Rachel’s new show on MSNBC is doing quite well in the ratings. She’s obviously tapping into the enthusiam on the left, which will likely continue if Obama closes on the deal on November 4th.
|
|
Related Posts
13 responses to “Rachel Maddow is a hit”
Leave a Reply
I’m glad they took MSNBC off my cable package
.
This is an off topic post, I know- but here is an interesting article about the housing mess – from the NYT no less – that I think demonstrates the root of that problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19cisneros.html?hp
Key point:
A quote from Henry Cisneros- Clinton’s House dude:
“It was, he argues, impossible to know in the beginning that the federal push to increase homeownership would end so badly. Once the housing boom got going, he suggests, laws and regulations barely had a chance.”
I’m very interested to get everyone’s take on this.
My argument all along was this was the start of the problem.
and, again, sorry about the off topic post.
Nick – I think the effort to push home ownership is certainly one component. As we know there are many others. For example, predatory lending became a huge problem, and both parties in congress were bought off by lobbyists to prevent new regs from coming in. Then Wall Street turned a big problem into a catastrophe.
You’re right, Gerardo- but, my point here is the root cause of the problem was that policy-without that policy we’d be discussing some other big issue and I’d have a lot more money!
Nick – That is an interesting piece, but I can’t believe that you spend your time reading the NY Times. Didn’t you say that they were the definition of dishonesty (or some such thing)? I guess you have no problem using them as a source when it fits your needs.
Anyway, I agree that when you have the government insuring certain loans it invites business to take advantage. That’s part of what happened with the HUD, but this is just a small part of the subprime mess.
I bought my condo back in 2000 with a FHA loan because I didn’t have anywhere near the 10% or 20% needed for a conventional loan. I put my 3% down (partially via a loan from my parents), got a ARM loan and the seller paid my closing costs. A year later, I had paid off my parents and refinanced to a fixed rate loan because the ARM scared me.
This is how the FHA/HUD loan system is supposed to work. But when you have ignorant buyers and predatory lenders things have the potential to get ugly very quickly.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with Clinton’s decision to try to increase home ownership. For me, it made a lot of sense. At the time, I had a nice salary that could cover the mortgage but I just didn’t have the 10% or 20% down payment. Why should I have to rent for 5-10 years and try to save enough for that down payment when I can afford the mortgage now?
Trouble starts when you have lenders giving loans to people (a.k.a. the willing victims) that they know can’t afford them. That’s the root cause of the problem.
And from my POV, this housing crash is just a major correction. My condo is still worth almost three times as much as it was back in 2000. People that bought houses they could afford back then (and are still employed) are probably doing just fine.
Tall Man-
I read this article in my Pittsburgh Post Gazette, then found it online to post here– it seemed factually based on what I know of the lending mess, and I knew y’all would LOVE a citation from the NYTs!
My whole point all along on this topic and many others is it seems to me many many liberal thoughts appear very good on the surface, but come back to bite us in the ass for whatever reason.
Here, we had a typical feel good idea – get people into homes- without thought for future consequences. THAT started the problem– then you add greed on top of that- then you have idiots on top of that, then you add corruption on top of that (Frank, Dodd) and you get the mess we’re in–
Now there are plenty of people to blame- the idiot across the street from me- who already declared bankruptcy once- is divorced with 2 kids, gets pregnant with her boy friend, then buys a 350 k house (big house here) with NO money down, and probably took out the additional 25 % extra to pay off her credit cards– she wouldn’t have had the opportunity to be THAT stupid – if it wasn’t for the original insane policy.
… and by the way– I thing she got an “interest only loan”– so now the retard doesn’t even have equity built up in that house, am I suppose to feel sorry for her when she gets kicked out this winter?
You have a selective memory. During Clinton’s term, the GOP was pushing just (or almost) as hard for home ownership. That continued when W took over, just as the article states.
Encouraging home ownership is a good idea, as long as it stays under control. When you allow lenders to act the way they did, then you’re going to find yourself in one heck of a mess.
I would agree that a culture of encouraging home ownership created the environment where greed could run rampant, especially if it wasn’t properly regulated, which it wasn’t. Deregulation is a conservative ideal. (Come to think of it, isn’t greed a conservative ideal too?)
I don’t quite understand how the goal of getting more people into homes is the root cause to this problem. Sure, it may not have happened if that step hadn’t been taken in the first place, but a good idea can quickly turn bad if the proper regulations aren’t in place to curb the influence of greed and corruption. It was the responsibility of future administrations and lawmakers to ensure that what started out as a noble idea wasn’t taken to an extreme.
If the lending requirements had been kept in check after the initial loosening, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead, deregulation ran wild, lots of people made lots of money, and now we’re all paying the price.
How do you regulate that craziness when Janet Reno threatened banks if they didn’t make those loans???? Come on, Tall… work with me here. Come on, admit it- you’re wrong
Nick – this became a huge problem IN THE LAST SIX YEARS!!
How can you blame Janet frickin Reno for this?
Bush and the Republicans were in charge. Bush is incompetent, and the GOP doesn’t like regulation. The result was disaster.
In your world you can blame a Democratic official, even if they haven’t been in office for 8 YEARS!
Now that’s hilarious
Nick, to be clear, I’m not necessarily blaming any one person or even administration. There are all sorts of people at fault. My point is, I don’t think it’s fair to say that it all started with the initial push to help more people buy homes. The idea itself was a good one. Over the years, it mutated into something that made some people obscenely rich, ruined other people’s lives and wrecked our economy.
I’m not, of course, blaming only the lenders. Borrowers own plenty of the blame here as well. I remember very clearly being surprised by the amount we were approved for when my wife and I bought our first house three and a half years ago. I also remember very clearly being told that we would be approved for an even bigger loan if we wanted an even bigger house. My response was, “Um, I feel uncomfortable enough with this figure. I think we’ll stand pat.”
Looking back, I consider myself to be very fortunate for a couple of reasons. First, that we didn’t bite on the ARM that they were pushing and instead locked ourselves into a fixed rate. Second, that my salary and my wife’s salary both continued to grow as we expected (and, of course, that we kept our jobs) so that we weren’t uncomfortable with our mortgage for long. And finally — and maybe most importantly — that I knew when to say when. Sure, I was tempted to get the bigger loan for the bigger house but I also knew our limits.
A lot of people were in almost exactly the same situation I was in. The problem is, many of those people went for the ARM or some other gimmicky loan, or they got the bigger loan, or they lost their jobs and couldn’t pay their mortgage. Some people did all three. Did those people make poor decisions? Absolutely. But a lot of those people trusted their lenders when they were told they could afford these huge loans. Sure, it was naive, but this is America, where bigger is absolutely better, and where you’re defined by what you own, where you live and what you drive.
Well, that’s how it was, anyway. I’m really hoping our priorities are going to be changing following this debacle.
Jamey. Good post. The consumer culture has to change in the USA. At the same time there is no doubt that we can improve our quality of life if we do it right. After all the best things in life are free. Americans have to accept that we are also holding some serious responsibilty for the current crisis. If we would not all engage in this mad rush to have more more more, we would not be in this mess even given the existence of evil liberals, wall street con men and W
I agree 100%, JP. Consumerism has taken over and encouraged people to live well beyond their means. Of course, when you’ve got the president telling people to “go out and shop” after the biggest tragedy on US soil, it makes perfect (non)sense.