Quoted:
Anyone feel that the banks that made out all those now defunct loans are to blame for the turmoil in our economy? It is just one big depressing domino effect. Banks made mortage loans to at risk people. Bad home owners defaulted on loans. 401ks took a hit. Every business tied into those 401ks were hit. Banks left and right are collapsing under debt. The oil industry is imploding without an end in sight. Businesses are closing doors that were thriving 2 years ago. The big three auto makers are all begging for a bailout. (They havent made a car that has better MPG then those of the late 70's) National unemployment is above 10%. National debt has exploded out of control the last 2 years.

The news doesnt say we are in a depression but man it sure feels like its going on all around the place.

Quoted:


I'm not sure what news you're looking at, but I've been reading articles on Yahoo finance, msn finance, market watch, Wall street journal, etc... for the past 6+ months that have mentioned us being in a recession.  The thing is, there has been no proof to confirm it.  i.e. there hasn't be 2 quarters of negative GDP or growth to fit the usual definition of a recession.  So no one high up has been willing to come out and say flat out that we're in a recession (possibly because they don't want to be the one to spook the market).  

I'm thinking thats about to change very soon though, as a report was just released (yesterday I believe) saying the last quarter GDP was something like a negative .5%.  Thats not a small number and analysts/economists expect an even bigger decline for this next quarter.  Apparently, the economy is on track for the current quarter to show a 4% annual decline in growth.

Quoted:
Banker's are at fault, so are the consumers and also the government who made qualifying for loans so easy a caveman could do it.  I work for a credit union underwriting commercial loans and now I have been asked to help with the "work out loans" for people that are struggling.  We never made subprime loans but I have seen first hand how people qualified for cash out loans at crazy debt ratios upwards of 60% all because it fits the Fannie/Freddie guidelines.  Just ten years ago this same loan type required a max ratio of 38%.  60% seems good on paper until you do a true cash flow comparing after tax income to all of the borrower's expenses (groceries, utilities, and all the other normal living expenses), then you realize the borrower doesn't have a dime left over at the end of the month to save for any type of emergency.  Any little extra thing causes them to have to charge it (which creates a cycle of increasing debt, doing a cash out refi to payoff said debt, then continuing that cycle until the home is eventually lost and/or the person files BK).  Even if our underwriters thought it was a bad loan we had to approve it or be at risk of discrimination charges so thank your government for giving us those standards.  Afterall, shouldn't every American own a home!?  Don't forget to thank the consumer for not having enough financial knowledge to know they can't afford the payment.

I won't even get into all the people who used their home's equity to fund vacations and toys and now that they have lost their job (because of the economy) they are in dire straights and can't even support themselves for a simple 2 or 3 month period because they never put a penny into savings.

I could talk all night about the stupid scenarios I have seen and yes, it bugs me and sometimes I take it personally.  I live a simple livestyle butr I know some of my co-workers "look-down" on me because we don't drive a fancy car or live in a fancy home.  I try to save what I can while still enjoying life and I guess I might get the final laugh when I retire before them

Quoted:
Ya, and the part that gets me is his credit actually won't be that messed up if he continues to pay his other bills (assuming he paid cash for all that stuff he is essentially debt free).  He will have the 1st and maybe 2nd mortgage that will eventually show a derogatory history and maybe even a shortsale or foreclosure but he doesn't care and here is why:

Whenever he applies for a loan for the next 7 years (after that it will fall of his credit report) he will simply blame either the divorce "my wife got the house in the divorce and she was suppose to pay it" or he will simply blame the "economy" and how the housing market took a dive and yada yada yada.  

I may be wrong but I think there will be so many foreclosures and the government will want the banks to continue the generous lending policies (like they are requiring now-Notice how the government wants the banks to lend more and more, isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place!?), anyway, I think in a couple of years most lenders won't even bat an eye or think twice at a foreclosure.  It will simply be programmed into the Fannie/Freddie desktop underwriting programs and those requests will be approved if everything else fits the program guidelines-I have no proof of this but I won't be surprised if it happens.

