Can Bush Save Us From the Housing Mess?

[Bean Counter]

Mama-san wrote:

<quoted text>
I feel kinda bad. I try HARD not to bash him....but sometimes...it just overflows!

You have done well, Grasshopper ;-)

[ladymessenger]

Just An Observer wrote:

Save us????? He created it!

1986From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Savings and Loan crisis)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was a wave of savings and loan association failures in the United States in which over 1,000 savings and loan institutions failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. This bailout encouraged lender to make new bad loans in the 2000s and was a contributing cause of 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.} Did you say bush? Which one or both?

[mechanic]

The president probably would not stop and tell you nor do I rememberall the messes he has saved us from . Bless him.

[Guess who]

Eron wrote:

That's right! People (like most) went into these subprime contracts without a thought to the future. their fault. Having said that, the media makes it seem like everyone is fixin' to lose their house. Not true. 94% of Americans (who own housing) are good to go in that arena. They have no trouble paying their mortgage on time.
<quoted text>

Where did you get your stats? How many Americans own their homes?

[Guess who]

Would be interesting to see the stats of the area's affected where the redeveolpment plans are flying.

[Eron]

I believe that I read it in the Washington post. The number of Americans that have a mortgage on their homes is around 86 million

Guess who wrote:

<quoted text> Where did you get your stats? How many Americans own their homes?

[EdO]

ladymessenger wrote:

<quoted text>1986From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Savings and Loan crisis)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was a wave of savings and loan association failures in the United States in which over 1,000 savings and loan institutions failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. This bailout encouraged lender to make new bad loans in the 2000s and was a contributing cause of 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.} Did you say bush? Which one or both?

Wikipedia isn't a peer reviewed reference and isn't even allowed to be used in college level papers. Using it as a reference dosn't support intellectual discussion.

[Just An Observer]

EdO wrote:

<quoted text>
Wikipedia isn't a peer reviewed reference and isn't even allowed to be used in college level papers. Using it as a reference dosn't support intellectual discussion.

So, more or less, what he/she wrote ,is pretty much the truth.

[ladymessenger]

Just An Observer wrote:

<quoted text>So, more or less, what he/she wrote ,is pretty much the truth.

Yea pretty much and it is all documented here- http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/s...

[Curt N Cogent]

Just An Observer wrote:

<quoted text>So, more or less, what he/she wrote ,is pretty much the truth.

ladymessenger wrote:

<quoted text>Yea pretty much and it is all documented here- http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/s...

There's a world of wiggle-room in "pretty much," my dear scholars.

[EdO]

ladymessenger wrote:

<quoted text>1986From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Savings and Loan crisis)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was a wave of savings and loan association failures in the United States in which over 1,000 savings and loan institutions failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. This bailout encouraged lender to make new bad loans in the 2000s and was a contributing cause of 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.} Did you say bush? Which one or both?

The first part might be - more or less - historically accurate. Although there was a lot of factors that contributed to the S&L failure and some that had nothing to do with corruption. The last section about how the S&L bailout encouraged lenders to make risky (sub-prime) loans is opinion at best.

[ladymessenger]

Curt N Cogent wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
There's a world of wiggle-room in "pretty much," my dear scholars.

I will admit I am not very scholarly so I will not spell it out for you.

[Bill R]

EdO wrote:

<quoted text>
Wikipedia isn't a peer reviewed reference and isn't even allowed to be used in college level papers. Using it as a reference dosn't support intellectual discussion.

For a long, long time it was possible to go into
their "articles" and amend them. No names here,
but there were even groups in different companies
that would go into Wikipedia articles and "edit"
them just for laughs .... changing statistics,
the ordering of facts, and even the names of
people. One of the best, if one can allow for
good humor, was a guy who went into the article
on France, which had a French flag atop the
page. He changed it to pure white ... they didn't
catch for weeks.

The point is that Wikipedia is just a collection
of articles from people who chose to submit them
for "publication." They were not reviewed for
accuracy or bias content, so they stand as entries
even though, as you say, they were never peer
reviewed.

That's been no problem for those who seek to
find support for their point of view. Its a kind
of "If its in Wikipedia, it must be true" dis-
ease.

