[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]Back in May this year, This American Life did a great radio broadcast on how the whole mortgage loan industry spun up and crashed. Fairly balanced account, includes stories of minimum wage workers buying $450k houses on no-proof applications, to the brokers and intermediaries and the banks and all points in between pushing to fill the pipeline with more loans to keep the secondary markets flowing… Really great account of how the mess started and played out. Worth $.95 to download.[/quote]
Yeah I streamed it while driving to Northern California with wife and critter. Something about Ira Glass’s voice just puts babies down.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

Its free if you stream it.

Incredibly good and understandable coverage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]Back in May this year, This American Life did a great radio broadcast on how the whole mortgage loan industry spun up and crashed. Fairly balanced account, includes stories of minimum wage workers buying $450k houses on no-proof applications, to the brokers and intermediaries and the banks and all points in between pushing to fill the pipeline with more loans to keep the secondary markets flowing… Really great account of how the mess started and played out. Worth $.95 to download.[/quote]
Yeah I streamed it while driving to Northern California with wife and critter. Something about Ira Glass’s voice just puts babies down.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

Its free if you stream it.

Incredibly good and understandable coverage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]

John,

You been in a cave smokin’ crack with bin Laden? Which party over the last 8 years has “spent that money” and “borrow[ed] from the unborn to stuff the ballot box?” I can think of a certain governor from Alaska–not a Dem–who took the $$ and ran with it like a bandit, regardless of whether that damn brige was built or not. Don’t be a pot calling the kettle black, John! You are a farce.[/quote]

Does bin Laden smoke crack?
I am not certain but I think it is against islam.

John, unbalanced budgets do not necessarily lead to bankruptcy. Lots of people and governments run ongoing deficits safely. Its the unsafely high debt service burden that concerns me. Thats not odd, thats just what lots of economists and financial advisors say. Basically, having a credit card is okay but don’t run it up so high you are broke.

As far as the Dem hatred, yeah I get it already. You hate dems. Wheee. Those rants don’t help your discussions (which, for the most part, are pretty good for a right-winger). Thats all.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]

John,

You been in a cave smokin’ crack with bin Laden? Which party over the last 8 years has “spent that money” and “borrow[ed] from the unborn to stuff the ballot box?” I can think of a certain governor from Alaska–not a Dem–who took the $$ and ran with it like a bandit, regardless of whether that damn brige was built or not. Don’t be a pot calling the kettle black, John! You are a farce.[/quote]

Does bin Laden smoke crack?
I am not certain but I think it is against islam.

John, unbalanced budgets do not necessarily lead to bankruptcy. Lots of people and governments run ongoing deficits safely. Its the unsafely high debt service burden that concerns me. Thats not odd, thats just what lots of economists and financial advisors say. Basically, having a credit card is okay but don’t run it up so high you are broke.

As far as the Dem hatred, yeah I get it already. You hate dems. Wheee. Those rants don’t help your discussions (which, for the most part, are pretty good for a right-winger). Thats all.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]

John,

You been in a cave smokin’ crack with bin Laden? Which party over the last 8 years has “spent that money” and “borrow[ed] from the unborn to stuff the ballot box?” I can think of a certain governor from Alaska–not a Dem–who took the $$ and ran with it like a bandit, regardless of whether that damn brige was built or not. Don’t be a pot calling the kettle black, John! You are a farce.[/quote]

Does bin Laden smoke crack?
I am not certain but I think it is against islam.

John, unbalanced budgets do not necessarily lead to bankruptcy. Lots of people and governments run ongoing deficits safely. Its the unsafely high debt service burden that concerns me. Thats not odd, thats just what lots of economists and financial advisors say. Basically, having a credit card is okay but don’t run it up so high you are broke.

As far as the Dem hatred, yeah I get it already. You hate dems. Wheee. Those rants don’t help your discussions (which, for the most part, are pretty good for a right-winger). Thats all.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]

John,

You been in a cave smokin’ crack with bin Laden? Which party over the last 8 years has “spent that money” and “borrow[ed] from the unborn to stuff the ballot box?” I can think of a certain governor from Alaska–not a Dem–who took the $$ and ran with it like a bandit, regardless of whether that damn brige was built or not. Don’t be a pot calling the kettle black, John! You are a farce.[/quote]

Does bin Laden smoke crack?
I am not certain but I think it is against islam.

