Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Monday, September 22, 2008

Truth or Not?

Does everyone deserve a home mortgage?

In Los Angeles in particular, there is a sense that everyone deserves a home mortgage when the fact is that some people simply do not have the income or savings needed to pay for it.

If someone was "suckered" into taking a home loan, or home equity loan, that they purely did not understand, is it the responsibility of everyone else to cover the bad debt? Cumulatively, these bad loans hurt the economy. But whose bad loan is it?

Do you believe in allowing market forces to sink Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs? Or do you believe in bigger government, and an intervention?

See if you can write a response that doesn't include the words Obama, McCain, Democrats or Republicans

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

I want Sarah Palin to be vice prez because her daughters are a lot better looking than Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter.

September 22, 2008 12:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

there should be no sympthay for people who bought houses that their paychecks could not cover.

similarly, there should be no sympathy for the shareholders of these companies for allowing their boards to conduct business so recklessly.

but the government should take over these firms, or bail them out, and take those assets, because their stability is needed to stem a world-wide financial crisis.

sympathy? no way. it's not our fault, but it is our problem.

September 22, 2008 12:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Haiku, I support stating publicly at every opportunity that restructuring federal regulation and modernizing the agency's approach are essential, and to the extent that Fed and Treasury officials need Obama, McCain, Democrats and Republicans, officials must step up. More Palin pics please! Bababooey!!

September 22, 2008 1:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So, is anyone going to jail over this?

For all this money they can at least dig up a scapegoat for us.

September 22, 2008 1:51 PM  

Blogger Joseph Mailander said:

From a 200+ year old Federalist Paper:

"Why Government? Because the passions of men will not submit to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

And without the constraint of regulation, the passions of men in banking did not submit to the dictates of reason and justice.

When John Reich at the Office of Thrift Supervision started in 2005 instituting policies that "protected" only bankers, and not borrowers, the crisis, already made bad with deregulation in 2000, went from cold to pneumonia.

Even an experienced banker, let alone an ordinary citizen, has trouble at closing saying no to the problem pages bad loan docs. Most people are exhausted by their loan docs by the time they get to page 42 of 49 pages, they're just anxious to sign.

It was indeed stupid for people to make bad loans---on both sides of the table. The bankers, however, are the ones who should have known better, and they are the ones who should take more heat.

September 22, 2008 1:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

the midget mechista is responsible. i just know it.

September 22, 2008 2:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The mayor clearly would love for every person of color in this city to have a home, default on the loan, and have "whitey" pay for it, and then cry "racist" when the rightful owner tries to take it back, or the person is deported.

September 22, 2008 2:14 PM  

Anonymous The Ugly American said:

Do you believe in allowing market forces to sink Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs?


Do you believe in bigger government, and an intervention?


September 22, 2008 2:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Today, Sept 22, 2008, there are still "no money down" loans being advertised to the poor in this community.

I believe that if you are a renter that is being evicted after the owner has lost it to the bank, the bank should sell the property to the tenant in possession; especially if they paid the rent, on time for more than 3 years, has a small down payment and wants it.

September 22, 2008 3:55 PM  

Blogger haikula said:

Hello 3:55pm,

What does the renter's rent payment history have to do with whether the bank sells her the house?

If she wants the house, can afford it, and makes an offer that the bank agrees to, no other criteria should matter.

September 22, 2008 4:15 PM  

Blogger haikula said:

That's all you get! ;-)

September 22, 2008 4:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I agree with 12:46 what ever the problem is with the economy Sarah palin's good looks and religious beliefs will solve the problems of our economy. Wall street uses models to predict business outcome and since Sarah Palin wwas a hot looking model herself, I'd love Sarah to fix the economy !!!

September 22, 2008 4:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"What does the renter's rent payment history have to do with whether the bank sells her the house?'

Because they have a history of paying on time and they can afford it and the utilities, and the uptake and the insurance, etc.

When properties are sold legally, most are protected. BUT.. when a person buys the property in 2006 for 200K, sell it to his gardner 60 days after for 400K, who sold it to his cousin for 600K, after another 60 days, it had to crash.

The real estate agent sold all of the properties and was also the escrow office (which is illegal)

If we knew, or assumed, the garnder could not afford 400k and his counsin could not afford 600K, when no one put money down, everyone made money, except the bank and the tenant who was evicted, this would not have happened.

