April 29, 2010

We Just Have Different Ideas About Why Government Exists
— DrewM

It's often the little things that illuminate big differences on important topics. This post by Joshua Green of The Atlantic nicely illustrates the extent to which some people want government in our lives.

When Government Works

I closed on a house this morning--a process that was markedly different than when I last bought a house in 2003. One of the most pleasant ways in which it was different was the ease of shopping for a loan. This was the result of new HUD rules standardizing what lenders must disclose to buyers in their Good Faith Estimate to make it easier for buyers to compare offers, which it certainly was for me. In 2003, I remember poring over lenders' estimates for hours trying to spot the junk fees and figure out which deal was best. This time the key factors--interested rate, lender fees, etc.--were easy to spot because the forms were identical. It took all of three minutes to figure out which was the best deal and then to call the other lenders to ask if they could do better.

Look, congrats on the new home and all but the government doesn't exist to make it easier for people to understand what they are getting themselves in to when they are buying a house.

A home is one of the biggest purchases and important undertakings most people will ever be involved in. It can be complicated and you certainly want to make sure you don't get taken to the cleaners. Still, all of that is on you. If you aren't ready to put the effort into making sure all the paperwork is in order, that you've cut the best deal possible and aren't getting ripped off, then maybe you aren't ready for the responsibility of owning a home.

I bet there are banks or lenders out there that would provide this kind of service if requested or because that kind of customer service is a selling point for them. Why should the government take away their competitive advantage by mandating everyone provide the same information? How do we know the bureaucrats mandated the right information be shared? There's no feedback like in a market place, simply commands.

Keep in mind, HUD had plenty of regulations and programs in place for the last 20+ years designed to help people buy homes. Government doesn't always know better.

And don't forget the monetary costs. Sure when you amortize it across a big department like HUD and a whole nation of taxpayers this kind of program costs very little per person. The thing is behind that regulation is vast bureaucracy that studied the issue, promulgate the regulations and eventually enforce compliance.

Eventually, like a horde of locusts they will move onto the next subject. Their hunger to regulate never satiated.

But all this guy knows is he was relieved of responsibility and it didn't cost him anything. What's not to love?

You know what else is confusing and potentially expensive? Home repairs. What exactly is the proper role for government in ensuring this guy gets the best deal from a plumber, electrician or carpenter?

There are a lot of things that are important we get right on a daily basis. Expecting the government to help us navigate the complex choices of life infantilizes the very citizens who are supposed to be the ones in charge.

I don't want to rain of Green's parade but being relived of individual adult responsibilities is not a triumph.

As I said, it's a little example but they add up. Pretty soon you have a government involved in 'helping' with everything and a people incapable of functioning without it.

What could go wrong?

Posted by: DrewM at 03:06 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Being a young guy who has no desire to be in debt for the next 15 years to own a house, and would rather save up money for sometime until I can afford to buy one outright, I have to say this guy seems like an idiot.

I gotta agree Drew, if you couldn't do those things before the government made it "easy" then you don't deserve to own a house. Call the bank, do some research. If he only needed to know two or three things, it sounds like a fairly simple process.

"Hi bank, can you tell me what these three things are? I can't figure it out on the forms you sent me."

Posted by: Brenden at April 29, 2010 03:14 PM (T8da7)

2

First & OT  Mark Levin just announced the Puerto Rico statehood bill passed the house.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at April 29, 2010 03:14 PM (cniXs)

3 I can haz morgidge to by a hous?

Posted by: LOLMortgage shopper at April 29, 2010 03:14 PM (92zkk)

4 I agree. Everthing the government does for you costs you money.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 03:15 PM (I+U8m)

5 You mean kinda like the vacuous argument that that idiot babe made last night about taking the toys out of happy meals?  Like that?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 29, 2010 03:15 PM (r1h5M)

6 Once I couldn't decide which type of toilet paper to buy.  Store brand or name brand?  Single roll, double roll, or ultra roll?  Or mega roll?  Quilted or sheet?  Single ply or two ply?  So many choices.  When will Congress ever step up to the plate and help American consumers with these difficult choice?!  These need to be standardized, regulated and clearly explained to the American consumer via a uniform measure of toilet paper goodness.

I demand Congressional hearings and the appointment of a sub-agency to make this happen for the American people.

Posted by: brak at April 29, 2010 03:17 PM (W5NBA)

7 Drew, I bought my current house in 1981 and every bank within 30 miles of here had the same contracts then.  State laws usually covered most of this stuff without the feds getting involved.

I also paid 20% down and had a massive investigation for credit worthiness as these were pre CRA days.

Every bank charged the same fees as well. Loan origination fee, title search, water test, et al.  There were a million of them.

Even though we were at the height of the Carter BS economy I think things were better then.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 03:18 PM (QrA9E)

8 I saved enough money over 15 years to pay for my house and I built it myself. No bank hassles.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 03:19 PM (I+U8m)

9 Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 08:19 PM (I+U8m)

You're my hero.

Posted by: Brenden at April 29, 2010 03:22 PM (T8da7)

10

This guy doesn't really want to be an adult.  When getting a mortgage is as easy as getting a library card, you're just signing a piece of paper, (150times!).  As a result, lots of people treat their mortgage like any other form they fill out.  Next thing you know, you've got tons of defaults, reposessions, and this wonderfull financial meltdown we're in the middle of right now.

Act like a fucking grownup sonny.  It'll make you feel like a man.

Posted by: rickinstl at April 29, 2010 03:26 PM (9LiGv)

11 This guy wrote a tribute to Tim Geithner in last month's Atlantic. It read like a fantasy of going down on Geithner

Posted by: graywolf at April 29, 2010 03:27 PM (v5Bqj)

12
How about some hooker guidelines so I don't try to bone some dude by mistake?

Posted by: Danny Bone aDouche' at April 29, 2010 03:28 PM (Oxen1)

13 Sorry, I don't buy it. Pure Capitalism, like pure Communism doesn't work. Both fail for the same reason: They make assumptions about people. Communism assumes that people are altruistic and will sacrifice for the greater good. Not terribly realistic and pretty much impossible to fix. Capitalism also makes assumptions about people: If you read any beginning economics text you'll see the phrase "assuming both parties have perfect information", or something like it, over and over again. Obviously there's nobody with perfect information, but unlike altruism that factor can be improved. Corporations exist to make profit, it's what they do. They're no more good or evil than Hippos. There's no profit in being a nice guy. There's tons of money to be made by looking like a nice guy, but if you really want to rake in the bucks you need to make it hard for consumers to compare. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who's putting his wits and experience (the whole 3-4 times he's bought a house) against the corporation who can hire dozens of people to do nothing but hide profit-generators in the agreement. Capitalism can only work if there's an entity that can provide impartial information to all parties. To my mind government is the only thing that can fulfill that role.

Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 03:29 PM (CO/RA)

14 I actually blame the education as well. Ok, so they're the blame for a lot of things. But in this case, schools (and parents) don't teach people how to do every day practical things. I never had to take a home ec class, but I'm told that's where you learned how to basically run a household, from balancing your checkbook to planning meals for the week. Shouldn't there be classes in schools about basic things like investing, mortgages, etc? Practical every day things?

The leftist bullshit being taught in schools these days is obviously no help, but it would be nice if schools provided not just a foundation for reading, writing and math, but civics and home ec as well.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:29 PM (gofDd)

15

Not everybody gets to be an astronaut. There is still some kind of natural selection in life, isn't there? The no childs left behind are the ones working the fast food joints.

 

Lowest common denominator means just that: lowest.

 

 

Posted by: chasmatic at April 29, 2010 03:32 PM (ocPxC)

16 Capitalism can only work if there's an entity that can provide impartial information to all parties. To my mind government is the only thing that can fulfill that role.

I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Capitalism works on the opposite assumption of Communist. Capitalism assumes people will do what they want in their own best interest. That's why capitalism works and Communism doesn't. Even Adam Smith said capitalism is guided by an invisible hand. In theory, you don't want to sell a product that quickly kills/harms your customers. That's not good business. (Unless you're Ford and think people suing for wrongful death is cheaper than fixing all the cars.)

I'm not articulating this well. But I know for a fact that government should NOT intervene in the market. That ALWAYS leads to bad things. ALWAYS.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:34 PM (gofDd)

17 This guy is so full of crap. I have been in this business for my entire life and a term sheet from a lender is seldom over 1 page whether the loan is $100,000 or $30,000,000. They all give you the same thing, fees, points, rate, term and PMI if you need that. If pouring over a 1 page letter in which the loan costs all usually appear in the same paragraph is to much for this idiot to comprehend then he probably shouldn't be buying a house.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 03:34 PM (fwSHf)

18 I think we can all agree that adult novelties should be both safe and affordable.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 29, 2010 03:36 PM (Xuxia)

19

There's tons of money to be made by looking like a nice guy, but if you really want to rake in the bucks you need to make it hard for consumers to compare.

Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 08:29 PM (CO/RA)

That

 

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 03:36 PM (F09Uo)

20

Shouldn't there be classes in schools about basic things like investing, mortgages, etc? Practical every day things?

Less time learning odes to obummble and more on practical. Won't happen until there is a drastic change in the school system. They are, after all, run by the union.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 03:36 PM (I+U8m)

21 Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 08:29 PM (CO/RA)

Bullshit

Capitalism worked fine when we had it. It built this country. Since the 1900s we have had fascism and communism and we have been steadily tearing it down.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 03:37 PM (QrA9E)

22 I'm from the government, and I'm here to help DrewM write a blog post without any personal responsibility.  Oh, he's got Value-Rite already.  Guess my work here is done.  That'll be $573,748.31 for my time.

Posted by: Dude at April 29, 2010 03:39 PM (TmzDu)

23 The black market is pretty much capitalism at its purest, isn't it?

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:39 PM (gofDd)

24 The guy is lying through his teeth.  I'm in the business.  The new Good Faith Estimate is a joke... multiple pages long...convoluted, ridiculous and unclear.  And the guy is an idiot if he couldn't figure out the best deal from the single page Good Faith Estimate that most recently was...

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 03:40 PM (9IjK0)

25 I'm not articulating this well. But I know for a fact that government should NOT intervene in the market. That ALWAYS leads to bad things. ALWAYS.

That is absolutely damn right.

Posted by: Guy Doing 2-to-6 for Insider-Trading at April 29, 2010 03:40 PM (T7G3R)

26 Capitalism can only work if there's an entity that can provide impartial information to all parties. To my mind government is the only thing that can fulfill that role.

Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 08:29 PM (CO/RA)

Uhmm, you are thinking about socialism. Capitalism works because in a free market several different entities compete to find a better way of doing things free from the socialistic notion that everyone must do everything the same way.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 03:41 PM (fwSHf)

27 21 Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 08:29 PM (CO/RA)

Bullshit

Capitalism worked fine when we had it. It built this country. Since the 1900s we have had fascism and communism and we have been steadily tearing it down.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 08:37 PM (QrA9E)

Having worked in the mortgage industry for years, I can say he's 100% right. Capitalism, real capitalism, relies on an informed consumer making rational choices. Bad or incomplete information makes that process less efficient.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 03:42 PM (F09Uo)

28 I'm sure he's just happy because he got a homebuyer credit.....idiot.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 03:43 PM (9IjK0)

29 If the gubmint had put safety labels on those hotties, I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in today.  Also if I could count...