John, unbalanced budgets do not necessarily lead to bankruptcy. Lots of people and governments run ongoing deficits safely. Its the unsafely high debt service burden that concerns me. Thats not odd, thats just what lots of economists and financial advisors say. Basically, having a credit card is okay but don’t run it up so high you are broke.

As far as the Dem hatred, yeah I get it already. You hate dems. Wheee. Those rants don’t help your discussions (which, for the most part, are pretty good for a right-winger). Thats all.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Shadowfax]

John,

You been in a cave smokin’ crack with bin Laden? Which party over the last 8 years has “spent that money” and “borrow[ed] from the unborn to stuff the ballot box?” I can think of a certain governor from Alaska–not a Dem–who took the $$ and ran with it like a bandit, regardless of whether that damn brige was built or not. Don’t be a pot calling the kettle black, John! You are a farce.[/quote]

Does bin Laden smoke crack?
I am not certain but I think it is against islam.

John, unbalanced budgets do not necessarily lead to bankruptcy. Lots of people and governments run ongoing deficits safely. Its the unsafely high debt service burden that concerns me. Thats not odd, thats just what lots of economists and financial advisors say. Basically, having a credit card is okay but don’t run it up so high you are broke.

As far as the Dem hatred, yeah I get it already. You hate dems. Wheee. Those rants don’t help your discussions (which, for the most part, are pretty good for a right-winger). Thats all.

Dan

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter]TheBreeze, I’d vote for Obama if I could. (I am not a US citizen.) I am hoping he pursues a Clinton-style fiscal policy, without the Greenspan bubbles. McCain doesn’t seem able to understand economics well enough to say no to someone like a Bernanke. Both appear very weak to me, to be honest, since they are still mostly talking about how much more they want to spend, and what they want to do to reward those who were irresponsible.

So it turns out we are not very far apart on key issues. Getting govt out of housing entirely would be the best thing for the economy in 30 years. I could take almost anything in return for that.

[/quote]
Well I don’t think anyone would accuse me of blindly agreeing with TheBreeze (which, by the way, sounds a euphemism for farting) but he is dead on here.
You bemoan, PR, that we are considering stepping into moral hazard land by comparing borrowers to gambling addicts. However, our entire economy is riddled with institutional backstops to personal ruin (eg: bankruptcy, welfare). These are not there because of some sense of American Noblesse Oblige. These exist because they fit well with the goal of sustainable economic advancement. If mass amounts of ruined borrowers are in jail or in bread lines or beholden to creditors, then it is much harder to expand national wealth. Further it is almost impossible to get re-elected.

If the goals of an elected official are a) govern well and b)get re-elected, then moral consequence are not even in the first tier of considerations.

Good post breeze.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter]TheBreeze, I’d vote for Obama if I could. (I am not a US citizen.) I am hoping he pursues a Clinton-style fiscal policy, without the Greenspan bubbles. McCain doesn’t seem able to understand economics well enough to say no to someone like a Bernanke. Both appear very weak to me, to be honest, since they are still mostly talking about how much more they want to spend, and what they want to do to reward those who were irresponsible.

So it turns out we are not very far apart on key issues. Getting govt out of housing entirely would be the best thing for the economy in 30 years. I could take almost anything in return for that.

[/quote]
Well I don’t think anyone would accuse me of blindly agreeing with TheBreeze (which, by the way, sounds a euphemism for farting) but he is dead on here.
You bemoan, PR, that we are considering stepping into moral hazard land by comparing borrowers to gambling addicts. However, our entire economy is riddled with institutional backstops to personal ruin (eg: bankruptcy, welfare). These are not there because of some sense of American Noblesse Oblige. These exist because they fit well with the goal of sustainable economic advancement. If mass amounts of ruined borrowers are in jail or in bread lines or beholden to creditors, then it is much harder to expand national wealth. Further it is almost impossible to get re-elected.

If the goals of an elected official are a) govern well and b)get re-elected, then moral consequence are not even in the first tier of considerations.

Good post breeze.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter]TheBreeze, I’d vote for Obama if I could. (I am not a US citizen.) I am hoping he pursues a Clinton-style fiscal policy, without the Greenspan bubbles. McCain doesn’t seem able to understand economics well enough to say no to someone like a Bernanke. Both appear very weak to me, to be honest, since they are still mostly talking about how much more they want to spend, and what they want to do to reward those who were irresponsible.

