Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Share
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:20 pm

    VA Affairs Committee summary on Ronny Jackson, who is nominated to head the second largest bureaucracy in the US, took interviews with 23 current and former Jackson colleagues.  Here are quotes from those 23 colleagues....


    "Flat out unethical, explosive, 100 percent bad temper, toxic, abusive, volatile, incapable of not losing his temper, the worst officer I have ever served with, despicable, dishonest, screaming tantrums, screaming fits, loses his mind over small things, vindictive, belittling, the worst leader I've ever worked for, walking on eggshells, worst experience of my life, and "I have no faith in government if someone like Jackson could end up at VA."  


    Sounds like the Orange Imbecile really vetted this guy.  "I'm going to hire all of the best people!"  


    LOL.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2748
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:55 am

    Having worked in the commercial/business banking world until 2010, I'm not aware of any Obama regs that were making lending more difficult for small businesses.  The bank where I worked had plenty of autonomy to make loans, but my bank was too scared to lend.  Are there lending regs that came along after that whereby getting a business loan became more difficult?  If so, I'm not aware of it.  I still have many friends in that industry in the Chicago area.  None of them have mentioned it being harder to lend.  >>
    Rob, my business is placing Commercial Bankers and they have for the past 8 years been complaining that Banks have been constantly worried about lending in a manner that would upset the "regulators".  In fact in the past 25 years in this industry I've never heard so much bitching about regulators.   I've seen a lot of Banks that are $ 500 million to $ 5 Billion in assets being acquired in part because they find it onerous to comply with all the regulatory burdens.  Only recently have de novo Banks been approved by regulators.  I guess I see lending going more and more to the big Banks and some of the innovative lending done by smaller Banks seems to be fading as small Banks themselves are disappearing.  Granted, "innovative" sometimes became overly risky in the 2006-2008 era, but it appears that regulators often got heavy-handed and started to chill even reasonable risk starting in 2009.
    As to Mortgages, my son is a Mortgage Broker and I've heard all the similar complaints you noted about how much more burdensome the process has become.  But the income, down payment, credit score requirements for qualifying for a loan are definitely different than in the 2005-2008 era. Granted, they may have been too loose in that prior era, but the Government may also have over-reacted by stiffening them too much in Dodd Frank.  All I know is that in our area apartments have been booming as home buying has become too difficult. Sure, rising prices have been the biggest culprit, but a lot of people can't meet the new standards for getting a home loan and many seemed to be discouraged from even trying.  
    Again, returning to 2006 is not advisable either.  But I'm also wondering that if Banks had been allowed to be bolder in the recovery period from 2009-2015 whether the economy might have been able to grow even faster.  
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:47 am

    rmapasad wrote:Having worked in the commercial/business banking world until 2010, I'm not aware of any Obama regs that were making lending more difficult for small businesses.  The bank where I worked had plenty of autonomy to make loans, but my bank was too scared to lend.  Are there lending regs that came along after that whereby getting a business loan became more difficult?  If so, I'm not aware of it.  I still have many friends in that industry in the Chicago area.  None of them have mentioned it being harder to lend.  >>
    Rob, my business is placing Commercial Bankers and they have for the past 8 years been complaining that Banks have been constantly worried about lending in a manner that would upset the "regulators".  In fact in the past 25 years in this industry I've never heard so much bitching about regulators.   I've seen a lot of Banks that are $ 500 million to $ 5 Billion in assets being acquired in part because they find it onerous to comply with all the regulatory burdens.  Only recently have de novo Banks been approved by regulators.  I guess I see lending going more and more to the big Banks and some of the innovative lending done by smaller Banks seems to be fading as small Banks themselves are disappearing.  Granted, "innovative" sometimes became overly risky in the 2006-2008 era, but it appears that regulators often got heavy-handed and started to chill even reasonable risk starting in 2009.
    As to Mortgages, my son is a Mortgage Broker and I've heard all the similar complaints you noted about how much more burdensome the process has become.  But the income, down payment, credit score requirements for qualifying for a loan are definitely different than in the 2005-2008 era. Granted, they may have been too loose in that prior era, but the Government may also have over-reacted by stiffening them too much in Dodd Frank.  All I know is that in our area apartments have been booming as home buying has become too difficult. Sure, rising prices have been the biggest culprit, but a lot of people can't meet the new standards for getting a home loan and many seemed to be discouraged from even trying.  
    Again, returning to 2006 is not advisable either.  But I'm also wondering that if Banks had been allowed to be bolder in the recovery period from 2009-2015 whether the economy might have been able to grow even faster.  