Posted by: Tiger Woods at April 29, 2010 03:44 PM (ytCsK)

30

Posted by: Guy Doing 2-to-6 for Insider-Trading at April 29, 2010 08:40 PM (T7G3R)

We have laws against insider trading. Maybe, just maybe, if the SEC employees spent more time policing and less time viewing porn the public wouldn't be as screwed.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 03:45 PM (I+U8m)

31 This post is the dumbest fucking post I've read on Ace Of Spades in a long time. Why does government exist? One of the princpal reasons we have government is to enforce the laws we all agree to live by. That is a conservative principle. Murder is against the law, and so we have laws against it and police to enforce those laws. Fraud is against the law, and so we have laws against fraud and regulations to enforce those laws. Buying a home is fraught with many potential frauds, especially where it concerns a potentially fraudulent estimates provided by companies offering home loans. We have these laws because before we had them, there was much fraud in the selling of home loans. Unscrupulous companies would provide fraudulent estimates, rope you in, and then renege at closing by presenting you with actual costs that did not comport with their estimates. They did so fraudulently, knowing you had already arranged your moving, insurance, taken your kids out of school, and so on and so forth. They would rip you off, illegally, by committing the crime of fraud. Government exists to prevent crimes against the population by unscrupulous criminals like this. Government regulation that serves no purpose is obviously bad. But not everything government does is bad. Enforcing our laws isn't bad. It's a right and proper use of our government and is a largely conservative principal.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 03:47 PM (RhnDB)

32 We have laws against insider trading. Maybe, just maybe, if the SEC employees spent more time policing and less time viewing porn the public wouldn't be as screwed

And if Wall Street and Washington weren't sleeping together like the dirty whores they are.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:48 PM (gofDd)

33 You know what would be great? If the government regulated medicine so extensively that I wouldn't have to worry about who to visit or how to pay for it. I wouldn't have to ask around and do research about which doctor and what coverage to have. It would be great if the government just told me "you can only have doctor X, Y, or Z, and they are government-certified to be real doctors with papers and diplomas and stuff" and then the government paid all my bills and I didn't have to decide anything. That would be great.

Posted by: Dumbshit Blueshirt at April 29, 2010 03:48 PM (AZGON)

34 The black market is pretty much capitalism at its purest, isn't it?
Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 08:39 PM (gofDd)

Perhaps in its operation but a 'black market' (racist! btw) only exists because a factor outside the market, usually government, has created an artificial shortage.

What are now 'illegal' drugs would be much cheaper if they were legalized. Not only would the costs of circumventing the prohibition (smuggling) and the premium charged for the potential costs of selling them (jail) bu the market would have more participants and thus greater competition and less costs. Also, more people might use drugs, upping demand.

So while the 'black market' price of street drugs are determined by supply and demand that market is the creation of an external distortion.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 03:49 PM (9B5OK)

35 Capitalism, real capitalism, relies on an informed consumer making rational choices. Bad or incomplete information makes that process less efficient.

Well, I think light regulation isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not all companies are going to be honest, although the USDA and FDA and whatever other watchdog agencies are often in pockets and not as objective as they should be.

That said, I think we here can all agree that government shouldn't regulate every. damn. thing.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:50 PM (gofDd)

36 They would rip you off, illegally, by committing the crime of fraud. Government exists to prevent crimes against the population by unscrupulous criminals like this. Government regulation that serves no purpose is obviously bad. But not everything government does is bad. Enforcing our laws isn't bad. It's a right and proper use of our government and is a largely conservative principal.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 08:47 PM (RhnDB)

Maybe in all your fucking wisdom you could tell me how putting that same fraudulent information on a differnt fucking government form would cure this nonexistent problem you are so worried about?

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 03:51 PM (fwSHf)

37 Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 08:47 PM (RhnDB)

Wow, someguy is a Mike Huckabee big government 'conservative'. Interesting.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 03:51 PM (9B5OK)

38 The guy is lying through his teeth. I'm in the business. The new Good Faith Estimate is a joke May I point out that fifteen years ago I bought a house and the attendant paperwork, most of it required by government, was not quite an inch thick. When I sold the house a mere two years later, the paperwork was nearly three inches thick. This did not seem to be an improvement.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 29, 2010 03:51 PM (AZGON)

39 Having worked in the mortgage industry for years, I can say he's 100% right. Capitalism, real capitalism, relies on an informed consumer making rational choices. Bad or incomplete information makes that process less efficient.

Isn't it amazing that we had people buying and selling houses in this country for 200 years without all that shit.

Yes, some people made stupid decisions and most made fair decisions. Well guess fkn what; government intrusion into the thing doesn't help a damn bit.

We still have stupid people making stupid decisions.

Government regulation is ALWAYS bad and never solves the problem it was supposed to be written for. All it ever does is create new problems, hurt the honest people, and in the end the real damn crooks just keep on stealing.

If the freakin assholes in government would spend half of their time investigating fraud and theft we would not have the problems we have now. Instead all they do is watch fucking pron and try to dream up new ways to expand their fuckn empire.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 03:53 PM (QrA9E)

40 Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 08:49 PM (9B5OK)

I understand why it exists and agree with what you're saying. But my original point was that the way the black market operates, i.e. on the laws of supply and demand, is how capitalism is supposed to work without gov't (or at least minimal) interference.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 03:54 PM (gofDd)

41 Wow, someguy is a Mike Huckabee big government 'conservative'. Interesting.

FIFY

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 29, 2010 03:54 PM (T7G3R)

42 At the sale of my late mother's condo, I had to sign a government document that it hadn't been used as a meth lab. Good thing they didn't know about all the Smoky Links that got heated up in that place...............

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at April 29, 2010 03:54 PM (2PTT7)

43 Capitalism, real capitalism, relies on an informed consumer making rational choices. Bad or incomplete information makes that process less efficient.
Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 08:42 PM (F09Uo)

Yes but that doesn't require government to mandate what information must be provided between the parties.

If your lender doesn't provide you with sufficient information for you to make an informed decision...go to another lender. Government shouldn't be in the position of determining what is 'bad or incomplete information'. That's the responsibility of the parties involved in the transaction.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 03:55 PM (9B5OK)

44

Does anyone here really thing that the Reg Z and Truth in Lending disclosures were an invention of a government looking for something to do, or that the entire industry, all by itself, would disclose anything they didn't have to?

Hell no! All of that stuff came about from systemic industry abuses and outright fraud and even then the entire industry fought it tooth and nail. An average homebuyer, that is not in the industry, is utterly clueless when it comes to this stuff and the true reality that goes into mortgage product pricing.

It's only capitalism when the borrower has the knowledge to know when they are getting fleeced and the ability to walk down the street and cut a better deal. 

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 03:56 PM (F09Uo)

45 In regards to auto leasing, FTC action with "Regulation M" was a good thing. There's 8 ways to Sunday to get boned on a car lease. A few less now.

Posted by: Pecos Bill at April 29, 2010 03:57 PM (8WOM0)

46 Wow, someguy is a Mike Huckabee big government 'conservative'. No, I'm a stpuid post pointer-outer. This post doesn't give off any evidence that any real thought went into it. It reads like it was written by someone who has never purchased a home. A home is the largest purchase most Americans will buy. And it is right and proper and conservative that we have laws against fraud in the home buying process ... just like we have laws against three-card monte in the subway. Having a law-abiding country is a conservative principle. Republicans are not for the principal of "buyer beware, anything goes" because that's bad for business and we don't want a country of fraudsters taking advantage of our constituents. That's bad politics. Dumb. Fucking Post.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 03:57 PM (RhnDB)

47 There is no point in talking to a brainwashed Fascist captured by the system.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 03:57 PM (QrA9E)

48 Yes but that doesn't require government to mandate what information must be provided between the parties.

If your lender doesn't provide you with sufficient information for you to make an informed decision...go to another lender. Government shouldn't be in the position of determining what is 'bad or incomplete information'. That's the responsibility of the parties involved in the transaction.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 08:55 PM (9B5OK)

Unknown UNKNOWS, Drew.

Please explain how the average consumer would know about servicing release fees and how different products generate different incomes that directly affect the cost of the loan.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 03:59 PM (F09Uo)

49 There's 8 ways to Sunday to get boned on a car lease.
A few less now.

The ONLY reason anyone has to lease a car is to make tax write-offs for business simpler. That is government interference at the core.

Anyone else who leases a car is a fool and deserves to be separated from his money.

Posted by: Vic at April 29, 2010 03:59 PM (QrA9E)

50 And it is right and proper and conservative that we have laws against fraud in the home buying process
Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 08:57 PM (RhnDB)

He didn't say anything about 'fraud' he said he was happy the government made "it easier for buyers to compare offers".

Small government conservatism requires we support the government making comparison shopping easier?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:00 PM (9B5OK)

51 When Government Works It We used to shuffle paper around, many years ago, enforcing the mountains of regulations we had before the advent of personal computers and especially those intertubes. Now, we have even more regulation than ever, but these awesome Dells are great for getting our porno. We just forward pdfs from Word to a bunch of investor relations e-mail addresses, and that only takes a few minutes. Now we can spend nearly seven hours a day on 4chan and /b/. We love government.

Posted by: The SEC at April 29, 2010 04:00 PM (AZGON)

52 "Isn't it amazing that we had people buying and selling houses in this country for 200 years without all that shit." But we didn't. We had for hundreds of years fraudsters slowing down the housing market by causing homebuyers to throw up their hands in frustration at all the fraud in the lending process. That's why we, collectively, passed these fraud laws. They actually result in MORE home sales because people have more faith and trust in the process. Again, this post was clearly written by someone who is knee-jerk against all government regulation and wants a society where there are no laws, where anything goes, and where fraudsters can operate with impunity. That's not conservative. That's just juvenile.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:01 PM (RhnDB)

53

We still have stupid people making stupid decisions.

Government regulation is ALWAYS bad

Because the gov't always runs forward thinking they can protect the stupid people and never suspecting that the crooks are smart.

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 29, 2010 04:01 PM (XdlcF)

54

If anything thise stuff is not disclosed clear enough, maybe there is fault there, but of you are methodical, you can at least compare numbers in boxes and be assured that they have been arrived at by the same formula.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:02 PM (F09Uo)

55 Short and sweet, this guy is an idiot, and shouldn't be allowed out in public.

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at April 29, 2010 04:04 PM (erIg9)

56 So, you might think things have tightened up greatly in the last two years as far as lenders not lending to those who are low-income. This is not so. My daughter (21) and her hubby (21) just bought their first house. They got approved for $160,000. He is a freaking landscaper, she is a p/t trainer at Gold's Gym going to college. No co-signers needed. While I'm glad they got a house, there's no way in hell I'd loan them money. WTF are those people thinking?