Quoted:



Agreed.
Yeah the banks are so desparate for actual loans they are willing to go as far as to keep approving the risky applicants just to keep money comming in and hope that the people are good on the loan. Its a downward spiral that has no end in sight. So far the feds havent done anything to actually "fix" the problem other then just throw out a bunch of blank checks and hope that the banks use the money "wisely". It was funny when the feds were going to first get the 700 billion bailout approved when it was formed there was no real guideline as to how or who would use the money. Congress told them to revamp it otherwise it would just be like writing a blank check and handing it over to the banks. So far they have used little of it to see how it will effect the debts that the banks have. So far it hasnt done any good. The money that the banks lost when the loans defaulted just cant reappear just because the feds bailed out the banks (in theory anyways). Many homes have lost most of the built up equity and have been sold a number of times over the course of the housing market boom. Then the banks just want to cover some of the loses and try to make a quick sale but the thing is its a buyers market and they are going to take loses no matter what they do. Many homes here are selling for a lot less then what they are listed for many of them are loosing 10k or more off of the asking price.
I just cant believe that those home owners can stay in their house for up to a year before being kicked out. All the time the banks are taking a hit for every month that the home owner sits in the house not paying mortgage and the house not being sold until after foreclosure.
Well all I have to say is the Clinton admin botched this up with the banking and housing industry in the late 90's. The Republican party dealt with the rise and fall of the housing market and now the Democrats get to deal with the aftermath. At least it will be a total Democratic house and anything that gets screwed up will be THEIR FAULT. So the Republicans come 2009 cant take the fall for anything once Obama and his cabinet take over.
In the end Obama wants to make this country a socialist welfare state. Why do you think he won with such a landslide. It wasnt because it was a "historical event". It was because all those people he made promisses of welfare to came out and voted to get "paid". McCain saw the writting on the wall weeks before the actual election. He almost gave up campaigning when Obama went full throttle with his Welfare Regime of economic stimulous checks. There was no way McCain could compete with promissing free welfare to all without actually going against everything he morally stood for. It was even worse to see McCain give the resignation speech but he knew that Obamas Welfare for all couldnt have been beat. So we will see in the next few months were this Socialist Welfare Regime will lead this country.

Quoted:



Agreed.
Yeah the banks are so desparate for actual loans they are willing to go as far as to keep approving the risky applicants just to keep money comming in and hope that the people are good on the loan. Its a downward spiral that has no end in sight. So far the feds havent done anything to actually "fix" the problem other then just throw out a bunch of blank checks and hope that the banks use the money "wisely". It was funny when the feds were going to first get the 700 billion bailout approved when it was formed there was no real guideline as to how or who would use the money. Congress told them to revamp it otherwise it would just be like writing a blank check and handing it over to the banks. So far they have used little of it to see how it will effect the debts that the banks have. So far it hasnt done any good. The money that the banks lost when the loans defaulted just cant reappear just because the feds bailed out the banks (in theory anyways). Many homes have lost most of the built up equity and have been sold a number of times over the course of the housing market boom. Then the banks just want to cover some of the loses and try to make a quick sale but the thing is its a buyers market and they are going to take loses no matter what they do. Many homes here are selling for a lot less then what they are listed for many of them are loosing 10k or more off of the asking price.
I just cant believe that those home owners can stay in their house for up to a year before being kicked out. All the time the banks are taking a hit for every month that the home owner sits in the house not paying mortgage and the house not being sold until after foreclosure. Well all I have to say is the Clinton admin botched this up with the banking and housing industry in the late 90's. The Republican party dealt with the rise and fall of the housing market and now the Democrats get to deal with the aftermath. At least it will be a total Democratic house and anything that gets screwed up will be THEIR FAULT. So the Republicans come 2009 cant take the fall for anything once Obama and his cabinet take over.
In the end Obama wants to make this country a socialist welfare state. Why do you think he won with such a landslide. It wasnt because it was a "historical event". It was because all those people he made promisses of welfare to came out and voted to get "paid". McCain saw the writting on the wall weeks before the actual election. He almost gave up campaigning when Obama went full throttle with his Welfare Regime of economic stimulous checks. There was no way McCain could compete with promissing free welfare to all without actually going against everything he morally stood for. It was even worse to see McCain give the resignation speech but he knew that Obamas Welfare for all couldnt have been beat. So we will see in the next few months were this Socialist Welfare Regime will lead this country.

Quoted:



If I know him, he has ready sold the toys to pay for a house...he's not stupid.  I saw her 325BMW in the parking lot, so that means he had a 2006 Charger, 2006 F250, a new boat and 2 jetskis to sell if he wanted to keep his 2005 F150.  So right there he could have turned those over to about $60,000 cash to drop down on a foreclosed home in Texas....