    Well, it's surely harder to qualify for a loan on a home now than in 2005 to 2008.  Most can probably agree that's something of a good thing, seeing as how doing it the old way almost sent our economy into an unrecoverable tailspin.  As of the past 7 yrs, home lender seems pretty lax and easy to me.  It's not at all hard for the consumer to qualify.  3% down programs galore, and PMI rates continue to fall.  I've even been offering a 1% down program for a year or two, whereby the lender is granting 2% free assistance and then lending the other 97%.  Credit scores of 600 or more will get you a home loan.  Debt ratios for a couple of years are allowed to be at 50% and still qualify for a home loan.  Used to be lower than that.  


    As for the regulator issue in the commercial world, I remember it well.  Yikes.  It sucked when I was in banking in the decade of 2001 to 2010.  That said, community banks went off the cliff with all of the goofy loans they made in that decade, which is why there are so many less of them now.  Shit, in my western burb, you can't barely find a community bank anymore.  They've all been gulped up by larger conglomerates.  They keep the community name, like St. Charles Bank and Trust, but they're a part of a MUCH bigger group that owns 100's of branches.  There were commercial lenders lending 75% LTV on land loans in the last decade.  80% on SPEC homes (LOL!).  85% on construction deals...sometimes 90%.  Regulators are rightly no longer standing for that.  I can't say I blame them.  If this is an Obama development, or the outcome of Obama's policies, then that seems like it might be a pretty good thing.  The business world is surely not being hurt by anything going on in the banking or regulatory world.  I believe I read in Forbes that from 2011 or 2012 through 2017, American corporations had the highest levels of income and the greatest percentage ownership of overall US income than at any time in our history.  I do NOT attribute this to Obama!  Maybe it's partly on him, and if so, good for him.  But I think it's unfair to suggest that Obama somehow didn't make the environment better for banks and for corporations.  Are you kidding me?  Banks and US corporations have NEVER EVER EVER had it so good.  


    I'm curious...if banking regs had been even more relaxed, and corporations had earned even GREATER record profits, how would that have helped the country?  Would that have trickled down and the corporations would have shared that with employees in terms of bigger bonuses?  Is there some reason I should have wanted those companies to have earned even more?  Because I'm not convinced it would have trickled down.  I believe I've learned otherwise over the years.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:49 am

    rmapasad wrote: All I know is that in our area apartments have been booming as home buying has become too difficult. Sure, rising prices have been the biggest culprit, but a lot of people can't meet the new standards for getting a home loan and many seemed to be discouraged from even trying.  
    Again, returning to 2006 is not advisable either.  But I'm also wondering that if Banks had been allowed to be bolder in the recovery period from 2009-2015 whether the economy might have been able to grow even faster.  

    I wonder if there are some state regs there in California that are making it harder to get a loan.  I'm not aware of any standards having changed in 8.5 yrs that have made borrowing on a home more difficult.  I'm sure a few things took place that made it more difficult from 2006 to 2010, but there is construction going on all around me out here, and this has been the case for about 2-3 yrs running.  Almost all lending changes over the past 6 yrs, in my view, have made getting a home loan easier for the borrower.  I gotta say...I make loans sometimes to folks that leave me scratching my head wondering how in the fuck these financial idiots ever managed to get a loan.  They have bad credit, shaky income, goofy shit going on on their bank statements, and I sometimes succeed with those people.  My job is only to get an applicant inside of the box so that they qualify.  Seems to me that you only need to be breathing.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7503
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by alohafri on Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:00 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:Having worked in the commercial/business banking world until 2010, I'm not aware of any Obama regs that were making lending more difficult for small businesses.  The bank where I worked had plenty of autonomy to make loans, but my bank was too scared to lend.  Are there lending regs that came along after that whereby getting a business loan became more difficult?  If so, I'm not aware of it.  I still have many friends in that industry in the Chicago area.  None of them have mentioned it being harder to lend.  >>
    Rob, my business is placing Commercial Bankers and they have for the past 8 years been complaining that Banks have been constantly worried about lending in a manner that would upset the "regulators".  In fact in the past 25 years in this industry I've never heard so much bitching about regulators.   I've seen a lot of Banks that are $ 500 million to $ 5 Billion in assets being acquired in part because they find it onerous to comply with all the regulatory burdens.  Only recently have de novo Banks been approved by regulators.  I guess I see lending going more and more to the big Banks and some of the innovative lending done by smaller Banks seems to be fading as small Banks themselves are disappearing.  Granted, "innovative" sometimes became overly risky in the 2006-2008 era, but it appears that regulators often got heavy-handed and started to chill even reasonable risk starting in 2009.
    As to Mortgages, my son is a Mortgage Broker and I've heard all the similar complaints you noted about how much more burdensome the process has become.  But the income, down payment, credit score requirements for qualifying for a loan are definitely different than in the 2005-2008 era. Granted, they may have been too loose in that prior era, but the Government may also have over-reacted by stiffening them too much in Dodd Frank.  All I know is that in our area apartments have been booming as home buying has become too difficult. Sure, rising prices have been the biggest culprit, but a lot of people can't meet the new standards for getting a home loan and many seemed to be discouraged from even trying.  
    Again, returning to 2006 is not advisable either.  But I'm also wondering that if Banks had been allowed to be bolder in the recovery period from 2009-2015 whether the economy might have been able to grow even faster.  