Posted by: di butler, dead or alive at April 29, 2010 04:04 PM (S3xX1)

57 Please explain how the average consumer would know about servicing release fees and how different products generate different incomes that directly affect the cost of the loan.
Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 08:59 PM (F09Uo)

There are a lot of things it's hard for people to understand if they aren't an expert. I don't think it's the governments job to step in whenever that happens. I think it's incumbent upon the individual to do the necessary research (which is easier than ever now) or perhaps engage an expert of their own.

Seems there are options that don't require the government to step in.

Look at what this guy said, he went through it all a few years ago. He didn't complain he got ripped off then, he clearly has the capacity to make these decisions.

He's just happy he was relived of that responsibility the second time around.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:04 PM (9B5OK)

58 This guy (Joshua Green) reminds me of so many of the overeducated (and this coming from a guy with 2 MS and 1 PhD) libtards I work with who I honestly believe secretly wish some government bureaucrat would relieve them of the responsibility of wiping their asses when the take a shit. Seriously. Nice to see the Fed.Gov is making it "easier" to get mortgages again - especially for people who don't want the responsibility of actually, you know, knowing what the hell they're getting into. It's as if 2007-2009 never happened. Only now the taxpayers are officially on the hook for this leg of the mortgage melt-up bubble. Which is, of course, totally freaking awesome.

Posted by: DocJ at April 29, 2010 04:06 PM (AWzOz)

59

Again, this post was clearly written by someone who is knee-jerk against all government regulation and wants a society where there are no laws, where anything goes, and where fraudsters can operate with impunity.

Wow, that was quite a leap.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 04:06 PM (I+U8m)

60 47 Wow, someguy is a Mike Huckabee big government 'conservative'. No, I'm a stpuid post pointer-outer.

YOU'RE the one who ended up with that job? They sent my resume back with a note telling me I wasn't arrogant enough.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 29, 2010 04:06 PM (T7G3R)

61 WTF are those people thinking?

Posted by: di butler, dead or alive at April 29, 2010 09:04 PM (S3xX1)

They aren't. These days it's credit scoring, income to debt ratios and appraised value. DONE!

It's possible their loan, depending on where they got it was "untouched by human hands".

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:07 PM (F09Uo)

62 Because the gov't always runs forward thinking they can protect the stupid people and never suspecting that the crooks are smart.

That's another good point, Mama AJ. Crooks are going to try to game the system any way they can. We have laws in place to try to prevent that, but the bad guys will always find a way around it. See Gun Control for an example.

But I also wonder how much of the complication is, well, complicated because of government interference. Government doesn't know how to simplify.

I also blame lawyers. Too many damn lawyers.

And Bush. I blame Bush.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:07 PM (gofDd)

63

Please explain how the average consumer would know about servicing release fees and how different products generate different incomes that directly affect the cost of the loan.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 08:59 PM (F09Uo)

They don't, that is why we have realtors and attorneys. If you are stupid enough to be a novice purchaser of the biggest purchase in your life and you don't have one of those two people working with you or both, I'm sorry. I don't want to pay the government to step in to help you.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 04:08 PM (fwSHf)

64 "Small government conservatism requires we support the government making comparison shopping easier?" It has nothing to do with that and I think you know that. Making comparison shopping easier is merely a side-effect of the regulations, which are designed to require that lenders - in a standard and usual way - honestly disclose their costs so that the buyer isn't ransacked at closing by an unscrupulous presentation of a bill. In the past, they've been dishonest and ripped people off no different than being taken by a three-card-monte hustler. It's clear to me you've never purchased a home, or you would understand this. It is knee-jerk to blanket declare that all government regulation is bad. It isn't. I'm glad our government regulates rape and murder and fraud. I want my government to promise to do that and to do it well. That is a conservative principle. If that makes it easier to comparison shop a home loan, mores the better. The point is to prevent our Republican voters from getting ripped off and that's a good use of our government. Not all government regulation is pointless. Much of it is, but not all of it is. Republicans want their constituents to be able to shop for a home loan without having to wade through a bunch of Ivy-League educated loan sharks who know all the loopholes and are waiting to take advantage of our people. That's good politics.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:09 PM (RhnDB)

65 Nice to see the Fed.Gov is making it "easier" to get mortgages again - especially for people who don't want the responsibility of actually, you know, knowing what the hell they're getting into. It's as if 2007-2009 never happened. Only now the taxpayers are officially on the hook for this leg of the mortgage melt-up bubble. Indeed. 'Cause what we really need now is more and more people borrowing money to buy houses, with as little thought and diligence as possible.

Posted by: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at April 29, 2010 04:10 PM (AZGON)

66 Uhhh, I was under the impression that the conservative principle is limited gov't, not "the gov't should do well what it says it will."

But then I'm a crazy libertarian so what do I know?

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:10 PM (gofDd)

67 Pssst, someguy's back.   And the little fuckin' psycho still ain't takin his meds.

Whew, that's some crazy on display.

Posted by: Havalina at April 29, 2010 04:11 PM (ndhWW)

68 Look at what this guy said, he went through it all a few years ago. He didn't complain he got ripped off then, he clearly has the capacity to make these decisions.

He's just happy he was relived of that responsibility the second time around.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 09:04 PM (9B5OK)

Actually, I'm more worried about the other commenter here that are screaming for NO REGULATION.

With no regulation, I guarantee that I could take every single one of you motherf*kkrs to the cleaners and you wouldn't know it for months, if ever, and it would all be perfectly legal.

Intelligent regulation and disclosure is always a good thing.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:11 PM (F09Uo)

69 Am I the only one who is getting the feeling that someguy signed a really bad house deal at some point and is still pretty pissed about it?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:12 PM (9B5OK)

70

Because contracts are written by lawyers and only some lawyers understand the contract it is no wonder buyers can't understand what is about to happen to them. I wonder, if the lawyer speak was translated from 5 pages to one paragraph, maybe it would be better for the consumer.

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 04:13 PM (I+U8m)

71 Intelligent regulation and disclosure is always a good thing.

Intelligence and government are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:13 PM (gofDd)

72 When will the gubberment do the same for valu-rite and hookers? When? The world wonders?

Posted by: torabora at April 29, 2010 04:14 PM (cjGPk)

73 Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:11 PM (F09Uo)

At no point did I argue against fraud laws.

I do however have a problem with the idea the government is responsible for setting the terms and form of disclosures.

If you are going to sign a contract it's up to you to understand what the hell your obligations are under the terms of the agreement.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:15 PM (9B5OK)

74

They don't, that is why we have realtors and attorneys. If you are stupid enough to be a novice purchaser of the biggest purchase in your life and you don't have one of those two people working with you or both, I'm sorry. I don't want to pay the government to step in to help you.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 09:08 PM (fwSHf)

Yes, because Realtors are so renowned for giving honest and unbiased advice in spite of the fact that they only get paid when the transaction closes. When it comes to the financial side of the deal, your Realtor knows little more than you do. In California attorneys never get involved in a transaction until it's already blown up.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:15 PM (F09Uo)

75 This sounds like something that could be done by some combination of a trade association and consumer rights group as in:  we will recommend to our members that they don't deal with any lender who won't use the standard form produced by your trade association in consultation with us.

That said, this example is really one of the least offensive things that government has done in the last 20 years - I wouldn't advocate for it, but it does not really bother me.  I do think that sunshine is the best cleaning agent, so forcing understandable disclosure is generally a good thing.  The problems occur because (1) the entities being regulated will always eventually learn to game the system (have you ever read all the Risk Factors in a prospectus?  Has anyone except the poor bastards required to draft them?), and (2) government regulation gives shady businesses an sheen of respectability (ex. I know that it is utterly incredible that Maddoff can produce such consistent returns every year, but oh well, he is supervised by the SEC, so he must be legit - here Bernie, take my life savings). 

Posted by: Holdfast at April 29, 2010 04:16 PM (Gzb30)

76 Because contracts are written by lawyers and only some lawyers understand the contract it is no wonder buyers can't understand what is about to happen to them. I wonder, if the lawyer speak was translated from 5 pages to one paragraph, maybe it would be better for the consumer.

That's why I'd pass a law that contracts and laws should be written in plain English that an 8th grader could understand. Our society is way too overlawyered, which is one of the reasons why some things are so damn complex.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:16 PM (gofDd)

77 I gotta disagree with the OP here (and most of the commenters so far). I like, for example, the labels on the back of almost all foods stating what's in them in a standardized format. What I don't want is the government throwing up a bunch of regulations saying how much salt, fat, calories, etc., the food can have. But when it comes to disclosure, I'm all for it. Same thing with a home loan. There's nothing wrong with the government requiring everyone to make some standardized disclosures, as long as they don't use that as a jumping off point to start making all loans fit some bureaucrat's one-size-fits-all idea of what the terms of the loan should be.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at April 29, 2010 04:16 PM (DsU01)

78 If you want to advocate a conservative position, how about a post where we urge the government to get out of the lending business and stop competing against private businesses. But also stop aiding them. Barack Obama, for example, just nationalized all student lending. That's a mistake. The government is now competing against private lenders. But he did that because the government in the past was guaranteeing school loans. Is it a good use of government to guarantee school loans? Republicans in teh past have supported this dumb principle. Shouldn't lenders take the risk of their loans? That would be a post I'd like to read. Bitching about the government enforcing our fraud laws in the home-lending process isn't conservative at all. Seems knee-jerk liberal.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:16 PM (RhnDB)

79

"Please explain how the average consumer would know about servicing release fees and how different products generate different incomes that directly affect the cost of the loan."

It seems you've tried to figure it out which would mean it doesn't take much intelligence.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:18 PM (9IjK0)

80 I do however have a problem with the idea the government is responsible for setting the terms and form of disclosures.

If you are going to sign a contract it's up to you to understand what the hell your obligations are under the terms of the agreement.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 09:15 PM (9B5OK)

That's about the only thing the governement is good at. Everyone has to disclose the same numbers, in the same boxes, and calculate them the same way.

I'm not looking for a government to protect me from myself, but I do want the basic tools to look out for myself. Without mandatory disclosures, that becomes almost impossible.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:20 PM (F09Uo)

81

It seems you've tried to figure it out which would mean it doesn't take much intelligence.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 09:18 PM (9IjK0)

Yeah, 'cause I'm such a moron when it comes to SRP calcs.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:22 PM (F09Uo)

82 I'm not surprised about the fault lines here.

One, it is  fairly small potatoes. I just hate it because it's these small things that help to anesthetize people to government intervention in their lives. It's a camel nose under the tent thing.

Two, it's not necessarily a liberal/conservative thing. It's much more of a libertarian/everyone else thing.

 

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:22 PM (9B5OK)

83 I'm not looking for a government to protect me from myself, but I do want the basic tools to look out for myself. Without mandatory disclosures, that becomes almost impossible.
Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:20 PM (F09Uo)

Then don't do business with anyone who doesn't give you the information you want in the form you want.

