1 - 10 Next
In response to:

What's Next?

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:32 PM
The second was to remind bankers that some households with debt ratios above the standard 28/36 criteria might still qualify for home loans. This guideline is very Republicans by today's standards. Many problematic subprime loans were granted to borrowers with debt-to-income ratios above 50 percent, which was in no way sanctioned by the 1992 guidance document. The third was that lenders could count Social Security, second jobs, and other verifiable income streams as valid sources of income when evaluating loan applications. The real problem has been with "liars' loans," in which the reported income streams are never verified at all.
In response to:

What's Next?

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:32 PM
The first guideline was the lack of proper credit history shouldn't be counted as a negative factor for potential homebuyers. Banks could use other evidence to assess the borrower's payment habits, including the timely payment of rent, utility bills, and other scheduled loans. Borrowers still need to prove that they're reliable; they're just allowed to use documentation besides a credit report.
In response to:

Beware of the Lame-Duck Session

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:31 PM
The second was to remind bankers that some households with debt ratios above the standard 28/36 criteria might still qualify for home loans. This guideline is very Republicans by today's standards. Many problematic subprime loans were granted to borrowers with debt-to-income ratios above 50 percent, which was in no way sanctioned by the 1992 guidance document. The third was that lenders could count Social Security, second jobs, and other verifiable income streams as valid sources of income when evaluating loan applications. The real problem has been with "liars' loans," in which the reported income streams are never verified at all.
In response to:

Beware of the Lame-Duck Session

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:31 PM
The first guideline was the lack of proper credit history shouldn't be counted as a negative factor for potential homebuyers. Banks could use other evidence to assess the borrower's payment habits, including the timely payment of rent, utility bills, and other scheduled loans. Borrowers still need to prove that they're reliable; they're just allowed to use documentation besides a credit report.
In response to:

Beware of the Lame-Duck Session

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 1:05 PM
Here's what Republicans have been trained to say about Afghanistan. "More Americans have died in Afghanistan in Obama's one term than died in Bush's 2 terms." Yes, Bush took his eye off the ball and waged an eight year social engineering project in Iraq getting 4700 Americans killed there. Meanwhile the Afgan theatre of ops simply languished and let the Taliban regroup. An epic failure of Republican leadership. Obama re-tooled the effort against terrorism by getting out of Iraq and bringing the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan!
Here's what Republicans have been trained to say about Afghanistan. "More Americans have died in Afghanistan in Obama's one term than died in Bush's 2 terms." Yes, Bush took his eye off the ball and waged an eight year social engineering project in Iraq getting 4700 Americans killed there. Meanwhile the Afgan theatre of ops simply languished and let the Taliban regroup. An epic failure of Republican leadership. Obama re-tooled the effort against terrorism by getting out of Iraq and bringing the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan!
In response to:

Beware of the Lame-Duck Session

TheSlaondog Wrote: Nov 06, 2012 12:57 PM
It's time for Republicans to accept the responsibility for 9-11. During the eight year 'Reign of Error' of George W. Bush, Republicans never accepted blame for anything. Here's a Republican storyline of why Al Qaeda was successful on 9-11; Jamie Gorelick made a 'wall' that prevented information to flow between the CIA and FBI. If this is a story we all know about and the Republicans had been in charge for nine months in 2001, then how come they didn't do anything about that 'wall?' George Bush(R) was President, Denny Hastert(R) was Speaker of the House and Trent Lott(R) was Senate Majority Leader in 2001. What did they do to overturn this most cumbersome and onerous law? Nothing! NADA! Zilch!
It's time for Republicans to accept the responsibility for 9-11. During the eight year 'Reign of Error' of George W. Bush, Republicans never accepted blame for anything. Here's a Republican storyline of why Al Qaeda was successful on 9-11; Jamie Gorelick made a 'wall' that prevented information to flow between the CIA and FBI. If this is a story we all know about and the Republicans had been in charge for nine months in 2001, then how come they didn't do anything about that 'wall?' George Bush(R) was President, Denny Hastert(R) was Speaker of the House and Trent Lott(R) was Senate Majority Leader in 2001. What did they do to overturn this most cumbersome and onerous law? Nothing! NADA! Zilch!
It's time for Republicans to accept the responsibility for 9-11. During the eight year 'Reign of Error' of George W. Bush, Republicans never accepted blame for anything. Here's a Republican storyline of why Al Qaeda was successful on 9-11; Jamie Gorelick made a 'wall' that prevented information to flow between the CIA and FBI. If this is a story we all know about and the Republicans had been in charge for nine months in 2001, then how come they didn't do anything about that 'wall?' George Bush(R) was President, Denny Hastert(R) was Speaker of the House and Trent Lott(R) was Senate Majority Leader in 2001. What did they do to overturn this most cumbersome and onerous law? Nothing! NADA! Zilch!
Card-carrying Republicans will often respond with "at least Ronald Reagan's heart was in the right place!" My only thought is "so was Neville Chamberlain's when he returned to England from Munich waving a piece of paper in his hand."
1 - 10 Next