DISQUS

DISQUS Hello!  The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.

Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.

BD's picture

Unregistered

Feeds

aliases

  • BD

BD

8 months ago

in GilroyDispatch.com | Why it truly is Barack Obama's subprime mortgage mess on Gilroy Dispatch
I just wish more people understood this but Obama uses certain phrases and key words to cloud the truth, knowing he will never get challenged. All he has to do is refer to the 8 years of Bush or the Bush policies, but if people really thought about this or read up on the subject, they would ask the question I have and I am sure you have, too: Can you explain how the eight years of Bush policies caused this when it was not Bush who was pushing these subprime loans? I only hope that enough people who are not yet decided just can't bring themselves to pulling the lever for Obama on Tuesday.
2 replies
W BD: it's been a great 8 years! too bad we can't have a third term.
Gilroy Mortgage Broker The unwritten saga of subprime is that In order to generate more foreigh capital into the american stock markets, the SEC turned a blind eye when Hi-level Republicans on Senate Finance Committee ventured into the world of foreign capital procurement.

MBS's (Mortgage Backed Securities) were the result. These securities allowed foreign invenstors (China holds 81% of ALL MBS's issued) to invest not in the mortgage, but in the profit stream resulting from these mortgages, typically Adjustable Rate Mortgages(ARM's). The reason more ARM's were written was that foreign investors were willing to hold the securities for the four or five years it took for these ARM's to auto-adjust. At that time, there was no thought in anyone's mind that housing values would fall. Everyone bet on the stellar rise that was taking place in 06-07. The average return on MBS's was 28% in under 10 years.

MBS's became so popular that only upper level brokerage houses offeres them. Schwab, Sherson-Lehman, BofA investments and others RAN to be able to sell these. The fees and write charges were handsome, and since the foreigh investors didnt hold title through these MBS's to real American property, the SEC turned a blind eye.

Late 07- home values hit the precipice. they began to fall and the rest is history.

Neither a republican nor a democrat begun saga. Just the simple result of good old American Greed.

Shame on you Cynthia for blaming it on Obama.

8 months ago

in Cindy McCain’s Tax Returns … at Last on The Washington Independent
Have you bothered to look at Obama's returns because they provide some interesting information. I have looked at McCain's (the candidate's) actual return on-line and have read more about hers. Both of them give quite a bit to charity; I think McCain's return alone reflects 25% of his income. I think the McCains' contributions are well into the six figures. Now let's look at Obama's for 2000 to 2006. Just Google and you will find the returns and schedules, not summaries. (Oh, yea - he paid a nanny only $23,000. Mr. Generous) When he was making $250,000 to $300,000 (the point he considers people "rich" and it fair and patriotic to pay more taxes), they gave less than $2,500 per year - the figures were not even close to 1% of his income (more like .4%, .6%)! The years he made $1.7 million and around $1 million, Obama did not give much more; the most he gave for those two years was around $73,000; for those two years 4%, 6.5% but less than 10%. Even factoring in taxes and what his net could be, at $1.7 million you probably have $750,000 after taxes. When you are a candidate who believes that people should pay higher taxes to help others, then shouldn't you live what you preach? He could have given $250,000 and still had $500,000 to live off; more than he had the years prior to the jump in income. Interestingly, I bet his tax increases (and the increases those under $250,000 will face when the cuts expire and that probably includes you, QrazyQat) exceed the $2,500 he didn't even give to charity. So, what we have is a candidate who wants to increase people's tax liability by more than he was willing to part with in charitable contributions. Hmmm, rather interesting, don't you think? It seems he is willing to spread the wealth around but only when it is not his money.
Returning? Login