Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Republicans = Financial Crash?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Quote:I know in the 1920s Republicans had a laiziferre (sp?) attitude, believing the government is not responsible for the economy's success or failure. Herbert Hoover got lazy because he saw the economy booming. I don't know any specifics but if this is true (and it must be if you learn it in American history class), only Republicans can be blamed for the stock market crash in 1929.


As for George Bush, anybody who was paying attention during his administration knows what caused the Great Recession in 2008.


I remember the 8th grade.
Quote:I remember the 8th grade.
 

Were you in eighth grade when Bush was president?
It will never stop being Obama's fault. It will always be for eternity. One thousand years from now there will stand a statue of Obama holding up a sign saying "My Fault".

Quote:It will never stop being Obama's fault. It will always be for eternity. One thousand years from now there will stand a statue of Obama holding up a sign saying "My Fault".


Of Obama?? No, he'll be holding a sign that says "It's anyone's fault but mine."
The biggest fault of Obama up to this point has been Obamacare and the utter catastrophe it's been.  The fact that I'm paying so much more now for health care than I was in 2013, and each year it continues to rise.  Not only am I unhappy with it, but many of the people that couldn't afford healthcare in the past are unhappy with it as well.  A bad system only got worse.

Quote:It will never stop being Obama's fault. It will always be for eternity. One thousand years from now there will stand a statue of Obama holding up a sign saying "My Fault".
 

It will never stop being Bush's fault. Obama inherited an economical disaster. Republicans, Democrats, and independents agree it began when Bush was in office.
The sitting president has amassed more debt than all previous presidents combined.


So yeah, color me skeptical.
I am trying to picture a scenario where I like another countries most popular sport. Let's call it soccer in this case. I then try to picture a scenario where I spend all of my time on this other countries teams message board posting in their political forum. It just feels weird.

We live in a global World. Apologies for not being American and having an opinion.


Sad you Trump cultists cant even converse politely.
The thing is, people as well as the MSM tend to overlook factors that are involved regarding the economy.  Let's look at the last 20 years as an example.

 

1996 - 2001 - This was a time of huge change not only in financial markets, but also in social terms.  The internet was booming and people were making money starting up "dot-coms".  With the internet and "getting online" booming so much, many tech stocks were up and people were making money "hand-over-fist".  This was the "dot-com bubble" that started under President Clinton.  One thing to note though is also happening during this time frame (and slightly prior) was relaxed rules for sub-prime lending.  You saw the explosion of "payday lending" businesses as well as "title loan" businesses.  Along with that came sub-prime mortgage loans.  In other words, people with poor credit were able to get cash in various non-traditional ways.  This was under a Democrat President and a Republican led congress.

 

2001 - 2008 - Quite a few things took place during this time period.  First and foremost was the attack on 9/11.  It rattled the stock market along with placing a bunch of uncertainty among the population.  Advances in technology also cause the "dot-com bubble burst".  In the meantime, sub-prime loans, specifically mortgages were made easier to get, thanks to meddling by the government.  There were actually warnings and concerns from the Republican administration at the time, but they were largely ignored.  At the same time, investors and bankers started investing in "packages" of these mortgages which in turn caused banks and lending institutions to issue even more of them creating a "housing bubble".  While this is going on, the law of "supply and demand" took over making real estate value rise artificially.  Combine the perceived "rising value" of real estate with "easy to get" mortgages, and it's just a disaster waiting to happen.  When people started to default on mortgages starting in 2007 and spilling over into 2008, many investors and banks were caught off guard.  The fall of financial giants started to happen which not only included lending companies, but also large banks that are important to commerce in our society.  Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, etc. are huge not only in our country, but on a global scale.  The collapse and failure of not only those firms, but others has a "trickle down" effect on other businesses.

 

At this point, several things were done.  The first was TARP which was actually started by the Bush Administration and executed by the Obama regime.  It was imperative to get the banks "back on their feet" otherwise we could have had a total collapse of the economy.  When you're at the bottom the only direction is up.

 

2008 - 11/01/16 - The economy somewhat "recovered" in that the stock market has gained back the losses from the housing bubble, but nothing really special has happened.

 

11/09/16 - Present day - The market has actually responded in both an unpredictable way yet a favorable way.  Investors seem to be confident that the direction of the economy is going up.  Even today with The Fed announcing a rate hike, the market was basically "flat" (slightly down, but not by much).

 

I'm willing to bet that the economy is going to start roaring again.  New and meaningful jobs should start coming up and progress will be made.

Why did you omit November 2-8, 2016 in your detailed analysis?