It's not like there are no other options than the government doing it.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:23 PM (9B5OK)

84 I got a job this morning--a process that was markedly different than when I last worked for money in 2010. One of the most pleasant ways in which it was different was the ease of choosing a slot in the State machine. This was the result of new Department of Labor rules standardizing what jobs I am assigned in their Glorious Labor Five Year Plan to make it easier for the workers to contribute to society, which it certainly was for me. This time the key factors--my political party, my gender, etc.--were easy to spot because the official at the government desk just told me what I could have. It took all of three minutes to figure out which was the best deal because really all the jobs were equally boring and equally paid. Anyway, the nice official still chose for me, so it really worked out.

Posted by: Joshua Green, in the year 2025 at April 29, 2010 04:24 PM (AZGON)

85 "Am I the only one who is getting the feeling that someguy signed a really bad house deal at some point and is still pretty pissed about it?" No, you just wrote a poorly thought-out post that most people here disagree with and you're lashing out at the reasonable criticism of it like a child would do instead of arguing your point. That is the approach liberals take. They attack the person, instead of the position being advocated. Are you a liberal Drew? Because you do tend to operate the same way they do.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:25 PM (RhnDB)

86 "79 I gotta disagree with the OP here (and most of the commenters so far). I like, for example, the labels on the back of almost all foods stating what's in them in a standardized format. What I don't want is the government throwing up a bunch of regulations saying how much salt, fat, calories, etc., the food can have. But when it comes to disclosure, I'm all for it. Same thing with a home loan. There's nothing wrong with the government requiring everyone to make some standardized disclosures, as long as they don't use that as a jumping off point to start making all loans fit some bureaucrat's one-size-fits-all idea of what the terms of the loan should be."

Are you really this dense?  Are you not aware of Fannie and Freddie?  Are you unaware of federal regulations to demand homeownership to those who couldn't afford them?  Are you not aware of the housing catastrophe we are in right now?  Liberal Government regulations created this entire mess and even though you're being told it's changed do you really believe that it has?  You must have "gullible" tatooed on your forehead!   And apparently you haven't heard about that new "salt" reg that Obama's talking about...

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:25 PM (9IjK0)

87

Yes, because Realtors are so renowned for giving honest and unbiased advice in spite of the fact that they only get paid when the transaction closes. When it comes to the financial side of the deal, your Realtor knows little more than you do. In California attorneys never get involved in a transaction until it's already blown up.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:15 PM (F09Uo)

Oh bullshit, what do you want now? A government supplied realtor? They are the one that fills out the original contract you are about to sign. You know that don't you? As far as what happens in California I beleive you about the fact that attorneys never get involved. California and Florida had the most forclosures in the recent downturn and California had the highest incidense of liar loans so maybe the idiots in California should have someone explain to them what they are signing.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 04:25 PM (fwSHf)

88 "Their hunger to regulate never satiated."

Drill baby, drill. Fk the environment. Keep the Gd government out of the cleanup, lets bankrupt the companies forcing them to do the cleanup. Whos with me?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 04:26 PM (fdyUX)

89

"Maybe in all your fucking wisdom you could tell me how putting that same fraudulent information on a differnt fucking government form would cure this nonexistent problem you are so worried about?"

Good one....

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:27 PM (9IjK0)

90 Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:25 PM (RhnDB)

Who am I lashing out at?

I guess you could say you but it's more mocking. Also it's not because I'm horrified you dared to disagree with me. It's because I find you an obnoxious asshole all the time and don't really feel like being courteous to you.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:28 PM (9B5OK)

91 Then don't do business with anyone who doesn't give you the information you want in the form you want.

It's not like there are no other options than the government doing it.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 09:23 PM (9B5OK)

Unknown unknowns Drew. You can't ask if you don't and without a standardized means of comparison, there is no real means of comparison. Many of these numbers can be (in good faith) calculated a number of different ways, but without a standardized means of calculating the numbers, doing a straight across check doesn't even work.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:29 PM (F09Uo)

92 Hey retarded cons, lets deregulate the banks some more. What do you say?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 04:31 PM (fdyUX)

93 Again, this post was clearly written by someone who is knee-jerk against all government regulation and wants a society where there are no laws, where anything goes, and where fraudsters can operate with impunity. That's not conservative. That's just juvenile.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:01 PM (RhnDB)


This post was written by someone that seriously needs to fuck off.

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at April 29, 2010 04:32 PM (erIg9)

94 What Diablo and Someguy are clueless about is that the fraud being perpetrated on them is by the very government they support!  They want the government to tell them how to think because it might take too much time to figure it out for themselves.  The liberals count on idiots like them.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:32 PM (9IjK0)

95 Then don't do business with anyone who doesn't give you the information you want in the form you want. Drew, you clearly do not understand what occurs in the home-buying and selling process and your comments make that obvious. It is not possible to buy a house in one day. It usually involves moving and there are tons of details that have to all be coordinated, including uprooting your family in many instances. Loan sharks know this, and try to take advantage of you at closing by presenting a bill that is fraudulently different from their price estimates. You either have to agree at that moment to pay their extortion demand, or you have to walk away from the buy after you've invested a lot of time and money to get to that point. It's really that simple. Are you suggesting that Republicans should be advocating a completely unregulated market where fraudsters can operate with impunity? Because it sounds like that's what you're advocating. When you make comments like "don't do business with anyone who doesn't give you the information you want in the form you want" it makes it seem as if you believe there should be no regulation in this area. And that belies a certain immaturity in how the world works. The street needs cops; some people are bad; conservatives want a law-and-order society for our constituents and we have to regulate certain industries that have proven to be especially prone to fraud in the past. That's good politics and is a conservative principle we should all be able to get behind. Right?

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:33 PM (RhnDB)

96 Unknown unknowns Drew.
Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:29 PM (F09Uo)

I believe that's called life.

If you are about to take on the responsibility of owning a home (really it's the responsibility of a huge financial obligation) and you don't know everything in the contract then you are a fool.

If you don't think you have enough expertise to evaluate your exposure, hire someone who does. Lawyers are expensive but they are a lot cheaper than signing a bad agreement.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:33 PM (9B5OK)

97 Again, this post was clearly written by someone who is knee-jerk against all government regulation and wants a society where there are no laws, where anything goes, and where fraudsters can operate with impunity.

Overreaction Man Overreacts

Or, in the language that our ancestors understood, that's a steaming pile of bull-puckey.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 04:34 PM (bxiXv)

98 Oh look, a baby troll (fdyUX). Gosh, they're cute.

Posted by: DocJ at April 29, 2010 04:35 PM (AWzOz)

99 It is not possible to buy a house in one day. It usually involves moving

The FUCK you say!

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 29, 2010 04:36 PM (T7G3R)

100

Oh bullshit, what do you want now? A government supplied realtor? They are the one that fills out the original contract you are about to sign. You know that don't you? As far as what happens in California I beleive you about the fact that attorneys never get involved. California and Florida had the most forclosures in the recent downturn and California had the highest incidense of liar loans so maybe the idiots in California should have someone explain to them what they are signing.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 09:25 PM (fwSHf)

Most Realtors are mostly worthless. I never did say anything about government supplied Realtors, I did imply that they are not a valid source of information on the loan side of the deal. They may know local pricing, and they may know where the bad neighborhoods are, but it ends about there. They no more know lending any more than your mechanic can tell you if you got a good deal on your car loan.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:36 PM (F09Uo)

101 No, I want a Republican government that is law-and-order. Having home loan laws to prevent my Republican friends from getting ripped off by liberal Ivy-League Harvard lawyers at their home closing seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm glad my government is protecting me from Goldman Sachs, who donates generously and one-sidedly to Barack Obama and the Democrats. As do most of the Wall Street firms. I like that they're getting fucked over today, because they're donating to the wrong side.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:38 PM (RhnDB)

102

Unknown unknowns Drew. You can't ask if you don't and without a standardized means of comparison, there is no real means of comparison. Many of these numbers can be (in good faith) calculated a number of different ways, but without a standardized means of calculating the numbers, doing a straight across check doesn't even work.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:29 PM (F09Uo)

How about this one? First you take a Big Cheif tablet out of your satchel and a #2 pencil. Then you take out your term sheets. You write at the top of the page from left to right the names of your prospective lenders. Then in the left hand margin you write down the description of the fees, interest rate etc. they want to charge you. Underneath each lender you write down the values for each item in the left hand margin. Then you compare them.

Jeeeebus

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 04:38 PM (fwSHf)

103

This post is the dumbest fucking post I've read on Ace Of Spades in a long time.

That is the approach liberals take. They attack the person

 

Posted by: Mama AJ at April 29, 2010 04:38 PM (XdlcF)

104 97 What Diablo and Someguy are clueless about is that the fraud being perpetrated on them is by the very government they support!  They want the government to tell them how to think because it might take too much time to figure it out for themselves.  The liberals count on idiots like them.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 09:32 PM (9IjK0)

Stop talking, the adults are busy.

I have forgotten more about real estate finance that you will ever know. When you have owned and successfully operated a Mortgage company, then you can play, OK?

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:39 PM (F09Uo)

105 Hey Doc, why not give yourself a prostrate exam. Is that illegal and regulated? Examining and caring for oneself or ones family members? Gd regulations.

Cons, let people be free. Quite burdening us with your piety. Get us out from under your lord. Thanks.

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 04:39 PM (fdyUX)

106 Apparently it's time to play then Diablo.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:40 PM (9IjK0)

107 And how old are you little Diablo?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:42 PM (9IjK0)

108

Hey Doc, why not give yourself a prostrate exam.

Why would Doc horn in on your specialty?

Posted by: Ronster at April 29, 2010 04:43 PM (I+U8m)

109 Uh, a "prostrate" exam? Like, when Lord Barry "prostrates" himself before just about any dictator he comes across? Nice going, moron. Back to the minors with you.

Posted by: DocJ at April 29, 2010 04:44 PM (AWzOz)

110 "If you are about to take on the responsibility of owning a home (really it's the responsibility of a huge financial obligation) and you don't know everything in the contract then you are a fool." Obviously, you've never bought a house and therefore, are speaking without knowing. That's foolish. It simply is not possible for the average person (repeat: the average person) to read or understand all of the paperwork one must sign in order to purchase a home in the United States in 2010. That's why most of us have to have lawyers do that work for us. Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about here and it's clear you've never purchased a home and are speaking out of school. Seems foolish to do that.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:44 PM (RhnDB)

111 What could go wrong?

Nothing will go wrong.  It sounds like you need an attitude adjustment.

Posted by: O'Brien at April 29, 2010 04:45 PM (RykTt)

112 El Diablo: Most industries do what you say you want done without a HINT of government regulation. It's called ISO 9001. You don't have to do it, just more companies are willing to work with you if you are ISO certified. There are many other non-govt. agencies that provide similar deals. Funny how Capitalism handles that.

Now if Banks aren't along similar lines, here's a tip to the savvy consumer: Walk Away. If you can't understand the contract, ask for written clarification. If refused, say "Good Day" and leave. This is done, with the substitution of more negotiations for leaving, in manufacturing all the time. In my line of work, hammering out the contract, reading and re-reading it to make sure everyone is using the same lingo and is reaching the same understanding, can take longer than the actual engineering.

