After I read this my thoughts immediately went to the comments of many “professional” journalists who have recently derided bloggers for their “lack of profession standards” or the idea that you can’t trust what they write.

Those are some professional standards Time Inc. adheres to, eh?

***************************************

With all due respect, Bilbo…you *do* realize, do you not, that the way your comment is phrased suggests that these people had brains to start with — something which I think may be subject to debate…?

Okay, so maybe they do have brains of some sort…but if appearances are anything to go on, they certainly haven’t been using them. Maybe the answer isn’t replacing something which is defective but simply powering up something which has just been sitting there gathering dust for awhile…

****************************************

It’s hard to know for certain whether this is a good sign or a bad sign — perhaps it’s a little bit of both. On the one hand, the fact that Bush didn’t stick around for very long after his opening speech only makes it look as though he simply doesn’t care at all about this conference and has no interest in it whatsoever — which may very well be true, but making it that blatantly obvious is insulting and not only suggests a total lack of concern for and faith in the process but also does nothing to bolster our slowly-sagging reputation around the world. On the other hand, perhaps it’s just as well that Bush didn’t stay and didn’t have any suggestions to offer up given that the man manages to muck up so much of what he touches.

But if the financial institution chooses to, it should be at THEIR OWN RISK.

This is turning out to be the S&L debacle all over again – different circumstances and dealings, but same outcome – GOVERNMENT BAILOUT for those who CHOOSE to loan money to people who COULDN’T AFFORD WHAT THEY WANTED.

And criminals would like to buy guns, but are forced to steal them.

We don’t sell to criminals, and we shouldn’t loan to those who cannot afford their over-extended, debt-ridden lifestyles.

And why did they? Hell, I want a yacht, could finance one, but I’ll wait for my kids to get through college in about 17 more years.

Those who previously were “not in the proper income bracket” unfortunately, became able to because of ramped-up lending procedures TARGETING first time buyers, who typically have no idea what the hell home ownership or mortgaging really means.

Currently with my third mortgage, I’ve never been duped into the ARM loan. It’s for people who are your typical “$30k” millionare types, who prefer to live with huge amounts of debt and shaky credit.

Then, what are you paid for? If that’s the case, you have neither the time nor the journalism background to hold your current position.

I’m just sayin’.

I really would have loved to see your comments on this situation 5 years ago. I mean you do realize people were pulling equity out of their appreciating homes so that they could spend it in other places? Like on new cars or their kids college educations? You do realize that money was real money that could be spent.

However, now that the hangover is here it can’t be anyone elses fault but the robber barons and their great big scheme to artifically inflate the entire economy.

This has nothing to do with the rich taking advantage of the poor or “i’m strong, you’re weak” It has to do with American greed and stupidity. Its the same reason why we’re in Iraq. Americans generally thought we’d be in and out in a matter of months and oil prices would plummit and we could all go back to buying SUV’s again. Americans were more than willing to ignore the facts and reality of the situation. Its no different with the mortgage crisis. Home buyers WANTED to buy a house. They chose to ignore their ARM because, hell, that rate wasn’t going to adjust for another 5 years and by then, that house was going to worth twice as much.

British officials are trying to secure the release of a British schoolteacher arrested in Sudan for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7114439.stm

“We don’t have any teddy bears over here, so in Sudan, for us, it is a fierce and dangerous animal” – Dr Khalid al Mubarak, media counsellor, Sudan Embassy

YOU’VE
GOT
TO
BE
KIDDING…

Maybe they’d prefer a version of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, but with Muhammad in place of Jesus.

Brilliant snark, Annie — I always enjoy your posts. Unfortunately, there are too many people who actually believe this “tough talk” diatribe and will happily spout it without the sarc filter.

They’re so caught up in the “I’m strong, they’re weak” philosophy that they cannot see the obvious. An economy is stronger when the most people participate. By knocking people out of the economic mainstream, it reduces the pie for everybody else. And artificially inflating (and bubble-bursting) a major industry such as housing creates a negative domino effect on everything else.

