30-year bond to the determination of the American people to hold onto a lifestyle that their stagnant/declining wages could no longer afford (thanks to globalization).

I am one of the greatest critics of George Bush, but he is not the only guilty party in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.

Also, the GSEs were under the gun in 2003/2004 and actually pulled back their lending while the private market took off. Most of the really bad mortgages were originated by and sold to private entities, not GSEs. The GSEs got more involved again near the end of the bubble (2007) as the legislators and other guilty parties saw the writing on the wall…and wanted to off-load their bad debt onto the GSEs by refinancing people into their loans (also FHA). EVERYBODY was complicit in this mess.

Note, we already have “bailed out” the GSEs. The current bailout plan (and more that will be forthcoming) is to save the private entities, not the GSEs.

[CA renter]

What we had is a confluence of events that worked to fuel the credit bubble.

From Glass-Steagall to the CRA programs to the GSE’s control of Congress (who wrongly slammed OFHEO/Armando Falcon who was doing his job) to Greenspan’s ultra-low interest rates to the elimination of the 30-year bond to the determination of the American people to hold onto a lifestyle that their stagnant/declining wages could no longer afford (thanks to globalization).

I am one of the greatest critics of George Bush, but he is not the only guilty party in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.

Also, the GSEs were under the gun in 2003/2004 and actually pulled back their lending while the private market took off. Most of the really bad mortgages were originated by and sold to private entities, not GSEs. The GSEs got more involved again near the end of the bubble (2007) as the legislators and other guilty parties saw the writing on the wall…and wanted to off-load their bad debt onto the GSEs by refinancing people into their loans (also FHA). EVERYBODY was complicit in this mess.

Note, we already have “bailed out” the GSEs. The current bailout plan (and more that will be forthcoming) is to save the private entities, not the GSEs.

[CA renter]

What we had is a confluence of events that worked to fuel the credit bubble.

From Glass-Steagall to the CRA programs to the GSE’s control of Congress (who wrongly slammed OFHEO/Armando Falcon who was doing his job) to Greenspan’s ultra-low interest rates to the elimination of the 30-year bond to the determination of the American people to hold onto a lifestyle that their stagnant/declining wages could no longer afford (thanks to globalization).

I am one of the greatest critics of George Bush, but he is not the only guilty party in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.

Also, the GSEs were under the gun in 2003/2004 and actually pulled back their lending while the private market took off. Most of the really bad mortgages were originated by and sold to private entities, not GSEs. The GSEs got more involved again near the end of the bubble (2007) as the legislators and other guilty parties saw the writing on the wall…and wanted to off-load their bad debt onto the GSEs by refinancing people into their loans (also FHA). EVERYBODY was complicit in this mess.

Note, we already have “bailed out” the GSEs. The current bailout plan (and more that will be forthcoming) is to save the private entities, not the GSEs.

[CA renter]

What we had is a confluence of events that worked to fuel the credit bubble.

From Glass-Steagall to the CRA programs to the GSE’s control of Congress (who wrongly slammed OFHEO/Armando Falcon who was doing his job) to Greenspan’s ultra-low interest rates to the elimination of the 30-year bond to the determination of the American people to hold onto a lifestyle that their stagnant/declining wages could no longer afford (thanks to globalization).

I am one of the greatest critics of George Bush, but he is not the only guilty party in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.

Also, the GSEs were under the gun in 2003/2004 and actually pulled back their lending while the private market took off. Most of the really bad mortgages were originated by and sold to private entities, not GSEs. The GSEs got more involved again near the end of the bubble (2007) as the legislators and other guilty parties saw the writing on the wall…and wanted to off-load their bad debt onto the GSEs by refinancing people into their loans (also FHA). EVERYBODY was complicit in this mess.

Note, we already have “bailed out” the GSEs. The current bailout plan (and more that will be forthcoming) is to save the private entities, not the GSEs.

[CA renter]

What we had is a confluence of events that worked to fuel the credit bubble.

From Glass-Steagall to the CRA programs to the GSE’s control of Congress (who wrongly slammed OFHEO/Armando Falcon who was doing his job) to Greenspan’s ultra-low interest rates to the elimination of the 30-year bond to the determination of the American people to hold onto a lifestyle that their stagnant/declining wages could no longer afford (thanks to globalization).

I am one of the greatest critics of George Bush, but he is not the only guilty party in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.