DrewM. is right. This questions whether or not you are sufficiently together enough to comprehend the deal that you are signing. Honestly, if there were to be Govt. interference, it should be done at the state level anyway.

Posted by: GeoSTI at April 29, 2010 04:45 PM (chyhr)

113 I'm glad my government is protecting me from Goldman Sachs, who donates generously and one-sidedly to Barack Obama and the Democrats. As do most of the Wall Street firms. I like that they're getting fucked over today, because they're donating to the wrong side.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:38 PM (RhnDB)

Someguy, for one thing I seriously doubt you have ever done business with Goldman Sachs and if you did I seriously doubt you have ever been ripped off by them.  As for the new banking regs screwing over Goldman Sachs? I have invested with them and I got a letter from them explaining that they were for the new banking regulations because it will make Goldman Sachs more profitable by reducing competition and leaving the fed discout window only open to the top 5 or 6 investment bankers.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 04:45 PM (fwSHf)

114 No, you just wrote a poorly thought-out post that most people here disagree with and you're lashing out at the reasonable criticism of it like a child would do instead of arguing your point. That is the approach liberals take. They attack the person, instead of the position being advocated. Are you a liberal Drew? Because you do tend to operate the same way they do.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:25 PM (RhnDB)


The really funny thing is, most people who are actually posting are agreeing with Drew, and you're the one who lashed out at Drew by creating strawmen (like accusing him of being an anarchist) and starting your very first post in response with "This post is the dumbest fucking post I've read on Ace Of Spades in a long time."

Are you actually not at all self-aware, or are you just posting drunk? You came here begging for a fight, don't be surprised you got one. And don't even try to weasel out of it by saying you were attacking the idea and not Drew, that's bullshit and you damned well know it, you started on the attack and you haven't changed mode since.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 04:45 PM (bxiXv)

115

How about this one? First you take a Big Cheif tablet out of your satchel and a #2 pencil. Then you take out your term sheets. You write at the top of the page from left to right the names of your prospective lenders. Then in the left hand margin you write down the description of the fees, interest rate etc. they want to charge you. Underneath each lender you write down the values for each item in the left hand margin. Then you compare them.

Jeeeebus

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 09:38 PM (fwSHf)

That works with fee charges on fixed rate instruments of the same maturity, but that is now a small part of the lending market. Tell me how you compare across adjustables between an 11th district cost of funds index loan and a straight T-Bill index but with a lower margin. Now how would you compare them to fixed rate products?

This stuff gets real complicated, real quick and the time it would take for joe average, that usually cannot fill out his own loan application... well, let's say it's problematic.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:46 PM (F09Uo)

116 "Watch this election cycle. GS will still be donating to Democrats." Exactly. So tell me why again Republicans should rise to defend them? They're not. on. our. side. Fuck them.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:47 PM (RhnDB)

117 I don't want to rain of Green's parade but being relieved of individual adult responsibilities is not a triumph.

We've got to remember that for the liberal, this is one step closer to utopia. It's just a cold, hard fact that there is a significant slice of humanity that longs to be "parented", if you will, from cradle to grave. The less personally challenging life is for them, the safer they feel. The responsibility that accompanies hard decision-making is disquieting and discomforting to them.  

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at April 29, 2010 04:47 PM (554T5)

118 113 And how old are you little Diablo?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 09:42 PM (9IjK0)

44, and I have had a CA RE lic since I was 18.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:47 PM (F09Uo)

119 I'm glad my government is protecting me from Goldman Sachs, who donates generously and one-sidedly to Barack Obama and the Democrats. As do most of the Wall Street firms. I like that they're getting fucked over today, because they're donating to the wrong side.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:38 PM (RhnDB)

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That "regulation" isn't punishment, it's PAYBACK! It's a permanent bailout PLUS anti-competetive regulations.

Have to give them credit for their marketing team, however. Maybe we need to regulate what politicians claim in their press statements? Seems to be a big history of fraud in that industry...

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 04:49 PM (bxiXv)

120

Then it appears, Diablo, that I am the one who has more experience than you do in the business.  Only I haven't forgotten the past as you appear to have done.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:50 PM (9IjK0)

121 "This stuff gets real complicated, real quick and the time it would take for joe average, that usually cannot fill out his own loan application... well, let's say it's problematic." And even worse, it's bad for business. Republicans want markets to work efficiently by removing barriers, and sometimes, that means regulation to keep things flowing smoothly. Harvard turns out lots of liberals who are ripping off conservatives with fraudulent lending practices and we should shut down the liberal lawyers. If people find it too difficult or costly or complicated to purchase a home loan, they'll stop doing that. How is that good for business? How would that help Republicans? Just a really poorly thought-out post all around in my view.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:50 PM (RhnDB)

122 I'm confused.  Do we punch up or down?

Posted by: Laura Castellano at April 29, 2010 04:51 PM (fuw6p)

123 And don't even try to weasel out of it by saying you were attacking the idea and not Drew

Having participated on politically-oriented blogs for quite some time, I distinctly recognize this pattern of passive-aggressive behavior. I often surmise that it's the same person behind a variety of nics. Just a thought.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at April 29, 2010 04:52 PM (554T5)

124 I bet a Pepsi he still got raped by origination fees and prepayment penalties. Bankers and brokers are extraordinarily good at hiding those.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 29, 2010 04:52 PM (N8eC4)

125 127

Then it appears, Diablo, that I am the one who has more experience than you do in the business.  Only I haven't forgotten the past as you appear to have done.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 09:50 PM (9IjK0)

You may be older than I, but you have demonstrated yourself as having zero experience in the industry or knowledge of what you are talking about in this thread.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:52 PM (F09Uo)

126 122 "Watch this election cycle. GS will still be donating to Democrats." Exactly. So tell me why again Republicans should rise to defend them? They're not. on. our. side. Fuck them.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 09:47 PM (RhnDB)

I'm completely repeating myself, but we're not defending them, we're trying to stop them from getting their "happy ending" from Obama (courtesy The Taxpayer).

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 04:53 PM (bxiXv)

127 I think the difference comes down to in part people who say,

"This is a big fucking deal, so the government has to help."

and those who say,

"This is a big fucking deal, so you better make sure you know your shit and arm yourself with your own experts if you don't know what the hell is going on".


Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 04:54 PM (9B5OK)

128 "That "regulation" isn't punishment, it's PAYBACK!" It's only payback until Republicans take over the House and Senate in 2010. At that point, we should repeal everything that the fucking Democrats are doing now. Will we? Will Republicans repeal everything the Democrats are doing now? We'll see, I guess. Then, if we were smart, we could have a few US Attorneys park their asses at Goldman Sachs and start investigating their fucking asses for all their fraudulent selling of insurance with no ability to pay claims. Show them that it's not really a good idea to donate to Democrats or do other fraudulent shit. Then maybe they'd stop treating Republicans like we're their fucking bitches or something.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:54 PM (RhnDB)

129

That works with fee charges on fixed rate instruments of the same maturity, but that is now a small part of the lending market. Tell me how you compare across adjustables between an 11th district cost of funds index loan and a straight T-Bill index but with a lower margin. Now how would you compare them to fixed rate products?

This stuff gets real complicated, real quick and the time it would take for joe average, that usually cannot fill out his own loan application... well, let's say it's problematic.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:46 PM (F09Uo)

The same way I would compare those loans to one based on LIBOR. Considering all the values you are talking about except the fixed rate change on a daily basis you tell me how this new government form fixes any confusion you may have about that? I haven't seen it but I can't imagine it does anymore than explains what insturment they are using to calculate the loan amount which is already done in your term sheet.

Posted by: robtr at April 29, 2010 04:55 PM (fwSHf)

130 I'm glad my government is protecting me from Goldman Sachs

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:55 PM (gofDd)

131 "And why is that? Why does it get so complicated so quick?"

Cons, the world is not as simple as your simple minds believe.

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 04:55 PM (fdyUX)

132 Having participated on politically-oriented blogs for quite some time, I distinctly recognize this pattern of passive-aggressive behavior. I often surmise that it's the same person behind a variety of nics. Just a thought.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at April 29, 2010 09:52 PM (554T5)

Every so often I pointlessly respond to such posts. I don't know why, it's like a nervous tic.

Better than I used to be, though, I actually used to debate Canadians on Gun Rights. Which is like digging a hole in water.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 04:55 PM (bxiXv)

133

Ah....the real ignorance here is the notion that the role of the federal government is subject to the whim of the majority. Everywhere I turn I run into this nonsensical crap: my students, the MSM, politicians, and now, you guys too?

Look, the Constitution states exactly what the role of the federal government is. Period. If it ain't there, it ain't their "role". I don't remember anything about loan approvals, loan regulation, forcing banks to loan to deadbeats, etc. And, don't throw back that "Commerce Clause" BS. I did a thesis on it and know better.

You want "regulations" covering everything, including your morning dreck? Fine - there are plenty of other regimes in this world more than willing to allow you to sacrifice your life for their ideas. Find one.  

Posted by: oneyedman at April 29, 2010 04:55 PM (baWfS)

134 130 This stuff gets real complicated, real quick and the time it would take for joe average, that usually cannot fill out his own loan application... well, let's say it's problematic.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 09:46 PM (F09Uo)


And why is that? Why does it get so complicated so quick?

Posted by: Dave C at April 29, 2010 09:51 PM (qmecx)

It doesn't have to be complicated, but all pricing these days is really dependent on the secondary market (Wall Street) and with non-fixed rate and term products they have a lot of ways to skin the cat.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 04:56 PM (F09Uo)

135 Because I don't need the government to aid me in explaining the process of financing a home?  How exactly have I demonstrated I have zero experience in the field?  And what exactly have you said that leads you to believe that you have any experience?  My, you have quite an ego don't you? 

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:57 PM (9IjK0)

136 God, is the beckoner troll just RaygunIsDead? Really? Jeez, dude. You're not even clever.

Posted by: Rum, Bitch Goddess at April 29, 2010 04:58 PM (gofDd)

137 "This is a big fucking deal, so you better make sure you know your shit and arm yourself with your own experts if you don't know what the hell is going on". Sounds great in theory. In practice, it would grind the housing market to a fucking crawl. Nobody would want to participate in the market you are advocating. Some regulation is necessary to create a functioning market, and these home loan disclosure laws are an attempt to create a functional market where people can trust that the prices they are given are real. Imagine if you were shopping at Wal-Mart and filling your cart, but when you got to the cash register they tried to present you with a bill that was different than the prices on the items as you put them in your cart. Of course, you could always just leave, but you'd never go back. That is the analogy. Unscrupulous home loan lenders do that all the time, and it hurts the market for US homes and fucks up the efficient functioning of that market. The Wall Street LIBERALS make TONS of money by fucking over us conservatives this way. We should be out for their asses so we can take over their shit.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 04:58 PM (RhnDB)

138 Every so often I pointlessly respond to such posts. I don't know why, it's like a nervous tic.

Ok, now I'm confused. The comment was misattributed to someone else posting here. Never mind....

