Comments on: Republicans Block Infrastructure Spending Amendments

By: gerryf

gerryf — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:06:58 +0000

Rich,

Actually, a great many subprime loans were granted to people who would qualify for conventional loans–I’ve read as high as 60 percent (granted, that 60 percent number is older).

The problem is that many of these people took subprime loans because they didn’t know any better. Lenders operating in an unregulated industry sold them as lower cost alternatives without mentioning that these were adjustable rate mortgages that could dramatically increase over the term. Lenders didn’t care because they were easy to sell and they could package them easily with other loans. Borrowers thought they were getting a deal or they just weren’t savvy enough to understand the risks.

If bankers and mortgage lenders had been regulated better and had they an interest in anything other than a quick buck, many subprime people would be in conventional 30 year mortgages today and we wouldn’t be in nearly the mess we are now.

And so help me God if any one launches into a nonsensical diatribe about the Community Reinvestment Act I am driving over to their house and spraying Cheeze Whiz all over their sofa……

By: Jim S

Jim S — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:00:01 +0000

Of course it’s interesting that the Republicans included in their list of wasteful projects construction that while it is not infrastructure would still provide good jobs for Americans.

By: J. Harden

J. Harden — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:23:12 +0000

I agree with Rich, but credit-worthiness is not an excuse for market interference– and let not forget that “sub-prime” was just re-catagorized with an artificial credit-worthy ratings. It would be well-advised for the government to stay out of this painful correction, particularly in housing,as not to enlongate it.

On spending, can someone direct me to the part of the bill that builds an enduring/strong infastructure (in the form of tariffs or other) for the Louisiana Coastal Wetland. It may be there but I can’t really find it. It seems to be me that I my Senators and representatives should be able to vote on individual projects, so that I as a voter can determine their level of stupidity or intelligence. I for one would not be opposed to the aforement infastructure project. I believe that it would probably pay for itself, if there was efficient oversight.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:57:21 +0000

I think the key is the term “creditworthy” borrowers.

That is the difference between the lending practiced that got us into the subprime mess and the one the Republicans proposed.

People with “Subprime” loans are the ones who did not qualify for conventional mortgages – the ones who borrowed more than they could afford.

I’m all for infrastructure spending, as it is necessary for continued prosperity. But don’t claim it’s for “emergency economic stimulus”…it’ll take several years for a bulk of that money to turn into jobs. It will have no short-term affect on the economy or unemployment rates. Long term, yes. but not in the immediate future.