 

I am guessing the "easy to get" mortgages you are referring to are adjustable rate mortgages, in which people could pay less money down not knowing their payments a couple years later would skyrocket to unaffordable levels. People were forced out of their homes when this happened. The housing market was actually booming for a while, but many of the same people being talked into signing ARMs to buy homes were also losing their jobs.

 

Two names that often came up in the news were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I had never heard of those agencies before the housing crisis began, but understood this much: they were largely at fault for the real estate crap going on.

 

I never read or heard the term subprime loan, but that part of your analysis reminds me of when money borrowing companies sprouted all over central Ohio to help people who can't live paycheck to paycheck. Mom explained it this way: you need money on Tuesday and can't wait until payday on Friday, so you go to one of those little businesses, but in the end you pay more than you get. Is that what you are calling a subprime loan?:

This is what I want to know: Why do people think a Republican Congress and President will fix the economy knowing that combination caused the worst financial crises in American history?

Quote:This is what I want to know: Why do people think a Republican Congress and President will fix the economy knowing that combination caused the worst financial crises in American history?


If people know that they are misinformed.
I'm going to make an attempt to explain some of this but I'm not too sure how good of a job I'm going to do.


Financial advice from a realtor before I get started.  When you want a home and you go to the bank they will look at your income and assets.  They will then say great! we preapprove you for a loan of 200,000$.  What many people do is start looking for homes in the 220,000 range thinking they can talk them down to 200,000 and be happy thinking they got a deal.  The problem is the bank is really telling you that you can barely afford something 200,000$ and that is the absolute max they are willing to trust you with.  The better option is to look for something in the 150,000 range because that is something you can easily afford and build equity in faster.  When you are maxed out at 200,000 at a 4% rate, a 4.5% rate might ruin you.  When you are 3/4s of the way maxed out an adjustment won't matter as much.


Your first home isn't supposed to be your dream home it is supposed to show the bank you can handle a mortgage.  Once you can handle a mortgage you can pay off a house or atleast build equity sell that house (hopefully when the markets high)  Then buy your dream house (hopefully when the markets low).

 

 

Quote:I am guessing the "easy to get" mortgages you are referring to are adjustable rate mortgages


Two names that often came up in the news were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I had never heard of those agencies before the housing crisis began, but understood this much: they were largely at fault for the real estate crap going on.
As far as easy to get loans being ARM loans that is only partially true.  Think more along the lines of a person hasn't had a job for 2 years but for the last month they have been working.  They bank says sure you make money I can see your pay stub have a loan.  Another type of loan is called a balloon mortgage where you pay a minimal amount until a certain date a lot is due.  You had a job and figured in 5 years when the balloon payment was do you would be making more money.  However the economy did not proceed endlessly upward like people either hoped, or believed was happening.


From wikipedia


Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages. For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. Other considerations may have motivated the New Deal focus on the housing market: about a third of the nation's unemployed were in the building trade, and the government had a vested interest in getting them back to work by giving them homes to build.



Mae and Mack are somewhat similar in they help people who are higher risk or unwilling to get traditional loans and lack money.  The second problem is that when it was first initiated it was mostly to put people back to work.  That problem spirals out of control when those workers run out of houses to build to keep them employed which pays the mortgage.  This housing crisis began when banks were allowed to give just about anyone a loan.  


Mae and Mack are in place to allow more people to own homes which is fine.  What is not fine is to allow anyone to buy a home, regardless of their ability to afford the home.

Quote:This is what I want to know: Why do people think a Republican Congress and President will fix the economy knowing that combination caused the worst financial crises in American history?

this is not what it looks like.  Yes the collapse did happen with a republican congress and president.  However typically in politics the effects of of a presidency are not often felt until after the presidency is over.  Many of the laws put in during the Bill Clinton administration set up the ability for the banks to give people loans who probably should not have gotten loans.  Meaning when the effect took place a republican was in office, the cause took place long before that.


When looking at history do not just look at the dates the history took place, look at the years that preceded them and that will show what got the wheel rolling.

Quote:I'm going to make an attempt to explain some of this but I'm not too sure how good of a job I'm going to do.


Financial advice from a realtor before I get started.  When you want a home and you go to the bank they will look at your income and assets.  They will then say great! we preapprove you for a loan of 200,000$.  What many people do is start looking for homes in the 220,000 range thinking they can talk them down to 200,000 and be happy thinking they got a deal.  The problem is the bank is really telling you that you can barely afford something 200,000$ and that is the absolute max they are willing to trust you with.  The better option is to look for something in the 150,000 range because that is something you can easily afford and build equity in faster.  When you are maxed out at 200,000 at a 4% rate, a 4.5% rate might ruin you.  When you are 3/4s of the way maxed out an adjustment won't matter as much.