Wikipedia has admitted there is a serious problem
and has been trying to find ways to correct the
problem and prevent garbage from going in, but
I know one perosn within Wikipedia who confesses
it is a lost cause because of the easy with
which hackers can corrupt material.

[Rowdy]

Hahahahahahaha!

[Just An Observer]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
For a long, long time it was possible to go into
their "articles" and amend them. No names here,
but there were even groups in different companies
that would go into Wikipedia articles and "edit"
them just for laughs .... changing statistics,
the ordering of facts, and even the names of
people. One of the best, if one can allow for
good humor, was a guy who went into the article
on France, which had a French flag atop the
page. He changed it to pure white ... they didn't
catch for weeks.
The point is that Wikipedia is just a collection
of articles from people who chose to submit them
for "publication." They were not reviewed for
accuracy or bias content, so they stand as entries
even though, as you say, they were never peer
reviewed.
That's been no problem for those who seek to
find support for their point of view. Its a kind
of "If its in Wikipedia, it must be true" dis-
ease.
Wikipedia has admitted there is a serious problem
and has been trying to find ways to correct the
problem and prevent garbage from going in, but
I know one perosn within Wikipedia who confesses
it is a lost cause because of the easy with
which hackers can corrupt material.

Doesn't matter, as there are plenty of articles elsewhere pertaining to the Savings and Loan crisis. Wikipedia is irrelevant here.

[Curt N Cogent]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
For a long, long time it was possible to go into
their "articles" and amend them. No names here,
but there were even groups in different companies
that would go into Wikipedia articles and "edit"
them just for laughs .... changing statistics,
the ordering of facts, and even the names of
people. One of the best, if one can allow for
good humor, was a guy who went into the article
on France, which had a French flag atop the
page. He changed it to pure white ... they didn't
catch for weeks.
The point is that Wikipedia is just a collection
of articles from people who chose to submit them
for "publication." They were not reviewed for
accuracy or bias content, so they stand as entries
even though, as you say, they were never peer
reviewed.
That's been no problem for those who seek to
find support for their point of view. Its a kind
of "If its in Wikipedia, it must be true" dis-
ease.
Wikipedia has admitted there is a serious problem
and has been trying to find ways to correct the
problem and prevent garbage from going in, but
I know one perosn within Wikipedia who confesses
it is a lost cause because of the easy with
which hackers can corrupt material.

Can we assume that Wikipedia is more accurate than the typical "Bill R" post?

[toadspad]

mechanic wrote:

I know on this blog it will not do any good to say on this forum but, the president is doing his best, and may do more. He will not sit back and see his work unravel.

That is what is really scary.
"the president is doing his best,"
If that is his best i sure hate to see his worst. Wait, we are seen his worst.
And look at the mess this country is in since he took office.
Has not accomplished a darn thing except get the world to hate us even more.
He has been a LOOSER at everything he has tried, from clooage on theough the Air Forve and on in to the White House.

[wavesport]

Gamer wrote:

<quoted text>
You actually think that they work to be your friend?
Every salesperson will give you a rosy outlook to make a sale.
As for your quote...it hasn't until the past 2 years. She didn't say "never". She said "hardly"
You as a consumer is responsible for the final product/contract. Why is that so hard to understand?

to take what you said one step further...if you are stupid enough to believe anything a realtor tells you about loans (and for that matter almost anything) then you deserve what you get. Most realtors I know are idiots in their own bus., how could they be expected to know lending with that big bad 6 week education? That's right folks, 6 weeks is all it takes to have a realestate license, but then again they don't know anything you couldn't figure out yourself, although they are trained to make you think you need them.

ps...I'm in the bus. of dealing with them all the time and most of them make me sick!

[wavesport]

toadspad wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what is really scary.
"the president is doing his best,"
If that is his best i sure hate to see his worst. Wait, we are seen his worst.
And look at the mess this country is in since he took office.
Has not accomplished a darn thing except get the world to hate us even more.
He has been a LOOSER at everything he has tried, from clooage on theough the Air Forve and on in to the White House.

I just hope that you aren't a victim to a terrorist attack because you elect someone who won't stand up to them. Moron!