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at April 29, 2010 04:58 PM (554T5)

139 You selling a lot of those ARM products lately Diablo?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 04:59 PM (9IjK0)

140 148 You selling a lot of those ARM products lately Diablo?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 09:59 PM (9IjK0)

Not since I sold my company back in 2004.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:03 PM (F09Uo)

141 I want to put Goldman Sachs out of business and I don't much care what device we use. They're LIBERALS. That's reason enough to want to fuck them over using regulations or laws or investigations or whatever means are at hand. Fuck them. We should be leading the parade to investigate these motherfuckers because they donate to Barack Obama and we need to teach people that there is a price to be paid when you choose the wrong team. We should regulate them and tax them out of existence the moment we get the Congress back in our hands. Because they fucked up and chose the wrong side. Chicago Way.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 05:03 PM (RhnDB)

142 Capitalism can only work if there's an entity that can provide impartial information to all parties. To my mind government is the only thing that can fulfill that role.

Posted by: DirtyBlueshirt at April 29, 2010 08:29 PM (CO/RA)

Er ... uh ... No.  Go get your information from those you think are trustworthy.  Beyond the most basic information, government isn't trustworthy for much of anything.  It was never built to be a trustworthy entity.  Elements of government are to be transparent and open to public scrutiny (like trials) precisely because government is not a trustworthy entity on its own.

You can only trust government, as you do, if you are a staticist.  The word "impartial" might slide off your keyboard quite easily, but it is meaningless in government.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at April 29, 2010 05:03 PM (Qp4DT)

143 I say leave people the fk alone. If they want to marry same sex, let them be, if they want to do drugs, let them be, if they want to have abortions, let them be, if they want to die with dignity, let them be.

On and on...

Why do you cons insist on enforcing your beliefs with force? Are you fascists?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 05:04 PM (fdyUX)

144 I heard on the radio earlier that they may start moving some of the desks overseas......that would not be a good thing for the US....

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:04 PM (p302b)

145

Would that have been a company that did lots of sub-prime business?  Oh, so silly of me...you would never admit to that now would you?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 05:04 PM (9IjK0)

146 Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 10:04 PM (9IjK0)

Theoretically derivatives are a good thing.  It is only when those who don't understand them or choose to manipulate them get involved that their good is ruined.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:06 PM (p302b)

147 GET OFF MY LAWN! - posted by someguy Let me fix that for you: "Get off my mother fucking lawn you little bastards before I punch all the way down your liberal goddamn throats." There. FIFY I have Tourettes.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 05:06 PM (RhnDB)

148 Nobody asked, beckoner. But if you're such a big fan of "leave people the fk alone" why don't you do us all a favor and leave us the fk alone? 'k?

Posted by: DocJ at April 29, 2010 05:08 PM (AWzOz)

149 Posted by: Dave C at April 29, 2010 10:07 PM (qmecx)

Don't you remember that BF and CD convinced everyone that we didn't need that silly law and that everyone had a right to own their own home?

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:09 PM (p302b)

150 154

Would that have been a company that did lots of sub-prime business?  Oh, so silly of me...you would never admit to that now would you?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 10:04 PM (9IjK0)

I did a CRAP LOAD of sub-prime lending back in the day, but the real money to be made is taking the sub-prime and making it "A paper", then the cash rolls in.

Thanks for the beach condo!

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:10 PM (F09Uo)

151 Theoretically derivatives are a good thing. Fundamentally, derivatives are merely insurance. The problem with derivatives is the same problem as companies which used to sell life insurance without setting aside any reserves to pay claims. When the time to pay claims came around, they just declared bankruptcy. It was all a scam. So, we now have laws which force life insurance companies to set aside reserves to pay claims. We regulated that business because people were fraudulently selling insurance. Derivatives are almost exactly the same thing. They're like life insurance with no reserves set aside. It's garden variety fraud (as evidenced by the need to bail out AIG). We need to regulate this market to force derivative sellers to set aside claims. That way, when a motherfucking AIG has to pay up, they don't come asking Uncle Sam to bail them out. They pay them out of their reserves instead of stealing your and my money to pay their fucking claims to Goldman Fucking Sachs.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 05:10 PM (RhnDB)

152 Yeah yeah yeah.. why did that happen? How did those non-fixed rates come into being? Did some sort of regulation get passed and those ARMs come into existence because of it?

Posted by: Dave C at April 29, 2010 10:07 PM (qmecx)

The late 1970's. Lot's of regs, but it was never really sorted on the disclosure side as the fixed products were.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:11 PM (F09Uo)

153 Doc, pull your fingers out and smell the roses. Life is not what you think, just because you think it. RayGunIsDead, get over it cons. Times have changed.

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 05:12 PM (fdyUX)

154 Another drawback to gov't posturing/bloviating about "protecting the consumer" is it leads to a false sense of security.  "We've taken out all the wolves so you little lambs can run and graze and frolic all over the meadow."  Except, they didn't get all the predators.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 29, 2010 05:12 PM (2g2ex)

155 Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 10:10 PM (RhnDB)

As I recall....AIG was forced to pay GS a dollar whereas everyone else was content to settle for cents on the dollar.

AIG was not a bad company.....

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:12 PM (p302b)

156 You stupid cons deregulated banks twice. Once with RayGun an the second time because simple w decided to do nothing. What dont you idiots not get?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 05:15 PM (fdyUX)

157 You stupid cons deregulated banks twice. Once with RayGun an the second time because simple w decided to do nothing. What dont you idiots not get?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 10:15 PM (fdyUX)

Uhmm, I did that in 1999.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at April 29, 2010 05:17 PM (fwSHf)

158 168 You stupid cons deregulated banks twice. Once with RayGun an the second time because simple w decided to do nothing. What dont you idiots not get?

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 10:15 PM (fdyUX)

It was never done correctly. More regulation where it matters, then stand aside and let the consumer and the industry create the wealth. That is my view of the proper role of government.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:18 PM (F09Uo)

159 And yet, you won't leave us the fk alone. Which is of course par for the course from the savants who brought us campus speech codes, the food police, the gun grabbers, the anti-smoking nazis, and now mandatory purchase of health insurance. And total obliviousness to their own irony, of course. That's the icing on the libtroll/tard cake. Now please son, run along. There are adults here who would like to have an impolite conversation and your constant farting is bothering them.

Posted by: DocJ at April 29, 2010 05:19 PM (AWzOz)

160 "An oil spill that threatened to eclipse even the Exxon Valdez disaster spread out of control with a faint sheen washing ashore along the Gulf Coast Thursday night as fishermen rushed to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes."

Drill baby drill...

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 05:19 PM (fdyUX)

161 Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 10:15 PM (fdyUX)

You can't rewrite history.  There are too many people on this blog who are older and actually lived it and remember it and once they realize you are attempting to hijack history and change it, they will come down on your like a ton of bricks....

You need to look at the Clinton administration for a lot of the problems coming into fruition today and at the congress controlled by the dems.   That's the foundation for the blame you are attempting to lay in the wrong place.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:19 PM (p302b)

162 Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 10:19 PM (fdyUX)

Rumor has it that BO sent swat teams to all the oil rigs....why?

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:20 PM (p302b)

163

beckoner,

'Sorry I responded to you earlier. You should be ignored. Dang, I did it again!

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:21 PM (F09Uo)

164 Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 10:19 PM (fdyUX)

Beckoner, please tell David that this is a high end blog and, as such, we need, no in fact require, a high end troll.  Thanks...

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:22 PM (p302b)

165 markets need information to function correctly.  the more info, the more efficiently they operate.  being pro-market means being pro-informed consumer.  would I prefer a private entity do this?  of course.  but its not something im going to get worked up on.

Its a huge fuckin difference between labeling the contents in your food versus mandating what (and how much) they are allowed to put in it.  more information is always a good thing for an economy and is the fundamental element that makes markets work and planned economies fail.

Posted by: A.G. at April 29, 2010 05:22 PM (BgD0W)

166 So Diablo, you are the typical liberal that uses the rancid government regulations to take advantage of those who don't do their own research.  You feasted off those who couldn't afford to purchase their homes on a standard loan program and used government regulations to your advantage.  I'll enjoy my rented beach condo and sleep well with the knowlege that I didn't screw people to get where I am.  And of course you and I know why those sub prime loans can go "A" paper now don't we?  Or do you want to keep that a secret to protect your little "take care of the little guy" hypocritical pro regulation argument?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 05:23 PM (9IjK0)

167 You need to look at the Clinton administration for a lot of the problems coming into fruition today and at the congress controlled by the dems.   That's the foundation for the blame you are attempting to lay in the wrong place.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 10:19 PM (p302b) ]

Actually, a lot of the deregulation was needed (a little bit) but in the manner that it ws done was not well thought out. The problem is that the people writing the new regulations often have to rely on those in the industry to write the new regs, and they always tend to benefit those that help write the new rules.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:26 PM (F09Uo)

168 "An explorer looks at wooden beams inside a compartment of a structure that his team claims might prove the existence of Noah's Ark, on Mount Ararat
Hey cons, big news. The above was reported at a real news organization (Time Magazine).

Faux News will be in hyper over drive.

Posted by: beckoner at April 29, 2010 05:27 PM (fdyUX)

169 It is obvious the federal government provides clear, unambiguous explanations of any number of complicated financial decisions and does so better than anyone else. I mean read those IRS publications. Sheer poetry. Uncomplicated, almost blissful.

Posted by: Mr. Barky at April 29, 2010 05:30 PM (bZW6t)

170 Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 10:26 PM (F09Uo)

If you put a trader with a quant you will always come up with a way to circumvent anything and have it benefit your employer.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:30 PM (p302b)

171 "AIG was not a bad company." AIG was selling insurance without the means to pay its claims, and we (as a society) let them do it because we did not regulate them and force them to set aside a reserve to pay their claims. The result is that we as taxpayers are now paying AIGs claims. Goldman Sachs and lots of foreign banks, foreign bankers and foreign investors are now receiving our tax dollars thanks to our bailout of AIG. Frankly, I do not want my tax dollars going to the liberals at Goldman Sachs or in France. I want to put the liberal companies like GE and GM and Goldman Sachs out of fucking business permanently because they're helping the wrong side. That should be the first order of business for the Republican Party. They are LIBERAL COMPANIES and they are our enemy. We should pass laws requiring these businesses to pay us back all the money we have given them the moment Republicans are back in power. And then we should TAX them out of existence. Or else shut them down for their fraudulent activities. Fucking punish these pricks. Get their attention. You know ... the Chicago Way.

Posted by: someguy at April 29, 2010 05:32 PM (T6igd)

172

To those who think it's a heinous crime against the America and apple pie to have something as innocuous as standardized mortage disclosures (and are willing to rip up the blue eyed devil in your zeal) - I'll take your fucking whinging more seriously when I hear about the other ways you're willing to let people look after their own best interests.  I'll listen when you agree that maybe welfare rats shouldn't get any extra aid for more kids - and those kids should be allowed to starve.  The guilt for that starvation being on the heads of the parents.  (which, actually, I support)  Or when we decide to eliminate health and safety regulations for meat production - because by god, you should research that fucking meat seller, interview his butcher, and make sure for yourself that it isn't a week older than it should be for safe human consumption.  Or else hire a meat inspector to check it out.  Or shop around on line for meat reviews, to make sure nobody else seems to be poisoned (good luck finding any company who has no bad reviews on line).  Damn it - buyer beware!