Bush’s victories weren’t all down to cheating. Almost 50% of America’s voting population voted for him – twice. They are still Americans but eish, they are thick.

If the Amurcan tax payin’ people are stupid enough to let themselves be robbed blind by the robber barons – I mean the government – then they deserve to be fleeced!

Survival of the riche– I mean FITTEST – baby. Dog eat dog! Poor people are poor because they’re lazy and stupid, and the rich are rich because they’re smart and they deserve it!
.
.
.
Ew. I’m turning off the sarcasm now. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

http://www.leftopia.blogspot.com

That’s not how we got into this mess. The banks then bundled the loans and sold them as an investment, meaning they weren’t going to be left holding the financial bag, investors (read: chinese investors) would. That’s why the Chinese are now pulling back from the dollar, and why we’re close to a recession.

You are completely missing the points I am making in my posts. Are you actually READING them? Or are you responding in a knee-jerk fashion after skimming them for a few keywords?

Let me summarize for you. I don’t want a complete nanny state. Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. Yes, I believe in free enterprise. However, I believe that citizens can and should be protected from overtly misleading sales pitches from swindlers. This does not make me a socialist, and this does not make our society a nanny state.

Your point about a bank wanting to invest its money in risky loans and a potential homeowner taking on more debt than they can handle is valid — if it’s only the bank that fails and only the potential homeowner that winds up homeless and on the streets. This really doesn’t affect you and me.

However, what if you were the one who had to bail out the bank after they run themselves into the ground providing risky loans? As a taxpayer, that’s exactly the position you would be in — just as the taxpayers were when all those S&Ls went bust. And what if you were the one who had to provide for the idiot potential homeowner who lost his home? Guess what — as a taxpayer, you are.

Furthermore, when this kind of failure happens on a trillion-dollar scale, it affects the economy for everyone. Therefore, we ALL have a stake in this nasty business.

Personal accountability is a great thing, and I never claimed otherwise. But there is always room for common sense — and averting economic disaster.

Sounds like you want a nanny state to hold your hand. If a bank decides that it wants to invest its money in risky subprime loans, then let them. If a potential homeowner decides to take on more debt than they can handle, let them. Did your parents not teach you to stand on your own two feet and accept the consequences for your actions? Why must you always look to the nanny state to solve your problems? Whatever happened to personal accountability?

1) No, I don’t believe that all problems can be (or should be) fixed by government in some form. I believe there should be room for healthy free enterprise, as this is essential to a healthy economy. Squelch that too much, and you wind up like the Soviet Union.

2) I don’t want the government telling me how to live my day to day life, either. And I don’t think I ever said anything close to that in any of my posts.

3) I’m happy that you have a lot of home equity and that you aren’t living in a crappy apartment. And no, I wouldn’t want the government telling you that you can’t take out a loan to buy your first house. What I DO want is the government telling your lending institution they can’t give you a $500,000 mortgage when you make $20,000 a year unless they give you a great many up front disclosures. And I want your lending institution to have to hang onto this loan without selling it to some other sucker, so when you default on it, they’ll have to eat it. This isn’t socialism. It’s just common sense.

While I generally agree with much of what you have to say, I am beginning to wonder if you two are socialists rather than progressives.

I have come to the conclusion there is no issue you feel can’t be fixed by some sort of government. I don’t agree with this. I agree we need government and feel government exists for many good reasons, but I don’t think the government needs to tell me how to live my day to day life.

You want “Safety nets?” fine. But I don’t accept that millions of people in America were somehow tricked into their home loans. The market was good. Shit the market was great and everyone wanted a peice of it. I bought my first house with $2000 down. Now I own a $400k home with a mortgage of less than $200k. However, if it appears if it was up to you, I’d still be living in a crappy apartment because the government was there to tell me I wasn’t qualified enough to make those initial mortgage payments on that first home purchase.