So my dorm just exploded; yours?

[soccerguy315]

<p>

Funny you should think that, because 75% of all the sub-prime loans were made by the private banks and not Freddie/Fannie. And for several years the percentage was higher than that; Fannie and Freddie only got into the sub-prime near the end because they were losing so much market share to the banks that were packaging sub-prime loans. The private banks made those loans because they had no plans of keeping them; they were flipping them to suckers out there.

</p>

<p>Who ate the loans when they went bad? hint: they got a big government bailout, and hint 2: it wasn’t normal banks.</p>

<p>

Nothing there about Freddie/Fannie being at the heart of the problem. Pray tell, naive right-wing apologist, who were those securitizers and who were they selling to? Hint: not Fannie and Freddie.

</p>

<p>Who owned over 50% of the mortgage market? Fannie + Freddie. What collapsed? The housing market. What do you need to buy a house? A mortgage.</p>

<p>and thanks, but I don’t watch fox news. I just support a hands off market economy, with winners and losers. Not an economy where if you do badly the losses get socialized.</p>

<p>

How would McCain’s hands off policies help anyway? More jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries, so even if Americans are buying more, the money isn’t going to Americans. It’s going to India. It’s going to China. And this is directly because of American corporations looking to cut costs because American labor is “too expensive”. Right. As if there’s a price on making the country work.

</p>

<p>So… when Obama raises the minimum wage, you are saying that will just send more jobs overseas? Because the companies can cut costs by doing so? I agree. That is why I am against raising the minimum wage, as raising it only leads to inflation.</p>

<p>

From your account above, you seem to harbor the belief that banks could sell their loans to Freddie/Fannie “if things went bad”. So you don’t even know the basics of how Freddie/Fannie worked!! Not that it would bother you, I suppose.

</p>

<p>ummm… they could? Freddie/Fannie bought loans. That’s what they did. They are in the secondary mortgage market. When they buy the loan from the bank, the bank has more money, and can use that new money to make another loan.</p>

<p>

And I’d love to see the “it’s all up to you! don’t look at us!” policies of the Bush administration and more so the Republican Party explain the idiocy of letting banks even start subprime lending. I’m sure that poor people can get better jobs in a jiffy to pay back the higher interest rates near the end of the loan, because climbing up the job ladder in companies is so easy. All it did was give people a sense of hope and a taste of the American dream before crushing them. Essentially, banks knew fully well that whoever bought a subprime mortgage wouldn’t be able to pay them back. People were suckered into them. Oh, how American.

</p>

<p>if you got an adjustable rate mortgage… it is just that, ADJUSTABLE!!! People act so surprised when their rate goes up, it’s amazing. No mention of minorities, just people trying to buy $500,000 houses (that are way overpriced) when their family income can’t support it. Why would you borrow money you can’t pay back? WHY??</p>

<p>if banks knew they wouldn’t be paid back on the loans, then they wouldn’t have made the loans… except… there are these things that just exist that we can sell our loan to, so it doesn’t matter if it’s a good loan or not, b/c it won’t hurt us! brilliant!</p>

<p>ohhhh, you mean when CLINTON started pressuring them to make loans to people who shouldn’t be getting them? gotcha.</p>

<p>

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

I can even toss our your liberal NYT as the source: [Fannie</a> Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260]Fannie”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260)</p>

<p>

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being responsible for your own money. There is, however, something wrong with not wanting to help the less fortunate. You may have made your money, but as you get richer, it “hurts” less to pay more tax dollars. This is a country built upon unity. Everybody is proud to be an American, but it doesn’t seem like Americans like other Americans. It seems like claims of socialism are simply used to shield their own greed. Individualism can only go so far.

</p>

<p>I agree here. At some point though people will decide to stop trying to earn more money, when it’s no longer worth it to them because they feel like they don’t get to keep enough of it. I don’t know what that point is, and I certainly am not anywhere near it. If it makes you feel better about me, I just graduated from school and I’m spending the next year volunteering with Americorps, and I put somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 hours of community service (mostly tutoring) into the community near my school during my 4 years, and a spring break doing Katrina relief in Biloxi, MS. I can’t really help anyone out with money now. But I can help with my time.</p>

<p>I wish Obama the best of luck. He will have a chance to win my vote in 2012.</p>

<p>

Also, having some intense lulz at people’s facebook statuses. Except one girl who I gave a serious effing piece of my mind after she “was praying for a presidential assassination.” I told her straight up that she was rude and a terrible person and ought to be f–king ashamed of herself. She defriended me but I don’t want to be friends with someone like that anyway.

</p>

<p>that’s messed up. seriously. messed up. She can move to… somewhere else.</p>