Early Reviews of Obama's GM 'Gamble' Don't Look Good

[cobra de capell]

Very interesting, 427sharpe.

I run into a lot of 'conservatives' like you on other conservatives sites. You are clearly hard-right and although there is nothing wrong with that point of view, reality needs to be inserted into the mix as well. Your perfect candidate, one that also can win sufficient votes to be elected simply doesn't exist or if those type of candidates do exist they are not interested. Way too many 'conservatives' are holding out for the perfect candidate and voting all over the map, as you have outlined - independents like you.

Unfortunately, it's people like you that tend to direct and indirectly get liberals elected. Very sad. Compromise is not a necessity or quality that you can understand. Good luck with that approach - I actually hope that you and people like you 'win' something. But, that's doubtful.

[Wayne Maybury]

Politics is a very dirty game and during the campaign virtually all politicians will promise whatever they believe the people want to hear. Once elected, either reality sets in or the politician has to start paying back the IOU's made during the campaign. One way or the other, very few elected politicians actually do what they said they were going to do when they were looking for votes. This should not be a surprise to anyone, as unfortunately it is simply the way the democratic system works.

Wayne

[cobra de capell]

In Obama case, I'm wondering what the IOU's involve.

[Wayne Maybury]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

In Obama case, I'm wondering what the IOU's involve.

To even try to become POTUS, you have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. That must involve many, many, IOU's.

Wayne

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

Very interesting, 427sharpe.

I run into a lot of 'conservatives' like you on other conservatives sites. You are clearly hard-right and although there is nothing wrong with that point of view, reality needs to be inserted into the mix as well. Your perfect candidate, one that also can win sufficient votes to be elected simply doesn't exist or if those type of candidates do exist they are not interested. Way too many 'conservatives' are holding out for the perfect candidate and voting all over the map, as you have outlined - independents like you.

Unfortunately, it's people like you that tend to direct and indirectly get liberals elected. Very sad. Compromise is not a necessity or quality that you can understand. Good luck with that approach - I actually hope that you and people like you 'win' something. But, that's doubtful.

I tend to agree. California's Republican Party is splitting at the seams over this same scenario. I'm a conservative at heart, but getting someone voted into state-wide office requires a moderate persona given the Democrat popular majority, whether we like it or not.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I tend to agree. California's Republican Party is splitting at the seams over this same scenario. I'm a conservative at heart, but getting someone voted into state-wide office requires a moderate persona given the Democrat popular majority, whether we like it or not.

Jamo, I was a bit surprised at your comments about gay marriage (what they do is their business) on the other thread - and you mentioned something about being conservative enough to mind your own business.
Conservatives these days seem to think that we are best served by intrusions into our lives for 'moral' reasons.
I think most Americans would get on board with a small government, small taxes, strong military, and a 'don't bother me, I won't bother you' (foreign and domestic) platform.
The DNC is not going to run on that platform.

Steve

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

...

Even a bank would not have forked over billions to GM, why is it that the federal government can do it? Actually, it's not even about GM, it's about the UAW.

...

The banks are the root of this problem with the credit crisis, they have trapped themselves in a situation where they could not lend the money to GM even if they wanted to.

Ford was lucky and refinanced their lines of credit prior to the financial crisis. GM and Chrysler had bad timing for their refinancing.

The banks have also refused financing to many consumers who would have lined up to purchase/lease new cars, but now they cannot. Causing pain to all automakers selling cars in the US. Plus you have the recession now.

The CEO of GM wanted to borrow money from the government and avoid bankruptcy. Much like Chrysler did back in the day. I'm sure GM brass was looking beyond this short term banking mess and recession. Hey they were the #1 automobile maker in the world for decades and only recently lost out to Toyota. Do you think the US market for new cars has permanently shrunk by something like 50%? Or do you think after the financial crisis and recession, we are not going to go back to buying new cars like we have been doing?

So what does the government do? They fire the CEO who sees beyond the short term, so they can force the company into bankruptcy and then put their cronies in charge to build the Pelosi-mobile. Hey the government has a 31 year old fresh out of grad school student to go in and run things. And they get to screw the shareholders and bondholder out of ownership.

I think GM is screwed with the forced bankruptcy and having government cronies put in charge. I'm sure if the government had acted this way in '79 firing Lee Iacoccoa, taking over Chrysler and setting up to build the Jimmy Carter mobile, there would have been a big mess. But instead they lent them money, let industry experts pull themselves out of a mess, and the government was paid back with a profit. I don't how GM is going to be able to fix itself if the government puts in a bunch of amateurs to run the show.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

Jamo, I was a bit surprised at your comments about gay marriage (what they do is their business) on the other thread - and you mentioned something about being conservative enough to mind your own business.
Conservatives these days seem to think that we are best served by intrusions into our lives for 'moral' reasons.
I think most Americans would get on board with a small government, small taxes, strong military, and a 'don't bother me, I won't bother you' (foreign and domestic) platform.
The DNC is not going to run on that platform.

