Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

[hnumpah]

Now, I'm really confused.

Nothing new there.

Care to clarify?

 

No.

... then even gave some loophole to the MSM that they do it for ad revenue.

BT mentioned that. I simply replaced it with running for election as a reason politicians do it.

So, yea, could you clarify your position a bit better?

Asked and answered already.

Is the MSM trying to portray McCain & Palin in a negative light, compared to Obama & Biden?

Ask them.

Nor do I see Bt or myself perptuating such a bias ...

Didn't say anything about you perpetuating a bias. I was referring to taking quotes out of context and playing gotcha games.

[sirs]

Now, I'm really confused.

Nothing new there.

Care to clarify?

 

No.

So, in 2 quick successive responses, we see H's effort to elevate the debate.  Thanks for the update, H.  Was kinda expecting better, than what we get routinely from the likes of Xo or knute

Is the MSM trying to portray McCain & Palin in a negative light, compared to Obama & Biden?

Ask them.

Was asking what you believed.  And you knew that

Nor do I see Bt or myself perptuating such a bias ...

Didn't say anything about you perpetuating a bias. I was referring to taking quotes out of context and playing gotcha games.

And where are these examples of such from BT or myself, that warrant such a warning/concern??

[Michael Tee]

<<Well yes , it is the nature of a crash and the nature of an avelanche for the weight of the problem to build up slowly and silently , then fail catastrophicly this load can be traced back to decisions made decades ago and an accumulation of mistakes over a longperiod.>>

Well that might explain a long series of trades backed by nothing but speculative fever and easy money, such as those blamed by J.K. Galbraith for the crash of 1929, but when the specific allegation is that reckless lending to unqualified home buyers was the main cause of the crash, how could it be that these unqualified purchasers could continue to make regular payments on their homes over a relatively lengthy period of time and then all crash more or less together?

[Lanya]

He's not a reporter but he's an honest man, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnKh6B2cMw

Bernie Sanders lectures Alan Greenspan

[crocat]

<<Well yes , it is the nature of a crash and the nature of an avelanche for the weight of the problem to build up slowly and silently , then fail catastrophicly this load can be traced back to decisions made decades ago and an accumulation of mistakes over a longperiod.>>

Well that might explain a long series of trades backed by nothing but speculative fever and easy money, such as those blamed by J.K. Galbraith for the crash of 1929, but when the specific allegation is that reckless lending to unqualified home buyers was the main cause of the crash, how could it be that these unqualified purchasers could continue to make regular payments on their homes over a relatively lengthy period of time and then all crash more or less together?

equate it with blindness to the condition they put themselves.  Look at New Orleans...was it a surprise that it was so devastated?  Of course not, people predicted it for centuries.  It is that old belief that it could never happen to me.  The moment the feds started to raise rates the struggle began.   Many of the homebuyers had never experienced  rate fluctuations like this.  It was before their time.  Now they were in a position that set them at the top of the mountain and ready to roll down.  As they did they incurred the usual doom and gloom press, people desperate to sell driving the real estate market down, once good credit ratings being driven through the floor making lenders paranoid and over correcting, all in which brought the inflated snowballs down around our ears.

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[hnumpah]

S: Now, I'm really confused.

H: Nothing new there.

S: Care to clarify?
 
H: No.

S: So, in 2 quick successive responses, we see H's effort to elevate the debate.  Thanks for the update, H.  Was kinda expecting better, than what we get routinely from the likes of Xo or knute

I'm not out to elevate the debate, nor submit to an interrogation. All I did was point out that your source wasn't exactly unbiased. I see no reason to expound on my responses so you can nit pick every word I say and try to find ammunition to keep firing at me.

S: Is the MSM trying to portray McCain & Palin in a negative light, compared to Obama & Biden?

H: Ask them.

S: Was asking what you believed.  And you knew that

Sure I did. See above. BTW, our local paper ran a front page story, continued for over another half page inside, on McCain's ties to Jacksonville, all nice, feel good, warm and fuzzy stuff. Does that sound like trying to portray him in a negative light? Oh, yeah, and I have not seen any such effort on their part for Obama. Maybe they're going to run it next week. Got my doubts, though.

[Michael Tee]

<<Many of the homebuyers had never experienced  rate fluctuations like this.  It was before their time. >>

Shit.  My age is showing.

You are right, cro.  One rate hike could do in a lot of marginal buyers who strained at the limits to meet the original payments.  And more or less all at the same time.

Never even thought of it.

[sirs]

I'm not out to elevate the debate, nor submit to an interrogation.

And since you were under no interrogation, simply trying to figure out what your position was, but even that preciptates a knee jerk defensive reaction, with insults to boot....I guess its good to know you're not here to elevate the debate.  Your concession is appreciated, I guess

All I did was point out that your source wasn't exactly unbiased.

And what source isn't?  That's the point that's been trying to be made

[Xavier_Onassis]

The deal was that the future homebuyer was told to go ahead and get the adjustable rate mortgage, or the mortgage with the huge balloon payment at the end, because they would be able to renegotiate another teaser rate ARM when the present one came due. This did not happen, and they were stuck in a $300K house with a mortgage that would require them to pay $500K or more according to its terms that was worth maybe $200K at most.
=========================================

About six years ago, a colleague of mine, a somewhat naive Education professor told me that when she got a divorce from her husband, some guy popped up from nowhere and told her that she should get a new, better mortgage. Lower payments, better interest rates and the like.

So she signed all the paperwork, and it turns out that according to her new bank she must now pay $120 a month more on a 30 year ARM mortgage instead of 25 years more on her previous fixed rate one.

Then she asks me "Is that legal? How can they do that?"

I said, "If it's on paper and you signed it, it's probably legal. Anything they told you that isn't in writing is unlikely to be taken seriously by a court. I am not a lawyer, I don;t know how they get away with this sort of thing, but I am sure that they could do it legally if they wrote it to benefit themselves. I am not a lawyer, but if I were you, I think I'd find one."

I am not sure what happened after that.
I am guessing that she got diddled, and was not the first or the last of the diddlees.