    Well, it's surely harder to qualify for a loan on a home now than in 2005 to 2008.  Most can probably agree that's something of a good thing, seeing as how doing it the old way almost sent our economy into an unrecoverable tailspin.  As of the past 7 yrs, home lender seems pretty lax and easy to me.  It's not at all hard for the consumer to qualify.  3% down programs galore, and PMI rates continue to fall.  I've even been offering a 1% down program for a year or two, whereby the lender is granting 2% free assistance and then lending the other 97%.  Credit scores of 600 or more will get you a home loan.  Debt ratios for a couple of years are allowed to be at 50% and still qualify for a home loan.  Used to be lower than that.  


    As for the regulator issue in the commercial world, I remember it well.  Yikes.  It sucked when I was in banking in the decade of 2001 to 2010.  That said, community banks went off the cliff with all of the goofy loans they made in that decade, which is why there are so many less of them now.  Shit, in my western burb, you can't barely find a community bank anymore.  They've all been gulped up by larger conglomerates.  They keep the community name, like St. Charles Bank and Trust, but they're a part of a MUCH bigger group that owns 100's of branches.  There were commercial lenders lending 75% LTV on land loans in the last decade.  80% on SPEC homes (LOL!).  85% on construction deals...sometimes 90%.  Regulators are rightly no longer standing for that.  I can't say I blame them.  If this is an Obama development, or the outcome of Obama's policies, then that seems like it might be a pretty good thing.  The business world is surely not being hurt by anything going on in the banking or regulatory world.  I believe I read in Forbes that from 2011 or 2012 through 2017, American corporations had the highest levels of income and the greatest percentage ownership of overall US income than at any time in our history.  I do NOT attribute this to Obama!  Maybe it's partly on him, and if so, good for him.  But I think it's unfair to suggest that Obama somehow didn't make the environment better for banks and for corporations.  Are you kidding me?  Banks and US corporations have NEVER EVER EVER had it so good.  


    I'm curious...if banking regs had been even more relaxed, and corporations had earned even GREATER record profits, how would that have helped the country?  Would that have trickled down and the corporations would have shared that with employees in terms of bigger bonuses?  Is there some reason I should have wanted those companies to have earned even more?  Because I'm not convinced it would have trickled down.  I believe I've learned otherwise over the years.

    A question for you guys "in the know." Peg and I have a theory that one of the problems with mortgages from those years was people being told that they would qualify for a loan of $X. So they would find a house as close to that amount as they could, not realizing that would leave them little or no money for things like furniture, appliances, and food. And I'm not talking about "predatory loans", just people who got excited at the prospect of buying a big house. Thoughts?
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:10 pm

    alohafri wrote:

    A question for you guys "in the know." Peg and I have a theory that one of the problems with mortgages from those years was people being told that they would qualify for a loan of $X. So they would find a house as close to that amount as they could, not realizing that would leave them little or no money for things like furniture, appliances, and food. And I'm not talking about "predatory loans", just people who got excited at the prospect of buying a big house. Thoughts?

    It was a combination of many things, including the thing you mentioned.  


    For a good, long spell, you could assume values would just rise and appreciate.  Many people just bought over their head on ARM loans that gave them a short term teaser rate like 2.5%, and then the rate adjusted upward to something much higher.  Another thing that happened is that people in industries with unreliable income, such as subcontractors and builders, were buying fancy homes because business was booming during the span from 1998-2006.  They were getting qualified by just using the loans that allowed you to "state" your income and not prove your income.  The only downside to loans like that was that you might pay an extra .125% on your loan....so 5.625% instead of 5.5%.  Builders were building homes for 400k and selling them for 600k during that 8 yr span.  Or building for 250k and selling for 350 or 375k.  Many builders and general contractors were building three, four, five or six of these homes per year and making huge money doing it.  It became its own Ponzi scheme.  