Steve

You're using the Democrat's (CNN's) definition of what a conservative is.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

You're using the Democrat's (CNN's) definition of what a conservative is.

Jamo,
Actually, I was basing it more on the fine 'Conservative' folks in this forum that I have argued with frequently. These are the same ones who argued in favour of legislative interference in the Terry Shiavo case, poorly planned military adventures, worship of Israel, and restriction of certain groups they find morally offensive.

Todays current crop of 'Conservatives' seem more intent on running around getting in everybody else's business. Maybe you really are an old school Conservative (Paleo, as Freddy D. put it) - I hope so. But I also recall you mentioning that you actively campaigned for G.W. Bush, and he did not turn out to be all that Conservative.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I tend to agree. California's Republican Party is splitting at the seams over this same scenario. I'm a conservative at heart, but getting someone voted into state-wide office requires a moderate persona given the Democrat popular majority, whether we like it or not.

You nailed it - True Conservatives cannot be elected in most districts of CA, they need to campaign from the center and compromise on some issues to get elected.

I believe that 427sharpe's point was that any Conservative that doesn't measure up in all respects in discounted to nothing, so the marginal third party candidate will get his vote or perhaps he doesn't vote at all - it's all of nothing.

A lot of Conservatives have gone over the edge looking for true Conservatives candidates - those people either aren't running or lose in the current statewide and national environment. My fear is the Conservatives will be marginalized by demanding 100%. Newt is a great examble - wrong on Climate Change, so he's out in the view of some Conservatives. In my view, he'd be a perfect match to go against Obama in 2012.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

Jamo,
Actually, I was basing it more on the fine 'Conservative' folks in this forum that I have argued with frequently. These are the same ones who argued in favour of legislative interference in the Terry Shiavo case, poorly planned military adventures, worship of Israel, and restriction of certain groups they find morally offensive.

Todays current crop of 'Conservatives' seem more intent on running around getting in everybody else's business. Maybe you really are an old school Conservative (Paleo, as Freddy D. put it) - I hope so. But I also recall you mentioning that you actively campaigned for G.W. Bush, and he did not turn out to be all that Conservative.

Steve

Conservatives don't want to get into everyone's business, especially gays, they want people to mind they own business (and take responsibility for their own business), especially gays, and not demand more of society, for example marriage for gays. In the end, gays are after 100% acceptance of what they do behind closed doors. That's never going to happen.

[cobra de capell]

The last part of your post is believable, but....

The banks are the root of this problem with the credit crisis, they have trapped themselves in a situation where they could not lend the money to GM even if they wanted to.

Ford was lucky and refinanced their lines of credit prior to the financial crisis. GM and Chrysler had bad timing for their refinancing.

The banks have also refused financing to many consumers who would have lined up to purchase/lease new cars, but now they cannot. Causing pain to all automakers selling cars in the US. Plus you have the recession now.

This all started with Congress; Freddie and Fannie and went downhill fast. Those entities relaxed the credit standards to a point that if your breath showed up on a mirror, you qualified for a home loan. Banks enter this puzzle through CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) )through threats by Congress) - money needed to be loans to poor people in a big way. Therefore: Housing/no qualifying/poor people = disaster.

Car loans - I was recently working at a bank that made car loans - big time. The only people that were turning down were in the under 650 FICO score range. Yes, credit standards were increased, but isn't that the right thing to do? The public should not have to step up to buy houses and cars for everyone, correct?

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

The last part of your post is believable, but....

The banks are the root of this problem with the credit crisis, they have trapped themselves in a situation where they could not lend the money to GM even if they wanted to.

Ford was lucky and refinanced their lines of credit prior to the financial crisis. GM and Chrysler had bad timing for their refinancing.

The banks have also refused financing to many consumers who would have lined up to purchase/lease new cars, but now they cannot. Causing pain to all automakers selling cars in the US. Plus you have the recession now.

This all started with Congress; Freddie and Fannie and went downhill fast. Those entities relaxed the credit standards to a point that if your breath showed up on a mirror, you qualified for a home loan. Banks enter this puzzle through CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) )through threats by Congress) - money needed to be loans to poor people in a big way. Therefore: Housing/no qualifying/poor people = disaster.

Car loans - I was recently working at a bank that made car loans - big time. The only people that were turning down were in the under 650 FICO score range. Yes, credit standards were increased, but isn't that the right thing to do? The public should not have to step up to buy houses and cars for everyone, correct?