Also, the GSEs were under the gun in 2003/2004 and actually pulled back their lending while the private market took off. Most of the really bad mortgages were originated by and sold to private entities, not GSEs. The GSEs got more involved again near the end of the bubble (2007) as the legislators and other guilty parties saw the writing on the wall…and wanted to off-load their bad debt onto the GSEs by refinancing people into their loans (also FHA). EVERYBODY was complicit in this mess.

Note, we already have “bailed out” the GSEs. The current bailout plan (and more that will be forthcoming) is to save the private entities, not the GSEs.

[CA renter]

Knowing that I really shouldn’t venture into this argument, but can’t help myself…

Firstly, anyone who calls a stay-at-home parent a “whiner” or says they “don’t work” has never done it before.

I’ve worked in the public sector, private sector and as a SAHP, and being a SAHP is **by far** the most difficult job around. If you disagree, then volunteer your time to “not work” for one of those slacker moms/dads on a daily basis, for an extended period of time. You shouldn’t mind a bit, because it’s “not work.” You wouldn’t be paid, naturally, because it’s just like a vacation (according to you).

We don’t know if the husband or wife was cheating or physically abusive or an addict who spent all their money on drugs or alcohol (these people should lose all rights to any money and custody, IMHO), what the original agreement was WRT parenting the child, etc. If they both agreed that their child would have a parent home, then that agreement should stick.

Also, it looks like the WIFE paid 80% of the down payment, so how in the world did you come up with the idea that he should be entitled to the home???

This is a loser, no matter what. They need to dump the townhome and be done with it. EVERYBODY loses in a divorce because the total family income is split into fractions while the costs rise (two households on the income that supported one household). That’s why both parties tend to think the other one ripped them off.

Ultimately, when a couple has children, they should be obligated to do everything in their power to make the marriage work. Their child will suffer, no matter how “friendly” the divorce.

[CA renter]

Knowing that I really shouldn’t venture into this argument, but can’t help myself…

Firstly, anyone who calls a stay-at-home parent a “whiner” or says they “don’t work” has never done it before.

I’ve worked in the public sector, private sector and as a SAHP, and being a SAHP is **by far** the most difficult job around. If you disagree, then volunteer your time to “not work” for one of those slacker moms/dads on a daily basis, for an extended period of time. You shouldn’t mind a bit, because it’s “not work.” You wouldn’t be paid, naturally, because it’s just like a vacation (according to you).

We don’t know if the husband or wife was cheating or physically abusive or an addict who spent all their money on drugs or alcohol (these people should lose all rights to any money and custody, IMHO), what the original agreement was WRT parenting the child, etc. If they both agreed that their child would have a parent home, then that agreement should stick.

Also, it looks like the WIFE paid 80% of the down payment, so how in the world did you come up with the idea that he should be entitled to the home???

This is a loser, no matter what. They need to dump the townhome and be done with it. EVERYBODY loses in a divorce because the total family income is split into fractions while the costs rise (two households on the income that supported one household). That’s why both parties tend to think the other one ripped them off.

Ultimately, when a couple has children, they should be obligated to do everything in their power to make the marriage work. Their child will suffer, no matter how “friendly” the divorce.

[CA renter]

Knowing that I really shouldn’t venture into this argument, but can’t help myself…

Firstly, anyone who calls a stay-at-home parent a “whiner” or says they “don’t work” has never done it before.

I’ve worked in the public sector, private sector and as a SAHP, and being a SAHP is **by far** the most difficult job around. If you disagree, then volunteer your time to “not work” for one of those slacker moms/dads on a daily basis, for an extended period of time. You shouldn’t mind a bit, because it’s “not work.” You wouldn’t be paid, naturally, because it’s just like a vacation (according to you).

We don’t know if the husband or wife was cheating or physically abusive or an addict who spent all their money on drugs or alcohol (these people should lose all rights to any money and custody, IMHO), what the original agreement was WRT parenting the child, etc. If they both agreed that their child would have a parent home, then that agreement should stick.

Also, it looks like the WIFE paid 80% of the down payment, so how in the world did you come up with the idea that he should be entitled to the home???

This is a loser, no matter what. They need to dump the townhome and be done with it. EVERYBODY loses in a divorce because the total family income is split into fractions while the costs rise (two households on the income that supported one household). That’s why both parties tend to think the other one ripped them off.

Ultimately, when a couple has children, they should be obligated to do everything in their power to make the marriage work. Their child will suffer, no matter how “friendly” the divorce.