I'm as far right as anybody who posts here, and even I can see no specific harm in this.  Gripe about something that matters.  For God's sake, this place if falling down around our ears.  You think the Libs haven't done 50 other things today that are way worse than this?

Posted by: Reactionary at April 29, 2010 05:32 PM (4nbyM)

173 178 So Diablo, you are the typical liberal that uses the rancid government regulations to take advantage of those who don't do their own research.  You feasted off those who couldn't afford to purchase their homes on a standard loan program and used government regulations to your advantage.  I'll enjoy my rented beach condo and sleep well with the knowlege that I didn't screw people to get where I am.  And of course you and I know why those sub prime loans can go "A" paper now don't we?  Or do you want to keep that a secret to protect your little "take care of the little guy" hypocritical pro regulation argument?

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 10:23 PM (9IjK0)

I created wealth, I created jobs, I gave people opportunities. I made a killing!

Yeah, you get the same deal I gave to others. $100,000 for one day of instruction. You pay for airfare and hotel for my staff too. That rarely goes over $20,000, so relax.

You will make that back your first month (assuming that you have any meaningful production volume) and you will thank me for even talking to you, but I am not a liberal.

I sleep very well on my 1,000 count cotton sheets, thank you.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:33 PM (F09Uo)

174 Posted by: Mr. Barky at April 29, 2010 10:30 PM (bZW6t)

personally I am tired of having all of the perks not apply to me...

sometimes I think the IRS has targeted me and makes sure I know about all the programs and then makes sure I don't qualify for any of them...

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:33 PM (p302b)

175 If you put a trader with a quant you will always come up with a way to circumvent anything and have it benefit your employer.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 10:30 PM (p302b)

Yeah, but pit the traders against one another and you will see magic happen.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 05:34 PM (F09Uo)

176 I assume Drew is against unit pricing in supermarkets, too. I always enjoy doing division in my head to figure out which can of soup to purchase. Now, in this case, I have never done a mortgage - I bought my house with cash, so I have no idea if Drew is right and its a simple form, or if the Atlantic writer is correct and it used to be full of tricks. So, I will default to Drew, but I do think that allowing people to compare apples to apples is useful, especially when not everyone out there is a lawyer. And of course, it would be better if the industry itself came up with standards instead of government.

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 05:38 PM (Bce1y)

177 Hey, let me be the first to call this writer at the Atlantic out as either ignorant or a liar. There is not now a single form that makes comparison shopping easy in the way he says there is. The Truth In Lending Disclosure was around last time he bought a house; he's talking about that or he's not talking about anything comprehensible. And the TIL disclosure gives the same information now as it did in 2003. The "junk fees," etc., are not in the TIL form, so he's simply wrong that he was able to use a single, government designed form and learn about everything that the loan would cost INCLUDING FEES and other charges. All that stuff is on the Good Faith Estimate, which lenders are required to give the borrower before the loan, but which is not a single uniform form that lenders are required to use (and generally, three lenders will use three different versions of a GFE form).

Posted by: D1Stewart at April 29, 2010 05:39 PM (jb8Yk)

178 Diablo, I think you said one thing I can agree with.  No, you are not a liberal you are much worse. 

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 05:40 PM (9IjK0)

179 My gram tells me that if you needed a mortgage you went to the local bank.  The banker knew you and your family and, if he didn't he made it his business to know you and your family.  If he gave you a loan you had to put 25% down and it would never occur to you not to pay it back every penny and as fast as you could because you knew the banker was lending you the savings of your friends and neighbors and giving them interest on their savings and charging you within your loan to service the loan and to give the interest.

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank still employs that concept.   Yes, they are making small, very small loans but you must pay it back or then your whole village will suffer as they won't make another loan to the village until the outstanding loans are paid in full.  The loans get paid.  People are very thankful for their loans.

We have taken the human element out of banking.

Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 05:46 PM (p302b)

180 The government, or industry, coming up with standardized rules does not mean capitalism is over. It just means everyone competes on a level playing field, and it brings some efficiencies...there is a reason why industries often standardize on their own volition. Now, about those hot dogs vs. hot dog buns...what is up with that? another good example is mattresses - that used to be a scummy business where you would be lied to, "its all new material" when they were putting in filth inside. Now, according to Drew, you should be able to figure that out on your own - hire an outside x-ray company to check your mattress, or something. I am not so sure every industry is amenable to that. Look at CA lo doc / no doc loans - perfect capitalism? or an excuse to lie and commit fraud on massive scale? Now, this could be fomr CRA or state laws to help minorities - its the same thing - if you allow opportunity for fraud, it will happen whether the market allow its or government.

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 05:48 PM (Bce1y)

181 another good example is mattresses - that used to be a scummy business where you would be lied to, "its all new material" when they were putting in filth inside. Now, according to Drew, you should be able to figure that out on your own - hire an outside x-ray company to check your mattress, or something. I am not so sure every industry is amenable to that.

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 10:48 PM (Bce1y)

You're conflating "fraud" with "hard to understand".

Note the writer of the post I was talking about never said there was fraud involved in his first home purchase. He was able to work through the contracts the first time, it just took him some effort. He thinks it's swell that the governemnt saved him not from fraud but from "hours trying to spot the junk fees and figure out which deal was best".

There are a lot of things in life it takes some effort to understand, I don't think it's the government's job to eliminate that unpleasantness.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 05:52 PM (9B5OK)

182 This whole thing is simple. When I bought my house I hired a lawyer, who specialized in real estate, at that time it cost me a few hundred dollars. He checked out all the documents, explained them, and gave me advice. It's called personal responsibility, blasphemous to liberals.

Posted by: nerdygirl at April 29, 2010 05:53 PM (UbpfS)

183 Nerdygirl...well said.

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 05:56 PM (9IjK0)

184 "There are a lot of things in life it takes some effort to understand, I don't think it's the government's job to eliminate that unpleasantness." Agree. I think many of our problems now relate to trying to make life and easy ride, without hard decisions. Now, how about this: Get rid of FDIC, too. Then consumers will have to choose banks on the basis of financial soundness, and banks will have an incentive to compete on that metric as well as convenience... Too much?

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 05:56 PM (Bce1y)

185 Also, I bet the Atlantic writer bought his first house in 2003, and of course the learning curve is steep. Now his second go around, its easier. Not due to his own experience, but blessed, sweet government helping him out. LOL. Seriously, I looked at a mortgage and was like "WTF is a point and why would I buy them?" I am sure the second mortgage I did I would know all about that stuff.

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 05:59 PM (Bce1y)

186 190 Diablo, I think you said one thing I can agree with.  No, you are not a liberal you are much worse. 

Posted by: Whippet at April 29, 2010 10:40 PM (9IjK0)

Diablo = Devil

HELLO!

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 06:00 PM (F09Uo)

187 Drew, The mattress point was poor, as it is a fraud issue. How about unit pricing laws for supermarkets? Yes, division is just time consuming and hard to understand, so unit pricing laws are wrong?

Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 06:03 PM (Bce1y)

188 Hahhahha...Clusterstock is calling the oil spill "Obama's Katrina" and isn't it interesting that it is Louisiana that is involved again...

"Hello, The Gulf Oil Spill Is Obama's Katrina"
"Will numerous investigations will no doubt be launched into the companies behind the rig (BP, Transocean), will anyone ask what the DHS and The White House have been doing for 8 days, while an ecological disaster was unfolding in such a sensitive region?

We're guessing that unlike Bush, Obama will largely get a pass. Katrina played into a narrative of Bush ignoring the plight of the poor and African-Americans. Nobody is suggesting that Obama is bad on the environment. Also, just generally, an ecological disaster won't elicit the same kind of emotional response as a human tragedy (for good reason).

Let's at least acknowledge the obvious opposite, that if we were currently in a Republican administration that had just okayed offshore drilling in America, and they had gone eight days without serious action, they'd be getting absolutely pilloried in the press."






Posted by: curious at April 29, 2010 06:05 PM (p302b)

189 How about unit pricing laws for supermarkets?

Yes, division is just time consuming and hard to understand, so unit pricing laws are wrong?

I will say that unit pricing laws make it easier to shop, but I would hesitate to say that it is essential for combating fraud or anything like that.

Posted by: chemjeff at April 29, 2010 06:07 PM (tJ4Ym)

190 How about unit pricing laws for supermarkets?
Posted by: sexypig at April 29, 2010 11:03 PM (Bce1y)

I hate them and item pricing laws too. If customers want that information they can demand it. Liberals assume that stores on compete on price, never service. A store that provides information that customers want will do better.

The FDIC was an interesting question. I honestly haven't thought enough about it (at all really).

Posted by: DrewM. at April 29, 2010 06:08 PM (9B5OK)

191

Yeah, you get the same deal I gave to others. $100,000 for one day of instruction. You pay for airfare and hotel for my staff too. That rarely goes over $20,000, so relax.

You will make that back your first month (assuming that you have any meaningful production volume) and you will thank me for even talking to you, but I am not a liberal.

I sleep very well on my 1,000 count cotton sheets, thank you.

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 10:33 PM (F09Uo)

Oh, so THAT'S what the Lace Wigs guy is doing now. LOOK, IT'S AN INFOMERCIAL! Get rich now, here's how you do it... get people to give you $100,000 for the advice I just gave you...

Could somebody delete this IDIOT'S post and put his IP address in place? Isn't that what we do to spammers now?

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 06:10 PM (bxiXv)

192

I want to be kind but there are only two possible conclusions to draw from Mr. Green's statement. Joshua Green is either stupid or lying. I have just this last hour completed the finance/re-finance process - for the 5th time in 17 years and 2 states. Oh, maybe I was too harsh. Maybe Mr. Green is shopping for his loans on the street corner or with the mafia. because what he relates is inaccurate.

Let me describe what the rest of us go through. There are two parts to the process - the bid and the close. Comparing my contracts and closing experiences over 17 years, I see virtually no differnce between my contracts.

Let's look at the bid/quote process. In fact, it does appear from Mr. Green's statement  he is concerned with that part of the process. Oh, but wait, comparing my notes and quotes over the many years I don't see much differnence there, either.  Well, that's not quite the whole story. I do see some  differnces that might confuse a mental midget.

Sorry, Mr. Green, you're either shopping in the wrong markets, stupid or lying to support a personal agenda. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's one of the latter two.

Posted by: FotoAuthority at April 29, 2010 06:24 PM (WFyGY)

193

Could somebody delete this IDIOT'S post and put his IP address in place? Isn't that what we do to spammers now?

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at April 29, 2010 11:10 PM (bxiXv)

That was something I used to do for other mortgage companies and banks, not people. I'm now retired.

Now let's talk about something you are familiar with; lead paint chips. How many have you eaten in your life?