I'm sure Congress helped start this mess, but the banks compounded the problem with interesting new mortgages, like mortgages where you only had to pay interest (no principal). The banks were selling such things with the thought that the housing boom would keep going indefinitely. Why worry about increasing equity with principal payments when your equity will keep going up as your house continues to appreciate. The fine print on something like that certainly gives the bank the option to start charging you principal if they think you are going upside down. Just imagine if you combined that with a teaser rate arm and no money down. When you get hit with the new rediculous rate after the teaser and the market goes down, the bank can realize you equity is going negative and start piling on principal payments too.

I'm sure not everyone who took on some of the weird new mortgages was an complete idiot. They probably believed that they could refinance into a fixed rate easily down the road if necessary. Hey I know people who refinanced multiple times during the housing boom as rates kept falling. Well we see that became impossible for many people to refinance when the bubble burst.

Interestingly today on yahoo, there is a story about the government giving the OK for 10 banks to repay $68 billion in bailout money http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/...ers_and_losers

I like this part: "The banks have been eager to get out of the program to escape government restrictions such as caps on executive compensation."

The banks want to get the government out of their business. At least the government did not force the banks into bankruptcy, take over a majority share of ownership and give a big chunk of ownership over to the bank tellers and janitors.

[cobra de capell]

I'm sure Congress helped start this mess, but the banks compounded the problem with interesting new mortgages, like mortgages where you only had to pay interest (no principal).

Technically, it wasn't the banks - it was the Mortgage Brokers, for example Countrywide that created the sub-prime mortgages - Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Companies are not regulated as closely as real banks. But they were thrilled to have the Congress, FANNIE and FREDDIE lower their standards to lower than whale poop.

Most house lending is done through Mortgage Brokers and Dealers with FREDDIE and FANNIE buying and packaging those loans - selling the resulting CMO's to banks and other investors as AA paper. A few of the big banks were also into directly offering long term home loans, but only the big banks were involved directly.

Yes, banks were involved but also were forced to buy into what Congress wanted done through CRA. Trust me, this entire fiasco comes out of Congress with primarily Democrats responsible but also some Republicans.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

You nailed it - True Conservatives cannot be elected in most districts of CA, they need to campaign from the center and compromise on some issues to get elected.

I believe that 427sharpe's point was that any Conservative that doesn't measure up in all respects in discounted to nothing, so the marginal third party candidate will get his vote or perhaps he doesn't vote at all - it's all of nothing.

A lot of Conservatives have gone over the edge looking for true Conservatives candidates - those people either aren't running or lose in the current statewide and national environment. My fear is the Conservatives will be marginalized by demanding 100%. Newt is a great examble - wrong on Climate Change, so he's out in the view of some Conservatives. In my view, he'd be a perfect match to go against Obama in 2012.

I lived it...My Assembly and Senate districts are represented by Villines and Cogdill, and I campaigned heavily for Mike and Dave. We're probably the most conservative area of California...but, by golly, some pragmatism slipped by us.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

Jamo,
Actually, I was basing it more on the fine 'Conservative' folks in this forum that I have argued with frequently. These are the same ones who argued in favour of legislative interference in the Terry Shiavo case, poorly planned military adventures, worship of Israel, and restriction of certain groups they find morally offensive.

Todays current crop of 'Conservatives' seem more intent on running around getting in everybody else's business. Maybe you really are an old school Conservative (Paleo, as Freddy D. put it) - I hope so. But I also recall you mentioning that you actively campaigned for G.W. Bush, and he did not turn out to be all that Conservative.

Steve

Look, the true conservatives are the original Rainbow Coalition. They each want to live their own lives and follow their own beliefs without anyone else telling them what to do, how to spend their money or what they have to believe in. Unlike libertarians, which are akin to librarians in that they appreciate a bit of fiction, conservatives believe in their own hands, eyes and ears. For assample, coming from a farming family and having grown up trekking all over the Sierras has resulted in me being a bit of an environmentalist, but not like the wackos that live in urban centers that get close to nature by looking at coffee table books of Adams' pics or wear a t-shirt with a koala bear on it. I believe it ought to be accessible to ranchers, lumber harvesters, backpackers, responsible off-roaders and the wackos, and that we harness the snow runoff for growing crops.

As for how and who someone phuks...hey, I could give a rat's ass (not to be confused with a rat in the ass), and yes, I'm in favor of gay marriage while others aren't...so the phuk what? I'm in favor of it not as a social statement, but because I simply don't think anyone ought to be able to use marriage as a limitation on someone's right to gain or pass on benefits earned...sorta goes against my conservative (non-religious or moral) attitude, despite being an Armenian orthodox christian. Then again, what we do with our sheep is non of your damn business.