So it turns out we are not very far apart on key issues. Getting govt out of housing entirely would be the best thing for the economy in 30 years. I could take almost anything in return for that.

[/quote]
Well I don’t think anyone would accuse me of blindly agreeing with TheBreeze (which, by the way, sounds a euphemism for farting) but he is dead on here.
You bemoan, PR, that we are considering stepping into moral hazard land by comparing borrowers to gambling addicts. However, our entire economy is riddled with institutional backstops to personal ruin (eg: bankruptcy, welfare). These are not there because of some sense of American Noblesse Oblige. These exist because they fit well with the goal of sustainable economic advancement. If mass amounts of ruined borrowers are in jail or in bread lines or beholden to creditors, then it is much harder to expand national wealth. Further it is almost impossible to get re-elected.

If the goals of an elected official are a) govern well and b)get re-elected, then moral consequence are not even in the first tier of considerations.

Good post breeze.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter]TheBreeze, I’d vote for Obama if I could. (I am not a US citizen.) I am hoping he pursues a Clinton-style fiscal policy, without the Greenspan bubbles. McCain doesn’t seem able to understand economics well enough to say no to someone like a Bernanke. Both appear very weak to me, to be honest, since they are still mostly talking about how much more they want to spend, and what they want to do to reward those who were irresponsible.

So it turns out we are not very far apart on key issues. Getting govt out of housing entirely would be the best thing for the economy in 30 years. I could take almost anything in return for that.

[/quote]
Well I don’t think anyone would accuse me of blindly agreeing with TheBreeze (which, by the way, sounds a euphemism for farting) but he is dead on here.
You bemoan, PR, that we are considering stepping into moral hazard land by comparing borrowers to gambling addicts. However, our entire economy is riddled with institutional backstops to personal ruin (eg: bankruptcy, welfare). These are not there because of some sense of American Noblesse Oblige. These exist because they fit well with the goal of sustainable economic advancement. If mass amounts of ruined borrowers are in jail or in bread lines or beholden to creditors, then it is much harder to expand national wealth. Further it is almost impossible to get re-elected.

If the goals of an elected official are a) govern well and b)get re-elected, then moral consequence are not even in the first tier of considerations.

Good post breeze.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=patientrenter]TheBreeze, I’d vote for Obama if I could. (I am not a US citizen.) I am hoping he pursues a Clinton-style fiscal policy, without the Greenspan bubbles. McCain doesn’t seem able to understand economics well enough to say no to someone like a Bernanke. Both appear very weak to me, to be honest, since they are still mostly talking about how much more they want to spend, and what they want to do to reward those who were irresponsible.

So it turns out we are not very far apart on key issues. Getting govt out of housing entirely would be the best thing for the economy in 30 years. I could take almost anything in return for that.

[/quote]
Well I don’t think anyone would accuse me of blindly agreeing with TheBreeze (which, by the way, sounds a euphemism for farting) but he is dead on here.
You bemoan, PR, that we are considering stepping into moral hazard land by comparing borrowers to gambling addicts. However, our entire economy is riddled with institutional backstops to personal ruin (eg: bankruptcy, welfare). These are not there because of some sense of American Noblesse Oblige. These exist because they fit well with the goal of sustainable economic advancement. If mass amounts of ruined borrowers are in jail or in bread lines or beholden to creditors, then it is much harder to expand national wealth. Further it is almost impossible to get re-elected.

If the goals of an elected official are a) govern well and b)get re-elected, then moral consequence are not even in the first tier of considerations.

Good post breeze.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

Why when presented with evidence supporting claims that this mess started with Clinton you come up with nation debt issues?
[/quote]
Well a lot of this discussion, by which I mean the national dialogue of turmoil and bailout (not specifically this thread) seems to focus on issues of cost to taxpayers.

[quote=jficquette]
Why can’t democrats stick to issues and facts rather then try to cloud them?
[/quote]
I am a liberal. My party affiliation is incidental (and could change). There have been several occasions where republicans were closer to my line of thinking. So I really cannot speak to your anecdotes regarding democrats. Based on your descriptions, you would think that a maverick and bipartisan Republican (which is a fair description of McCain) would be more successful. However, democracy does not favor you.

[quote=jficquette]
Urban do you think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid led country will actually balance the budget as he claims?
[/quote]
I don’t know.
But a white trash, Bible-thumping, southern liberal did it. It is true, he was a Rhodes scholar, but its not like he was a some ivory tower intellectual. He was just good at figuring stuff out and acknowledging his weak points and listening to adverse opinions.