[CA renter]

Knowing that I really shouldn’t venture into this argument, but can’t help myself…

Firstly, anyone who calls a stay-at-home parent a “whiner” or says they “don’t work” has never done it before.

I’ve worked in the public sector, private sector and as a SAHP, and being a SAHP is **by far** the most difficult job around. If you disagree, then volunteer your time to “not work” for one of those slacker moms/dads on a daily basis, for an extended period of time. You shouldn’t mind a bit, because it’s “not work.” You wouldn’t be paid, naturally, because it’s just like a vacation (according to you).

We don’t know if the husband or wife was cheating or physically abusive or an addict who spent all their money on drugs or alcohol (these people should lose all rights to any money and custody, IMHO), what the original agreement was WRT parenting the child, etc. If they both agreed that their child would have a parent home, then that agreement should stick.

Also, it looks like the WIFE paid 80% of the down payment, so how in the world did you come up with the idea that he should be entitled to the home???

This is a loser, no matter what. They need to dump the townhome and be done with it. EVERYBODY loses in a divorce because the total family income is split into fractions while the costs rise (two households on the income that supported one household). That’s why both parties tend to think the other one ripped them off.

Ultimately, when a couple has children, they should be obligated to do everything in their power to make the marriage work. Their child will suffer, no matter how “friendly” the divorce.

[CA renter]

Knowing that I really shouldn’t venture into this argument, but can’t help myself…

Firstly, anyone who calls a stay-at-home parent a “whiner” or says they “don’t work” has never done it before.

I’ve worked in the public sector, private sector and as a SAHP, and being a SAHP is **by far** the most difficult job around. If you disagree, then volunteer your time to “not work” for one of those slacker moms/dads on a daily basis, for an extended period of time. You shouldn’t mind a bit, because it’s “not work.” You wouldn’t be paid, naturally, because it’s just like a vacation (according to you).

We don’t know if the husband or wife was cheating or physically abusive or an addict who spent all their money on drugs or alcohol (these people should lose all rights to any money and custody, IMHO), what the original agreement was WRT parenting the child, etc. If they both agreed that their child would have a parent home, then that agreement should stick.

Also, it looks like the WIFE paid 80% of the down payment, so how in the world did you come up with the idea that he should be entitled to the home???

This is a loser, no matter what. They need to dump the townhome and be done with it. EVERYBODY loses in a divorce because the total family income is split into fractions while the costs rise (two households on the income that supported one household). That’s why both parties tend to think the other one ripped them off.

Ultimately, when a couple has children, they should be obligated to do everything in their power to make the marriage work. Their child will suffer, no matter how “friendly” the divorce.

[CA renter]

Agree, The Breeze. Ron Paul is pretty kooky in many ways, but he gets the economic issues better than any other representative I’ve ever heard.

Since Obama wants to save the FBs and McCain wants to spread “democracy” around the world via war; I can’t see any other option but to write in Ron Paul. He may win this election after all.

Also, remember that we need to get rid of all legislators — Republicans and Democrats — who try to waste taxpayer’s money on rescuing fraudsters and speculators.

[CA renter]

Agree, The Breeze. Ron Paul is pretty kooky in many ways, but he gets the economic issues better than any other representative I’ve ever heard.

Since Obama wants to save the FBs and McCain wants to spread “democracy” around the world via war; I can’t see any other option but to write in Ron Paul. He may win this election after all.

Also, remember that we need to get rid of all legislators — Republicans and Democrats — who try to waste taxpayer’s money on rescuing fraudsters and speculators.

[CA renter]

Agree, The Breeze. Ron Paul is pretty kooky in many ways, but he gets the economic issues better than any other representative I’ve ever heard.

Since Obama wants to save the FBs and McCain wants to spread “democracy” around the world via war; I can’t see any other option but to write in Ron Paul. He may win this election after all.

Also, remember that we need to get rid of all legislators — Republicans and Democrats — who try to waste taxpayer’s money on rescuing fraudsters and speculators.

[CA renter]

Agree, The Breeze. Ron Paul is pretty kooky in many ways, but he gets the economic issues better than any other representative I’ve ever heard.

Since Obama wants to save the FBs and McCain wants to spread “democracy” around the world via war; I can’t see any other option but to write in Ron Paul. He may win this election after all.

Also, remember that we need to get rid of all legislators — Republicans and Democrats — who try to waste taxpayer’s money on rescuing fraudsters and speculators.

[Author]

Posts