Pasadena Politics

In reflection on the idea that the Government can make money off of these supposedly ‘bad loans’, I can tell you this: it is pure foolishness.   If these loans are ‘at risk’, then there is no money to make on them as they are expected to fail.   This is more of a pipeline clearance to allow more loans than a rescue of failing, at-risk loans.

For the public  to go along with this would be a great woe as this bail out is lacking strict control and, I say this: retribution against those who let their greed outweigh the responsibility to the borrower and the company they work for.  The current ‘bail out’ is not designed to prevent a financial crash so much as it is designed to allow the various persons and companies who did not restrain themselves to the potential losses from overextended credit to make more money by continued lending.  All this appears do is shift the financial burden of the loan – the guarantee of funds, from the lender to the Tax Payer while rewarding the fellows who brought us this mess with more opportunity to profit themselves.

To the point and from the horses mouths: Regulation was needed but the Democrats killed the idea.

 A “who took notice of the mortgage issue first” which is telling that it was the Republicans and current administration that said we needed to be more restrictive.

 More fluffy in terms of the presentation, but you get the idea.

I post the above , because there is always an element of ’seeing is believing’, more than simply typing words.

The government in the USA was called Uncle Sam for a reason: unlike European countries where the state was ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’ , the USA was ideally one where the Government only stepped in to assist on rare occasion.   The idea that Government will take care of you from cradle to grave is a socialist/communist view and a far cry from an Uncle who steps in only on occasion.  It is also a view that sees the Government as indirect, and not opposing one’s own way of life.

We have Freedoms and Rights, but they are not guaranteed, only protected.   We have the opportunity to grow and enjoy the life God has given us, but that unparallel opportunity comes at a cost: potential failure.   We have people in this country who want it both ways: wealth without consequence of failure.

Let the banks fail.  Remind people that risk vs. reward still exists and let government tighten it’s belt under the decreased revenue.  Just my feeling and musings at this hour prior to bed…

Having worked at a Mortgage Bank for nine and a half years (IndyMac Bank – left October ‘07) and watching them being taken over after a bank run (helped by Schumer by the FDIC and reading/listening to the news of other major players in the field, I find my misgivings about the direction of the mortgage market over the course of the last 8 years fully justified. They started shortly after I married and began looking at homes.

I watched housing prices jump up faster than what seemed reasonable and faster than what I could afford to pay. The turn around on the homes (flipping) accelerated the increase in home prices so that the over-valuation was quite apparent – if you wanted to actually pay attention to that fact. The easy qualifying of borrowers and their unwise decision to use ARMs (especially 3/1, 5/1, and 7/1 ARMs) as the instrument to secure the mortgage when the rates would only go up screamed trouble. At least in my mind it did.

People who would not qualify under a Fixed 30 year loan certainly qualified for a 7/1 ARM or a NegAm but any consideration that they would be unable to afford the payments on the Mortgage once the fixed period ceased were waived aside with the fatefully foolish optimism that the housing prices would continue to rise. Obviously, they slowed, stalled, and began to return to Earth and more realistic values.
That, combined with the overall slow pace of personal wealth (never make Trade Agreements that favor those whose ideals and morals are not of equal or greater footing as they will always undermine your own countries ability to sustain it’s wealth*) equaled default. To be fair to IndyMac Bank: they did pull back and throttle down on making such loans, but even then, it was market driven as the market started adjusting – far too slowly and years too late – to reality.

So here we have the potential Bail Out of the investors who drove this market off the cliff, so to speak, or the markets crumble and China then owns us (kidding…kinda*). This is problematic because: A – it actually will hurt all Americans if the markets crumble (possible Depression) and B:Thoughtlessness with regards to applying the bail out will only encourage over-indulgence. No one should make any money off this Bail Out. Tax Payers (direct and indirect) should not feel they just gave a free pass to those who profited most. If it were not for the simple fact that Dollar is backed by confidence and not by any physical item, I would be completely against a bail out.

*Those are other topics which I will address in greater detail on a later date.

Once you register, you will be bumped up to subscriber and at that point you can submit topics in addition to being able to post comments.

Enjoy!
Petrified.

Yesterday (10 Sept. 2008) was interesting in that news outlets immediately started talking about Obama “equating” Palin to a pig.   Now, my initial thought when I heard that snippet was this: Obama is getting racial.   Why?  Pig is also known as the “other white meat”.  However, when you look at the context of the statement, Obaman is not referring to persons but to policies:

John McCain says he’s about change too.  Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is – watch out, George Bush – except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.

That’s not change.

That’s that’s just callin’ sumpin’ the same thing somethin’ different.

But you know, you can’t, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

[Transcript source]

The phrase itself has been used by politicians and is the title of a 2006 book by Torie Clark: “Lipstick on a Pig”.  Ironically, McCain used the phrase during the campaign as well.  [Source]

So, was he aiming a cheap dig at Palin or, given the revived popularity of “Lipstick On…” after Palin’s speech, was the phrase fresh in his mind and that of his speech writing staff?   Most likely the later, so on face value, I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this matter and think people, as a whole, would be best to let the comment pass and be simply that.   Had he continued to run with the phrase beyond the High School speech then the accusation would have more merit.

Obama should join Toast Masters.   He really needs to learn to deliver a speech without “ah”s and “uh”s because so far, he really does not sound smooth outside of a Teleprompter.

Tune in next time to read a longer tap at policy and why change is not always good.  ie: why I won’t vote for Obama.

I am revamping the site and have a couple of ideas I am playing around with on how to present certain views I have on politics.   Please note that you are now able to register, and as such, post comments.    Please feel free to do so.  First topic I will touch on is the “Lipstick on a Pig” comment by Obama.   A lot of people are huffing and puffing over that, but given the context… well, you will see more once I actually post later tonight.

 To the Old Men Online fellows: welcome.   Play nice.