    Builder would borrow 250k and build the home, and then sell it for 400k and pay off the construction loan, and have 125k or 150k to keep for himself, and would do several of these per year.  Those builders built and bought these homes for themselves, too.  Eventually homes stopped appreciating at the expected pace, and also stopped selling.  For a while, guys like you or I could sell our 300k home for 400k and then pay 500k for a home and sell it later for 600k.  When that merry go round stopped turning, everything came to a halt.  When it came to a halt, builders everywhere were sitting on completed homes that were unsold and had debt on them.  IN many cases, the debt was 500k on a single speculative home, and in many cases, the builder had SEVERAL of these loans.  I oversaw a lot of this at my bank.  Builders had debt on land they planned to develop, spec homes that were complete and unsold, and homes under construction.  When everything stopped, the builders (and their subcontractors and employees) had no income to pay on their loans.  All of those land loans went belly up.  All of those 750k homes for sale sat and sat and sat and nobody bought them until they got them out of foreclosure for 450k.  Those builders all went bankrupt and lost their million dollar homes.  Basically, the merry go round stopped and the banks were all holding home loan debt that couldn't be repaid.  There was a glut of foreclosures and that huge supply pushed values down further.  This crash killed many community banks that had been lending to local builders.  Many lost tens of millions on loans they'd made to these builders.  For a solid 4 yrs, the builder/contractor industry basically shut down.  None of them were paying on their loans.  Most of them went bankrupt and lost their homes.  That industry probably accounted for half of the housing crash.  the other half is the rest of the economy that lost jobs as a result.  Bankers, for one.  For two, anyone that did any kind of work that lent itself to home construction.  Title companies went out of business.  Some real estate lawyers changed careers.  Appraisers quit their industry.  


    On top of all of this, a lot of folks were seeing their home values rise so quickly that they'd borrow and pay 300k for a home and it would quickly rise in value to 400k, and they'd go get a Home Equity Line of Credit and borrow another 80k against their home and owe 380k on a 400k home.  When the crash hit, their value fell to 280k or 265k, and they owed 380k and they basically said "fuck it, I'm upside down by 100k on this place.  I'm not paying on it anymore.  They can take it away if they want to take it.  I don't care."  We might not like that ethical approach, but it's a sound financial decision in many cases.  Tens of millions did it.  Some people were using the equity line of credit to pay their mortgage!!!  Using debt to manage their debt.  LOL.  In about 2007 I knew something was amiss when I heard some people were being asked by their bank to lower their home equity lines to a lower availability.  I started thinking "hold shit, a lot of people are maxed out on these lines and now banks are going to try lowering them?"


    What I just explained is probably about half of the reason for the crash.  Other issues are teaser payments where you can live in a brand new half million dollar place for a $2,500 monthly payment that eventually went up to $4,000 or 4,500.  When that happened, the occupant couldn't sell the place or afford the place and just stopped paying.  Imagine that in mass quantify occurring.  


    I would say that the best movie to watch and learn a bit more about this is called The Big Short.  Great movie!  Very informative.  Funny and interesting. 
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:13 pm

    alohafri wrote:

    A question for you guys "in the know." Peg and I have a theory that one of the problems with mortgages from those years was people being told that they would qualify for a loan of $X. So they would find a house as close to that amount as they could, not realizing that would leave them little or no money for things like furniture, appliances, and food. And I'm not talking about "predatory loans", just people who got excited at the prospect of buying a big house. Thoughts?

    Lastly, Kevin...for a while you could just state your income without proving it.  So yes, your question is legit here.  If I wanted a $600k home in 2005 and that loan would be a $4,500 monthly payment, I just had to tell the lender I make 10k per month.  I didn't have to prove it.  I just had to state it and have decent credit.  If I had shitty credit, I could still state it, but I'd have to take a higher rate (Subprime loans!!!).  The subprime loan market also played a HUGE role in the crash.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2748
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:22 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    I'm curious...if banking regs had been even more relaxed, and corporations had earned even GREATER record profits, how would that have helped the country?  Would that have trickled down and the corporations would have shared that with employees in terms of bigger bonuses?  Is there some reason I should have wanted those companies to have earned even more?  Because I'm not convinced it would have trickled down.  I believe I've learned otherwise over the years.

