Thread: Another reason to vote for Obama

Yes, I opposed the bank bailouts, Fannie and Freddie, the auto bailouts, and the insurance and financial bailouts. You should have just asked that.


Sent from a galaxy far far away using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The standard loans are 20 and 30 years. How many presidents will pass during that time? How many laws change during that time? Like i said the question serves no purpose unless your going to specify when, where, and how a person bought a home. Of which if it was me that a bit to personal to ask from someone over the internet and would get a response similar to none of your damn business.

Oh deathgod, you keep getting ahead of yourself. You saw my first two questions and assumed what I was trying to reference. In my first post I quoted about him being opposed to the bailouts and about the W and O stuff. Once I got a response about the house thing it would have become more clear that I in no way even caring about the W or O shit but I was focusing on the bailout part of Civils post.

You are right in one thing though, knowing when where and how a person bought a home is irrelevant to what I was going going to say about bailouts, and that is why I was never going to bring it up.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Yes, I opposed the bank bailouts, Fannie and Freddie, the auto bailouts, and the insurance and financial bailouts. You should have just asked that.


Sent from a galaxy far far away using Tapatalk

I'm sorry I was just taking it slowly. I myself am also against the bailing out of all of those companies and agree with you in that we should have kept a stricter capitalistic approach. At the same time though I don't owe any of those people any money. I also realize that the bailout money wasn't REALLY for the corporations, it was for the people who owe those companies money or own services/products from those companies. I guess I just prefer to see the bailout and not bailing out the companies but bailing out the people like joe smith down the street who does business with those companies.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Certificate of Deposit, Mortgage, Home Equity Loan, & Money Market Account Rates | AIG Bank

wrong

Do you know how mortgage loans work out of curiosity?

Ok so let me break it down for ya, I actually just learned this in June when my best friend was out visiting me. He works for a bank back home in their mortgage department. It really made me go, "WTF! No wonder we are in such shit." And this is just a part of what he told me and ultimately why AIG doesn't finance houses.

So I went to your AIG Bank website and on their mortgage page is says "Loans and services in the AIG Bank Mortgage Program Program are provided by First Choice, a national lender."

So already we see that AIG doesn't actually finance mortgages, they slap on their name to the mortgage at the very start and then you immediately go to another company for the paperwork and administrative part of getting the loan. At my friends bank they do this in house because they are already a bank. Now I couldn't find anything past First Choice holding the loan, but I'll tell you what happens the majority of the time and I'll tell you from what my friends bank, PNC does.

Person wants to buy a house. They go to a Realtor and talk with them and find a house they want. I guess the person buying the house wants to use PNC for their mortgage. Realtor works with the home owner and a person at PNC. Once the loan is approved it moves on to the Realtor and another person (my best friend) working together with my best friend as a middleman for some other guy.

Now, once the loan is completely finalized and what have you, the loan PNC has is actually SOLD and most of the time it is to either fannie or freddie. So PNC doesn't actually hold any loans itself, they end up selling them all to these other companies. Why? Because no matter what PNC still gets paid even if the home owner stops making payments on their mortgage.

There are of course a whole bunch of issues related to that like PNC has no incentive to make sure the loan is something the home owner can pay, they just want to make sure the loan will be something fannie or freddie will buy from them (and both are NOT mutually exclusive). But that is for another discussion.

Originally Posted by gehn

Do you know how mortgage loans work out of curiosity?

Ok so let me break it down for ya, I actually just learned this in June when my best friend was out visiting me. He works for a bank back home in their mortgage department. It really made me go, "WTF! No wonder we are in such shit." And this is just a part of what he told me and ultimately why AIG doesn't finance houses.

So I went to your AIG Bank website and on their mortgage page is says "Loans and services in the AIG Bank Mortgage Program Program are provided by First Choice, a national lender."

So already we see that AIG doesn't actually finance mortgages, they slap on their name to the mortgage at the very start and then you immediately go to another company for the paperwork and administrative part of getting the loan. At my friends bank they do this in house because they are already a bank. Now I couldn't find anything past First Choice holding the loan, but I'll tell you what happens the majority of the time and I'll tell you from what my friends bank, PNC does.

Person wants to buy a house. They go to a Realtor and talk with them and find a house they want. I guess the person buying the house wants to use PNC for their mortgage. Realtor works with the home owner and a person at PNC. Once the loan is approved it moves on to the Realtor and another person (my best friend) working together with my best friend as a middleman for some other guy.

Now, once the loan is completely finalized and what have you, the loan PNC has is actually SOLD and most of the time it is to either fannie or freddie. So PNC doesn't actually hold any loans itself, they end up selling them all to these other companies. Why? Because no matter what PNC still gets paid even if the home owner stops making payments on their mortgage.