If he was paying $500 a month rent its obvious he could not pay for a $200K house, but if the tenant was paying $1,250 or more he could afford a $200K house.

This is the checks and balance of common sense.

September 22, 2008 6:00 PM  

Anonymous james p. davenport said:

Haikula, considering the comment 3:55 made, I wouldn't be surprised if our city "government" passes an ordinance decreeing exactly what 3:55 stated.

The ordinance would be then challenged in the Federal Court system, just as the Santa Monica ordinance banning ATM fees was. Ultimately, the ordinance would be ruled unconstitutional with a similar court opinion, and any chain of subsequent ownership under this ordinance would be invalidated. The property would then be returned to the owner of the property (in this instance, the mortgage holder), and then be sold under current property sales law.

Obviously, I have no faith in our current elected "government".

P.S.: Very nice photo you have on your 4:15 comment. My compliments!

September 22, 2008 7:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I want to live a house with Sarah Palin, she is smokinnnn hoottt !!!!!

September 22, 2008 8:51 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen (removes hat and bows low with flourish):

I would comment upon Mister Paulson and his decision to lend a hand to the American International Group and not so much as a farthing to Lehman Brothers. (Puts down Wall Street Journal and smiles) Being as I am a pirate, I do know a little something about finances, savvy?

Let's start by taking a look at whether or not sparing the neck of the Lehman Brothers was something that Mister Paulson should have done given that he is, if you will, a Goldman Sachs alumnus. (Takes a gold coin in one hand and rolls it about his fingers) Ah, such a lovely feeling that is. But let's get back to the subject at hand, shall we? Yes, lets.

It appears to be a situation of who's who to walk the plank, and as a pirate, I can attest to plank walking, savvy? Put the Lehman Brothers upon the plank and let them go splishy-splashy might cause a panic within the confines of the United States but, if you will, the rest of the world escapes relatively unscathed.

However, it is my observation that by failing to spare the American International Group, the world wide implications would be rather disastrous, savvy? (Peers over railing of the Black Pearl at churning water of abyss and whispers) That was a rather close one it was.

I think I rather prefer the quote in a certain weekly news magazine about the shadow of the Lehman Brothers not reaching far enough over other sots to have much needed support. (Winks) It appears that those whose with small shadows are fast losing their base of support which, if you will, seems to be the case with several sots connected with those in elected office.

Yes, the shadows of Captain Jack Sparrow and the crew of the Black Pearl are indeed long. (Looks confused) Or is it that our brilliance overshadows us? (Smiles) Drink up me hearties, yo ho!

September 22, 2008 8:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So then the McCain supporters insist that his position on the economic crisis and the bailout to be what?

I think he's waiting for the poll results before formulating a position?

And you will do what if he doesn't take your position and sells out to political expediency?

September 22, 2008 9:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If this bombshell is true it may show that John McCain is not really homophobic but just opposes all gay rights proposals to boost his political stature among Republicans.


September 22, 2008 10:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Of the two working couples I know who had to walk away from their houses, each was less than $500/month from being able to make the higher payment. 500 freakin'dollars. And after 3-4 years, why don't they have that 500 bucks today? Choose one...

A. Inflation ,including gas, groceries, utilities and hidden taxes.

B. Wage stagnation.

C. Inability to refinance because the bubble burst, contrary to what the mortgage scumbags assured them wouldn't happen as they signed on the dotted line.

D. All of the above.

When I was a kid, my father ( a white-collar human resources director) got a part time job at night as a waiter so we could keep our house on Long Island.

Try to get a part-time job these days.

A national jobs and jobs training program is the shot we need- not another welfare program for shady mortgage investors and con-men.

September 22, 2008 10:23 PM  

Anonymous http://www.thebigmoney.com said:


"For years, the Republican Party has preached the virtues of the "ownership society." Americans should own their own homes, goes the songbook; they should own stocks; they should take ownership of social benefits like heath care; they should approach their lives as if they are in charge rather than look for dependency-inducing welfare programs.

It's a compelling vision—and it has completely collapsed. The only important ownership that the Bush administration is peddling today is government ownership of the country's financial institutions. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—the former CEO of Goldman Sachs—announced an unprecedented plan to salvage the largest banks in America. Just days after declaring that a bailout of Lehman Brothers would constitute an unacceptable moral hazard, a Republican administration has decided that the only way to keep the American economy alive is to have the federal government take the reins of some of the largest financial institutions in the world.