Posted by: El Diablo Blanco Con Ojos Azules en San Diego at April 29, 2010 06:44 PM (F09Uo)

194 The guy is lying and doesn't know jack shit about RESPA or a Good Faith Estimate.

The old GFE required us to estimate the costs to the customer of obtaining the mortgage. This regulation had been working for about 30 years.

The new one requires us to list ALL the expenses of obtaining the mortgage, *regardless* of who is paying the bill.

So if a bank is willing to pay for your title insurance and your appraisal, it still goes on the GFE as if you were paying it.  If the seller is paying the title search and owners policy, it still goes on the GFE as if you were paying it.

If the bank absorbs the cost of the credit report and flood certification, it still goes on the GFE as if you were paying it.

It's one of the dumbest damn things that Uncle Sammy has ever done.  Of course, RESPA is the *only* banking regulation overseen by HUD and they are a monstrously stupid bureaucracy, so you can't expect any better.  You know HUD spelled backward is DUH, don't you?

And this stupid MFer is stupid enough to think that he actually had the information he needed to make a decision.  Fool.

Posted by: someone out there at April 29, 2010 07:13 PM (tuBxu)

195 Furthermore, now Uncle Sammy makes the lender pay the bill if we underestimate fees.  So for instance, if we think we can get an appraisal for $300 and it ends up costing us $600, or think the survey will be $350 and it ends up costing $700, after a 10% tolerance, we have to pay the difference.

So lenders have raised their fees to cover inadvertent mistakes.  Plus, title companies are responsible for policing our compliance with the tolerance rule, so closings take longer and cost more as well.

Any time you think the gov't is doing you a favor, don't forget that you're the stupid sucker who's paying the bill.  And they generally fuck up the favor as well, just to add insult to injury.

Posted by: someone out there at April 29, 2010 07:17 PM (tuBxu)

196

You stupid cons deregulated banks twice.

The banks have not been anywhere close to deregulation since 1913, dumbass.

Posted by: The Band at April 29, 2010 09:01 PM (QtRBc)

197

Capitalism can only work if there's an entity that can provide impartial information to all parties.

There's no such entity in the universe unless you believe in God. Every human being has imperfect knowledge. Every one of them. The reason free markets work better than anything else is that they leave decision making up to the people who are most likely to have detailed information about what's going on: consumers. Even if a consumer is defrauded, he STILL has more information about his circumstances than government does because the consumer knows his own desires, plans, and preferences.

To my mind government is the only thing that can fulfill that role.

Even if you trust governments not to have their own agenda they're still going to lack local knowledge about individual needs and decisions. Take the salt nonsense. How much salt is "too much"? There's no single answer because everyone has different body chemistry, different needs, and even different goals; that is, some people are willing to trade their long-term health for present pleasure. And that's FINE—doesn't your body belong to you? We're not going to pay for your decisions though.

Posted by: The Band at April 29, 2010 09:10 PM (QtRBc)

Posted by: T8 to T5 adapter Kits at April 29, 2010 09:50 PM (qgFwU)

199 A woman at work said something to me like the most important job for a parent is to raise their kids to no longer need their parents.

Posted by: fb at April 29, 2010 11:23 PM (Bu9Jo)

Posted by: weight loss at April 29, 2010 11:52 PM (lAoNn)

201

"...the government doesn't exist to make it easier for people to understand what they are getting themselves in to when they are buying a house."

Sorry, but the govt DOES exist to keep people from being defrauded by unscrupulous companies who have lawyers who draw up documents that are harder to understand than Egyptian heiroglyphics, in order to confuse customers. The United States has not been the country of 'caveat emptor' for almost 100 years now.

It's called law enforcement and consumer protection. Maybe conservatives enjoyed being ripped off, but I don't.

Posted by: JEA at April 30, 2010 02:34 AM (XZu3c)

202

So since I have been in banking since 1987, the HUD has always been required. What they have done I feel makes it worse. You interest rate disclosure was on a seperate document that you had to sign (or initial) to acknowledge you read and understand it. Now people are going to just sign a 3 page document without reading it because people have gotten lazy. The old way attracted attention to the rate. Also the rest of it is the same information as ALWAYS. Will putting it in different boxes on forms make people read it any better? I doubt it, if anything like I said it will be worse, people will think that since the form is new they are protected from what they sign.

SO we spent so much money, then had the banks spend money for new forms, which now require changes in the software that prints the HUD ( I am sure that wasn't cheap) and the information is exactly the same. I have a 5/1 ARM and my interest rate and it's index is the second thing in my mortgage documents.

Sometimes you can't fix stupid, people need to know what they are signing, caveat emptor.

Posted by: Craig at April 30, 2010 03:43 AM (iuNyN)

203 These forms, just like most of government "regulation" exist to give cover to scams. You will end up doing business with people you wouldn't otherwise because of the appearance of regulation. The HUD-1 form signed at closing was supposed to root out fraud and to give buyers and sellers a clear understanding of what was happening at the closing. It is comical how much it fails. Frauds are just more elaborate or "outside of closing." So the government's solution? A new HUD-1! That will do the trick. There a direct correlation between increased regulation (for instance HUD and SEC) and fraud (mortgage scams; Bernie Madoff). The leftists are never forced to defend the position that more regulation is a valid proposal.

Posted by: sloeride at April 30, 2010 03:48 AM (c3nxc)

204

Sorry, but the govt DOES exist to keep people from being defrauded by unscrupulous companies

No. The government exists to enforce contract law and punish those who violate contracts and property rights. It never exists to "prevent" anything. We have laws against fraud which means if you misrepresent yourself or your offer it will go to court. But that's not preventative.

who have lawyers who draw up documents that are harder to understand than Egyptian heiroglyphics, in order to confuse customers.

Get your own lawyer. That is so damned obvious I feel like you must have suffered massive brain trauma early in life.

The United States has not been the country of 'caveat emptor' for almost 100 years now.

Read the title of this post. Those of us who are libertarian and conservative are making the case that we should return to that philosophy.

Posted by: The Band at April 30, 2010 04:01 AM (QtRBc)

205

well, considering the new regs were actually written by Bank of America, I'm sure they were written to help borrowers get the best deal and increase competition. Hey Diablo Con, where do the Service Release Fees appear on a Bank of America Good Faith Estimate? They don't, because Bank of America gave themselves an exemption from disclosing them. How can you compare those now?

Fact: the new regs cost customers hundreds if not thousands more. All the disclosure rules, redisclosure, and layers of compliance add costs to everyone's loan. They didn't only increase disclosure, they tripled the paperwork that the lender must do. It's OK though, it keeps us busy and it's a good time to have work, even if it's government makework we charge you for. BTW, the new 5 page estimate is much easier to make a larger profit on. Easier to shop around? You used to be able to get an estimate easily with a few basic facts in minutes. Now you must complete a full loan application to get an estimate.

Ask yourselves this: is it a coincidence that home sales fell to all time lows at exactly the same time time the new regs came into effect? Or could it be the new regs were preventing closings and slowing down the market at precisely the worst time?

Posted by: D Bowman at April 30, 2010 04:02 AM (k7SeR)

206
but, Big Daddy Government has a huge nipple.

I want it!  


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 30, 2010 04:14 AM (0fzsA)

207 "The FDIC was an interesting question. I honestly haven't thought enough about it (at all really)." Check out some econtalk podcasts on free banking in Scotland. It will convince you that FDIC is the devil. Roosevelt actually opposed it at first. States with small banks liked it because those banks could then compete with larger, more diversified, sounder banks. TBTF sucks, but in the old days, a local bank dependent on cotton farmers in a region would go kaput if cotton did. I still love me some unit pricing, sorry. And its not very onerous and most likely would have occurred with a nudge... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/11/selgin_on_free.html that's the econ talk link...

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 04:49 AM (EdAmz)

208 Sorry, but the govt DOES exist to keep people from being defrauded by
unscrupulous companies

There are at least three major flaws to your thinking here.

First, you assume that "the govt" has the appropriate information and wisdom at its disposal to help you best, despite numerous examples in the past where government advice has been 100% wrong. And even if "the govt" did have the right answers in a particular scenario, life is about opportunity, and the unscrupulous just find new ways to rip you off. A bureaucracy is, nearly by design, ill-equipped to respond to such changes. (If your response here is "more government" then you haven't been paying attention.)

You can make a case that the government should require a standard method of conveying certain information (like the food labeling acts), and I don't disagree with some of that. But the danger here is that just because something is labeled well doesn't mean you really know what you need to know. 

Second, you assume that "the govt" is motivated to protect you. It is not. The guy running for office is motivated to say that he will protect you, and he *is* accountable to you for that. However, the employees in the ginormous bureaucracy that he votes to fund have little fear of being fired. These people are not necessarily motivated to protect you; they are certainly motivated to protect themselves, i.e., their jobs. This means they will continue to find reasons why they should receive the taxpayers' money, no matter the consequences to you. They will endlessly come up with cockamamie schemes to "improve" life for you.

Third, because these bureaucrats are unelected, their decisions do not receive real-time, corrective feedback. That is, they do not feel the consequences of their decisions. They are insulated from the consequences, and thus can make truly horrid decisions that interfere with you every day, destroy the value of your property, and kill jobs.

The preceding points apply equally well to the extremely long & complex pieces of legislation that the Congress Critters are writing these days. Because these pieces are so entangled, it is nigh impossible to connect a particular badly written part to any particular Representative; thus they are all shielded from the consequences (save our overwhelming disgust with them).  See, e.g., the CPSIA act, the "healthcare" law, etc.

Finally, it's a tough job being a grown-up, and life is uncertain. Nothing will ever change that. But to take away someone's adulthood and treat that person as a child -- this is a wicked thing for government to do. The result will not be greater creativity and productivity; instead it will be prolonged adolescence and all that comes with that.

Posted by: qrstuv at April 30, 2010 04:50 AM (wzRCZ)

209 Unit pricing - would it exist without laws? I dunno. How come it didn't exist before the laws were passed then? Or did it? Chicken and the egg I suppose. I also like to know the calories and ingredients in food sold in stores...you know to calculate your own cholestorol levels for each can of soup could be done - its not impossible, but maybe its easier for companies to print shit on the label instead, in a standard format. Now, that said, I do think the gov can and will often screw this stuff up - like with this mortgage stuff. I am just not 100% sure a little transparency required by law is so horrible in every case. Badly implemented is bad, but not implemented at all is bad too.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 05:02 AM (EdAmz)

210 You know, after all I think I probably lean towards less governmentl. qrstuv reminded me of the CPSIA....god damn that is stupid. Oh, and Mattel is even dumber for doing piss poor QC in China...and I heard they get waivers on CPSIA. arrrgghhhh. Don't get me started on the Lacy Act either.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 05:07 AM (EdAmz)

211 Sorry Drew, but this is a horrible example for your argument. There is nothing wrong with requiring lenders to use the same form in order to show the pertinent info as opposed to trying to find what you need buried in legalise. I'm a die-hard capitalist, but I will always be in staunch favor of consumer protectionism.

Posted by: g at April 30, 2010 05:40 AM (ypfnI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
227kb generated in CPU 0.22, elapsed 1.6706 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4982 seconds, 447 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.