On that same topic I don’t think it is reasonable to hold a chief executive as innocent and absent from the performance of the nation. Clinton was not along for the ride any more than the Bush administration was.

[quote=jficquette]
Do you really even care that the budget is balanced?
[/quote]
As an abstract concept? No,not at all.
What I care is that the burden of debt service not become so cumbersome that we have to print our way out. I think it unlikely that we will ever need to monetize our debt (ala Latin America in the ’80s or Zimbabwe now) but I do fear that we will see damaging inflation or increase in the cost of borrowing as a result of being over-leveraged or reduced ability to use fiscal policy as a result of enforced fiscal conservatism.

I think that these are reasonable concerns.
Best example: Japan during the 90’s.
[quote=jficquette]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

Why when presented with evidence supporting claims that this mess started with Clinton you come up with nation debt issues?
[/quote]
Well a lot of this discussion, by which I mean the national dialogue of turmoil and bailout (not specifically this thread) seems to focus on issues of cost to taxpayers.

[quote=jficquette]
Why can’t democrats stick to issues and facts rather then try to cloud them?
[/quote]
I am a liberal. My party affiliation is incidental (and could change). There have been several occasions where republicans were closer to my line of thinking. So I really cannot speak to your anecdotes regarding democrats. Based on your descriptions, you would think that a maverick and bipartisan Republican (which is a fair description of McCain) would be more successful. However, democracy does not favor you.

[quote=jficquette]
Urban do you think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid led country will actually balance the budget as he claims?
[/quote]
I don’t know.
But a white trash, Bible-thumping, southern liberal did it. It is true, he was a Rhodes scholar, but its not like he was a some ivory tower intellectual. He was just good at figuring stuff out and acknowledging his weak points and listening to adverse opinions.

On that same topic I don’t think it is reasonable to hold a chief executive as innocent and absent from the performance of the nation. Clinton was not along for the ride any more than the Bush administration was.

[quote=jficquette]
Do you really even care that the budget is balanced?
[/quote]
As an abstract concept? No,not at all.
What I care is that the burden of debt service not become so cumbersome that we have to print our way out. I think it unlikely that we will ever need to monetize our debt (ala Latin America in the ’80s or Zimbabwe now) but I do fear that we will see damaging inflation or increase in the cost of borrowing as a result of being over-leveraged or reduced ability to use fiscal policy as a result of enforced fiscal conservatism.

I think that these are reasonable concerns.
Best example: Japan during the 90’s.
[quote=jficquette]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

Why when presented with evidence supporting claims that this mess started with Clinton you come up with nation debt issues?
[/quote]
Well a lot of this discussion, by which I mean the national dialogue of turmoil and bailout (not specifically this thread) seems to focus on issues of cost to taxpayers.

[quote=jficquette]
Why can’t democrats stick to issues and facts rather then try to cloud them?
[/quote]
I am a liberal. My party affiliation is incidental (and could change). There have been several occasions where republicans were closer to my line of thinking. So I really cannot speak to your anecdotes regarding democrats. Based on your descriptions, you would think that a maverick and bipartisan Republican (which is a fair description of McCain) would be more successful. However, democracy does not favor you.

[quote=jficquette]
Urban do you think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid led country will actually balance the budget as he claims?
[/quote]
I don’t know.
But a white trash, Bible-thumping, southern liberal did it. It is true, he was a Rhodes scholar, but its not like he was a some ivory tower intellectual. He was just good at figuring stuff out and acknowledging his weak points and listening to adverse opinions.

On that same topic I don’t think it is reasonable to hold a chief executive as innocent and absent from the performance of the nation. Clinton was not along for the ride any more than the Bush administration was.

[quote=jficquette]
Do you really even care that the budget is balanced?
[/quote]
As an abstract concept? No,not at all.
What I care is that the burden of debt service not become so cumbersome that we have to print our way out. I think it unlikely that we will ever need to monetize our debt (ala Latin America in the ’80s or Zimbabwe now) but I do fear that we will see damaging inflation or increase in the cost of borrowing as a result of being over-leveraged or reduced ability to use fiscal policy as a result of enforced fiscal conservatism.

I think that these are reasonable concerns.
Best example: Japan during the 90’s.
[quote=jficquette]

[Author]

Posts