There are of course a whole bunch of issues related to that like PNC has no incentive to make sure the loan is something the home owner can pay, they just want to make sure the loan will be something fannie or freddie will buy from them (and both are NOT mutually exclusive). But that is for another discussion.

Ok. So what does that have to do with bailouts? Nothing. If Fannie and freddie were "allowed to fail", the loans they held would have just been sold off to more financially viable companies. Any foreclosures would have been sold off too. People who lost jobs would have moved to the other lenders who profited off of Freddie and Fannie's mistakes. Irresponsible lending fucks the people over. Then the federal govt adds insult to injury by using the tax dollars of people who got fucked to keep the irresponsible lenders from going out of business. This is called Crony Capitalism. Capitalism is meant to be a food chain that keeps going. One company's failure usually represents another company's opportunity. When government fucks with it it all goes to shit.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Ok. So what does that have to do with bailouts? Nothing. If Fannie and freddie were "allowed to fail", the loans they held would have just been sold off to more financially viable companies. Any foreclosures would have been sold off too. People who lost jobs would have moved to the other lenders who profited off of Freddie and Fannie's mistakes.

This is actually another thing I asked my friend about. I asked him why do people keep using Fannie and Freddie if they are so bad at this? What was the number one reason? There are no other companies like Fannie and Freddie. Zero, zip.

I mean it, if they failed there would be NO companies that could take over all of their loans. There are a very few smaller companies that are like them but its only a handful and they for the most part deal in very specific kinds of loans, because those are the only kinds they can get their hands on. People like PNC don't want to deal with anyone but Fannie or Freddie because they are considered much more risky. They would also be way too small to take all of those jobs they help over.

You are honestly saying "GM failed, but don't worry Tesla has the ability to take over all of its business and people that worked there." That is not how a business works, they just wouldn't have the capital or the ability to ramp up quickly enough if they did. And PNC isn't going to want to work with Tesla, they are also going to go to the government and be like "Hey, if you let Fannie and Freddie fail it could seriously affect our business too and working with this small companies instead of them puts us at a huge risk. You need to bail them out."

Oh, and lets not forget that a huge part of the problem was that Fannie and Freddie were allowing home owners to get loans that should NEVER gotten loans for the houses they own. Are you saying that despite this poor practice that the smaller companies should take over those loans as well? Should they have a choice? And during this limbo between the company failing and everyone getting back to business afterwards, whats supposed to happen during that time?

Obama went to Harvard Law and Bush went to Harvard Business. I don't know about you but I'd like to believe that means they are smart guys trying to do the best thing in a bad situation and made these decisions based on their experience, education, and guidance from advisers. I'd take that over some opinion of some guy on the internet posting on a forum any day of the week, including myself.

Originally Posted by gehn

This is actually another thing I asked my friend about. I asked him why do people keep using Fannie and Freddie if they are so bad at this? What was the number one reason? There are no other companies like Fannie and Freddie. Zero, zip.

I mean it, if they failed there would be NO companies that could take over all of their loans. There are a very few smaller companies that are like them but its only a handful and they for the most part deal in very specific kinds of loans, because those are the only kinds they can get their hands on. People like PNC don't want to deal with anyone but Fannie or Freddie because they are considered much more risky. They would also be way too small to take all of those jobs they help over.

You are honestly saying "GM failed, but don't worry Tesla has the ability to take over all of its business and people that worked there." That is not how a business works, they just wouldn't have the capital or the ability to ramp up quickly enough if they did. And PNC isn't going to want to work with Tesla, they are also going to go to the government and be like "Hey, if you let Fannie and Freddie fail it could seriously affect our business too and working with this small companies instead of them puts us at a huge risk. You need to bail them out."

Oh, and lets not forget that a huge part of the problem was that Fannie and Freddie were allowing home owners to get loans that should NEVER gotten loans for the houses they own. Are you saying that despite this poor practice that the smaller companies should take over those loans as well? Should they have a choice? And during this limbo between the company failing and everyone getting back to business afterwards, whats supposed to happen during that time?

Obama went to Harvard Law and Bush went to Harvard Business. I don't know about you but I'd like to believe that means they are smart guys trying to do the best thing in a bad situation and made these decisions based on their experience, education, and guidance from advisers. I'd take that over some opinion of some guy on the internet posting on a forum any day of the week, including myself.

All I will say is, in order to understand what these Harvard grads are doing it is necessary to examine their motives. You believe they do not want to screw the people over. I do not. I believe what I believe because if you look at the whole picture, you cannot come to the conclusion that this is all the result of some terrible accident with the best of intentions.