Showing posts with label mortgage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mortgage. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Countrywide memos detail VIP loans to Democrats

Now we can see the juicy details of the Countrywide sweetheart loans to various Democratic politicians... Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) releases a report titled "Countrywide's Systematic and Successful Effort to Buy Influence and Block Reform" which contains emails and memos about these mortgage deals.

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Times:
Countrywide's CEO Angelo Mozilo granted sweetheart mortgages to a number of influential lawmakers including Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. E-mails obtained by government investigators show Countrywide employees often discussed the political influence wielded by "Friends of Angelo" as grounds for granting the discounts.
Seriously, some of these Democrats need to just resign and pick a different career! They're already cozy with the banks and mortgage companies, why not find a job there?

Friday, February 20, 2009

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:
Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.
The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:
The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.
Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Rick Santelli is my hero

Rick Santelli of CNBC is upset about the President Obama mortgage rescue plan, and rightly so. He and the traders at CBOE working around him are certainly the faces of good ol' American capitalism!

Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama-nomics means thinner wallets

Sorry, but Manisha Thakor and Sharon Kedar have drank the Obama Kool-Aid in their Huffington Post piece. Their list of three top favorite long-term proposals from the Obama campaign:
1. UNIVERSAL MORTGAGE CREDIT that will broaden the financial benefits of homeownership - People often say home ownership is so wonderful because of the "tax benefits." Yet at present the mortgage interest deduction only kicks in if you ITEMIZE your tax return. Alas, 2/3rds of Americans take the standard deduction and thus miss out on this benefit. Team Obama supports a universal mortgage credit available homeowners who do not itemize. If you buy a home you can afford, this means YOU'LL participate in the American Dream not the American Scream.
I get the feeling that people who don't itemize of their tax returns aren't paying much taxes anyways and aren't likely to be homeowners. So good luck with buying a "home you can afford."
2. CREDIT CARD BILL OF RIGHTS that will protect consumers - Team Obama supports such steps as eliminating the universal default clauses (which allow lenders to increase your interest rate if you are late on any of your bills), prohibiting interest charges on late fees, and requiring the prompt crediting of cardholder payments. This means if you use your credit card responsibly, by paying off the balance each month on time and in full - it can once again be YOUR friend and not your foe.
Wonderful -- tip the scale in favor of irresponsible consumers and screw the credit card companies. Even though I have disagreements with some credit card companies' policies, especially those "bait and hook" practices and aggressive marketing to teenagers, I don't want to see them forced by government law. They are in the business of providing credit to those who are worthy and those who should already be paying off monthly balances. It is fair for them to penalize those who misuse and abuse the credit given to them. If such proposed legislation goes through, then it'll actually hurt consumers in receiving credit, especially for those who needs it most.
3. SIMPLIFYNG THE TAX FILING PROCESS so there are fewer headaches in April - Team Obama has also stated an intention to simplify the tax filing process, so that millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than five minutes. By enabling the IRS to use the same information it is already getting from banks and employers, taxpayers would have the option of accessing pre-filled tax forms that they can verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that this proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and mental angst. And YOU can use that extra time to set a realistic budget & reassess YOUR asset allocation.
One word: FairTax. It simplifies the tax filing process by eliminating it (and the bloated IRS, too)!

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Thought on Fannie and Freddie bailouts

The U.S. government on Sunday seized control of mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to stabilize the housing and credit crisis. Today the Congressional Budget Office announced that the cost of bailing out these two companies should be reflected in the federal budget. That's about $5 billion in liabilities combined!

For decades Fannie and Freddie, though publicly traded companies, have operated without the regular oversight and accountability of typical corporations. Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. Then in 1970 Freddie Mac was founded to compete with Fannie Mae. Talk about a recipe for disaster...

The companies finally collapsed because their accounting methods inflated their worth. That's what happens when companies aren't under regulatory supervision. There's nothing wrong with the government helping out the mortgage market, but they shouldn't have create such a hybrid monster to skirt the regulatory system. Now the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab again.