There is a term in political philosophy to describe a government takeover of a critical industry: That term is socialism. The government is telling us that capital and credit markets cannot, for several reasons, solve the current crisis on their own—only the federal government and its massive taxpayer base have the authority and the resources to solve it. That is state socialism: the philosophy preached by the founders of the Second International, by the radical wing of the American labor movement, through the formation of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and now by Henry Paulson"

September 22, 2008 11:25 PM  

Anonymous palin is cute and knows the answer said:

Instead of asking if everyone deserves a home mortage I would ask "should Henry Paulson be in charge of spending billions of dollars bailing out a company of which he was the CEO?"

It's seems a little suspicious if not down right stupid to have the one of the persons (Henry Paulson) who did not know his very own company was going bankruput to now be the man with the urgent "bailout" plan.


Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson Jr. (born March 28, 1946) is the United States Treasury Secretary and member of the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors. He previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs.

In late September of 2008, Paulson, along with Bernanke and Christopher Cox, led the effort to help financial firms by agreeing to buy US$700 billion dollars in bad debt from them.[22] Discussing his decision to take action, Paulson said: “It just happened dramatically. There was only one way that we could reassure the markets and deal with a very significant and broad-based freezing of the credit market. There was no political calculus.

September 23, 2008 12:01 AM  

Blogger Rita Of Sunland/Wally Wharton said:

Could someone explain to me why we have to use the phrase "OF color" rather than just the word "colored?" Why should two little letters make such a tremendous difference? Personally, I love to feign a good misspeak and watch people react in sheer horror as I pretend to make vain, stumbling attempts to racially "right" myself...

September 23, 2008 4:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Haiku = hot tamale

September 23, 2008 7:03 AM  

Anonymous 4 more years? said:


And then there's the Cheney, Halliburton, and Iraq triangle. And it goes on and on.

And those who support McSame are supporting 4 more years of these same people making the same decisions without our interests in mind.

September 23, 2008 8:45 AM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Smart, logical, conservative and hot.

HaikuLA will you marry me?

September 23, 2008 3:13 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Oh, and I forget one hell of a sense of a humor and one of the best writers I've ever seen on a LA blog (with all due respect to the Burros, I love you all too).

September 23, 2008 3:14 PM  

Blogger haikula said:

Why, thank you Higby, and friends!

Haikula happens to be "taken," but my writing buddy and I get a thrill out of trying to give everyone something to think about, or be pissed off about, during the workday.

If we lived in a city where we didn't have criminals at the wheel, all of this would be unnecessary.

Glad to know you all. I think. Well, at least until the next negative comment.

Ha-ha-Haikula (yes, this is my real first name)

September 23, 2008 3:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Higby can you just delete Captain Jack?

September 23, 2008 5:16 PM  

Anonymous from robert reich said:

Robert Reich Says ....

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones ?

September 23, 2008 7:18 PM  

Blogger NorthValleyCowboy said:

Mortgage lenders, except for one I know of, aren't set up for you to shop and compare apples to apples, nor do they give you (except one) a projection as to how their mortgage is going to work for your plan to own it debt-free and still have money to eat and to save for kids' school, retirement and emergencies. When Fannie and Freddie started selling loans you were "qualified for" but couldn't afford, few have the tools to realize they're screwed. And when the Lehmans and Bear Stearns' said, "Forget that tight lending criteria! We'll buy the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie don't want. We have (Hedge Fund) Buyers!", again, people don't know they're toast. And when George Bush says, "We need to increase home ownership...It's the American Dream!", people are willing to trust the loan god who, while selling them a loan that will clearly have to be re-financed in 2-3 years, the buyer also believes the loan god, who not only holds their home-ownership fate is his hands, but tells them that because Los Angeles Real Estate values only go up, up, up, that they can re-fi every 2 years from now on and can live off the "extra cash-out" as well.

There's a whole lot of blame to go around, and the least of it is the buyers', because they don't have, and are not given (except by one company I know, and I'd tell you, but that would be advertising and I don't do that here) the tools or planning help to do make consistently good decisions.

Why save AIG and not Lehman Bros? It's the business version of feed the poor, protect the rich, and let the disappearing middle-class fend for themselves. Lehman was a middle-class company, and now they are no more.

September 23, 2008 9:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home