Your first home isn't supposed to be your dream home it is supposed to show the bank you can handle a mortgage.  Once you can handle a mortgage you can pay off a house or at least build equity sell that house (hopefully when the markets high)  Then buy your dream house (hopefully when the markets low).

 

 

As far as easy to get loans being ARM loans that is only partially true.  Think more along the lines of a person hasn't had a job for 2 years but for the last month they have been working.  They bank says sure you make money I can see your pay stub have a loan.  Another type of loan is called a balloon mortgage where you pay a minimal amount until a certain date a lot is due.  You had a job and figured in 5 years when the balloon payment was do you would be making more money.  However the economy did not proceed endlessly upward like people either hoped, or believed was happening.


From wikipedia


Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages. For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. Other considerations may have motivated the New Deal focus on the housing market: about a third of the nation's unemployed were in the building trade, and the government had a vested interest in getting them back to work by giving them homes to build.


Mae and Mack are somewhat similar in they help people who are higher risk or unwilling to get traditional loans and lack money.  The second problem is that when it was first initiated it was mostly to put people back to work.  That problem spirals out of control when those workers run out of houses to build to keep them employed which pays the mortgage.  This housing crisis began when banks were allowed to give just about anyone a loan.  


Mae and Mack are in place to allow more people to own homes which is fine.  What is not fine is to allow anyone to buy a home, regardless of their ability to afford the home.

this is not what it looks like.  Yes the collapse did happen with a republican congress and president.  However typically in politics the effects of of a presidency are not often felt until after the presidency is over.  Many of the laws put in during the Bill Clinton administration set up the ability for the banks to give people loans who probably should not have gotten loans.  Meaning when the effect took place a republican was in office, the cause took place long before that.


When looking at history do not just look at the dates the history took place, look at the years that preceded them and that will show what got the wheel rolling.
 

The buyer should know immediately it is a bad deal if he/she has only one paycheck. That is the buyer's fault. But who gets the blame for those buyers losing their jobs by the time mortgages skyrocket?

 

I blame it on the bank for accepting one paycheck as down payment for an ARM or something similar. There is no guarantee a house buyer will stay employed long enough to pay off the whole mortgage.
Quote:The buyer should know immediately it is a bad deal if he/she has only one paycheck. That is the buyer's fault. But who gets the blame for those buyers losing their jobs by the time mortgages skyrocket?

 

I blame it on the bank for accepting one paycheck as down payment for an ARM or something similar. There is no guarantee a house buyer will stay employed long enough to pay off the whole mortgage.
its all parties, the bank for giving the person the loan.  The person who had a job for a short amount of time and thinks that means they deserve a house.  part of purchasing a home is knowing you have job security to afford that home.  Granted many people did have job security before the crisis, but the crisis changed that for some.  Others knew they didn't have job security and went after loans because they knew they could get one even though they knew they couldn't pay for it if anything went wrong.
Quote:its all parties, the bank for giving the person the loan.  The person who had a job for a short amount of time and thinks that means they deserve a house.  part of purchasing a home is knowing you have job security to afford that home.  Granted many people did have job security before the crisis, but the crisis changed that for some.  Others knew they didn't have job security and went after loans because they knew they could get one even though they knew they couldn't pay for it if anything went wrong.
 

There also are cases where job security was never an issue until that evil mortgage rate went way up. I read about a couple in California who had good full time jobs when they signed for am ARM on a good house. Everything looked good - until the woman got pregnant. Then they could not afford the house anymore and had to raise their baby in a trailer. 
Quote:There also are cases where job security was never an issue until that evil mortgage rate went way up. I read about a couple in California who had good full time jobs when they signed for am ARM on a good house. Everything looked good - until the woman got pregnant. Then they could not afford the house anymore and had to raise their baby in a trailer. 


well I for one believe if you can't afford a house and kid you probably shouldn't have both.  So was the solution here 15$ birth control or a smaller house they could have afforded?  Maybe living in a part of the country that isn't ridiculously expensive?
Quote:well I for one believe if you can't afford a house and kid you probably shouldn't have both.  So was the solution here 15$ birth control or a smaller house they could have afforded?  Maybe living in a part of the country that isn't ridiculously expensive?
 

She was not pregnant when she bought the house.
Quote:She was not pregnant when she bought the house.

I'm sure she wasn't.  But if you are just making ends meet and barely affording the place you live.  Having a kid and not being able to work for an extended period of time and all the costs that go with being a parent are going to effect you.  In this case they lost their home not because she was pregnant but because they didn't budget for a baby.  This is why you don't buy a house outside your ability to afford if one change ruins you financially.  Lets not act like having a baby is free, its basically taking out a second mortgage for 18 years around 300,000$
Pages: 1 2 3