On the other hand, I'm still a bit doubtful about women getting to vote and drive...me thinks we ought to revisit that.

[cobra de capell]

Back on track....

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

I'm sure Congress helped start this mess, but the banks compounded the problem with interesting new mortgages, like mortgages where you only had to pay interest (no principal).

Technically, it wasn't the banks - it was the Mortgage Brokers, for example Countrywide that created the sub-prime mortgages - Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Companies are not regulated as closely as real banks. But they were thrilled to have the Congress, FANNIE and FREDDIE lower their standards to lower than whale poop.

Most house lending is done through Mortgage Brokers and Dealers with FREDDIE and FANNIE buying and packaging those loans - selling the resulting CMO's to banks and other investors as AA paper. A few of the big banks were also into directly offering long term home loans, but only the big banks were involved directly.

Yes, banks were involved but also were forced to buy into what Congress wanted done through CRA. Trust me, this entire fiasco comes out of Congress with primarily Democrats responsible but also some Republicans.

Hmm, I guessed that when a bank owned your mortgage that they actually processed your payments and had to deal with whatever goofy mortgage variations that they made up.

But I guess if the bank owns commercial paper that groups together a bunch of mortgages, then the issuer of the commercial paper must be collecting the payments from the home owners and then turning that into some sort of payment to the banks/investors that own the commercial paper after taking out their cut. So the average homeowner is not directly paying their mortgage payments to the bank/investor... Interesting.

My current mortgage is with a small local bank that told me that they had never sold a mortgage and did not plan to.

I guess blaming the banks for having weird new mortgages, like the interest only one is wrong. The banks were just dumb for buying commercial paper, that was not rated correctly by the rating agencies. And when the rating agencies realized they were mistaken and dropped the ratings on the commercial paper to a realistic level, well then it was too late.

In addition to government lowering lending standards, I'm sure that the people in the financial industry (which are not necessarily banks) who came up with some of these teaser rate mortgages and interest only mortgages compounded the problem.

[cobra de capell]

Most banks don't retain long-term mortgages - they sell the mortgage to FANNIE/FREDDIE and often retain the mortgage servicing rights, meaning that it appears that they still own the mortgage loan but actually only service the loan, e.g. accept payments, etc. It's transparent to the customer.

It' really mortgage brokers and dealers - as I mentioned - Countrywide was the biggest one - that pushed the envelope based on a go ahead from Barney/Congress/Regulators. They made a ton of money. Banks primarily bought the packaged securities (CMO's) that the rating agencies rated AAA paper. Some of the huge bank also retained the actual mortgages that they generated directly with customers, as in your case.

It's true, mortgage brokers - basically the scum of the greater banking world came up with all kinds of 'terms' but the only way that they could have done that is through relaxed standards - they are always looking to close the deal as that's how they get paid - up front commission with normally no regular salary.

Around ten years ago it was all about maintaining credit standards throughout the mortgage lending process - that all changed when Congress steped in and relaxed FANNIE and FREDDIE standards - those entities purchase most mortgages, package those mortgages and sell packages to banks and other investors. FANNIE and FREDDIE management also made a ton of money during the last 10 years. Now, the chickens have come home to roast. We all pay with the brokers, dealers, FANNIE/FREDDIE management and politicians generally avoiding any downside relating to starting and participating in probably the most expensive scam/fiasco in history.

[Balance_Point]

[quote=1ntCobra;956831]

My current mortgage is with a small local bank that told me that they had never sold a mortgage and did not plan to.

Portfolio lending is typical of small conservative banks

I guess blaming the banks for having weird new mortgages, like the interest only one is wrong.

Interest Only loans are actually not a new product. Private Banking/Wealth Management has offered this for years. Your home is a terrible place to park your money. The asset will gain or lose value regardless of how much equity you have in it. Its far more prudent to employ your cash in other investments that will, hopefully, gain in value and compound your ability to increase your net worth than having a sustantial (over 20%) amount of equity tied up.

The banks were just dumb for buying commercial paper, that was not rated correctly by the rating agencies. And when the rating agencies realized they were mistaken and dropped the ratings on the commercial paper to a realistic level, well then it was too late.

Absolutly correct.

In addition to government lowering lending standards, I'm sure that the people in the financial industry (which are not necessarily banks) who came up with some of these teaser rate mortgages and interest only mortgages compounded the problem.

The "teaser rate" and "interest only" has really only been an issue when coupled with increased risk borrowers (subprime). The default rate for A paper mortgages has not substantially increased. This debacle is due to lending to uncredit worthy, financially irresponsible borrowers. I will agree that 0 down is not a good banking practice. Cross collateralization of some other stable assets should be necessary.