    Yes, corporate profits were up tremendously in the Obama years and have reached record levels.  But this is largely due to big businesses who cut employment and bought competitors in 2009-2015 period fattening their profit margins.  I'm not sure that has trickled down to smaller businesses, many of whom continue to struggle due to capital shortages.
    Banks that I know of tend to be very conservative in lending to such businesses who haven't got a track record in certain profit levels, financial ratios or in having collateral (like real estate) to back their loans.  The "5 C's of credit" used to place more emphasis on "character" which often allowed smaller Banks, who knew their customers more intimately, to extend credit to businesses and individuals who they felt had the right attributes beyond mere financial data. 
    We received an unsecured start-up business loan from City National Bank in the 1980's that I'm sure would never be given today for example.
    My conversations with Bankers who were credit-trained in the 1970's and 1980's are different than today's Credit people.  Older Bankers take a more holistic approach to credit, where now it's all about formulas, being in the box, and whether loans can meet the criteria of the regulators.  I just think it's weird to see these decisions dictated by regulatory rules on what has to be offset against capital based on the kind of collateral and allowable leverage rather than long-established common sense principles of credit analysis.
    I think that more credit to smaller businesses might have stoked the job creation engine more over the last 5-7 years.  They aren't using their funds to buy back stock,gobble up competitors or establish foreign outposts and outsource jobs like bigger corporations.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2748
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:26 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:

    A question for you guys "in the know." Peg and I have a theory that one of the problems with mortgages from those years was people being told that they would qualify for a loan of $X. So they would find a house as close to that amount as they could, not realizing that would leave them little or no money for things like furniture, appliances, and food. And I'm not talking about "predatory loans", just people who got excited at the prospect of buying a big house. Thoughts?

    Lastly, Kevin...for a while you could just state your income without proving it.  So yes, your question is legit here.  If I wanted a $600k home in 2005 and that loan would be a $4,500 monthly payment, I just had to tell the lender I make 10k per month.  I didn't have to prove it.  I just had to state it and have decent credit.  If I had shitty credit, I could still state it, but I'd have to take a higher rate (Subprime loans!!!).  The subprime loan market also played a HUGE role in the crash.

    No doubt whatsoever that "stated income" loans were a big factor in the crash.  Investment Banks' demand for more and more mortgage "product" they could package/sell to institutional buyers caused lenders to crank out mortgages in a mad rush. Of course when, as you said in a prior post, home prices were going up at 15-30% per year the value of the property was assumed to be enough to pay off the loan so the specific borrower's "issues" weren't that relevant. 
    Particularly when loans being packaged were given AA ratings by Moody's and insured by Credit Default Swaps it was assumed all this was  "safe". Until it wasn't, then it came crashing in one big pile. There were just so many players at fault in this process that no one entity can be entirely blamed.  
    Investment Banks and Subprime Mortgage companies are known sleaze-peddlers yet very few stood up to them.  Amazing that the same cowboys who crashed subprime lenders like Money Store, First Plus, Long Beach Savings, etc in 1999 re-surfaced at New Century, IndyMac, etc. in 2003-2007 and cratered them.
    No one had the balls to stand in their way.  Originally FNMA didn't buy subprime or even Alt-A, then they did.  Moody's + S+P could have declined good ratings on this crap but they didn't.  Insurers could have seen the risks but still jumped in to make profits on Default swaps. On and on.  Greed made everyone behave like idiots and ignore the clear risks.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:44 pm

    that's the whole shebang in a nutshell.  Greed.  Profit.  Risk.  Idiots.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7503
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by alohafri on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:59 pm

    We would ask ourselves, "sure, we can afford it, but do we want to eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day for the next twenty years?"
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:45 pm

    alohafri wrote:We would ask ourselves, "sure, we can afford it, but do we want to eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day for the next twenty years?"

    No, you still eat steak, and you get an equity line to pay the mortgage until the equity line runs out, and then you up the equity line until that runs out, and then you stop paying the mortgage.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:59 pm

    alohafri wrote:We would ask ourselves, "sure, we can afford it, but do we want to eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day for the next twenty years?"

    You would also ask yourselves "Do we want to give up our season ticket package?"
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2748
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:05 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:We would ask ourselves, "sure, we can afford it, but do we want to eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day for the next twenty years?"

    You would also ask yourselves "Do we want to give up our season ticket package?"

    Yeah, imagine there were a lot of people who used their home equity lines as a personal bank account to finance a more upscale lifestyle.  Then ended up leveraging away nearly all their equity.

    But I also believe that a greater number of people who bought homes were responsible bill-payers and spenders.  But when the crash hit many lost their jobs. Unemployment went from 5% in Feb. 2008 to 10% by mid 2009 and stayed in the 9% range through 2011.   Those that did find jobs had to take pay cuts or even part-time employment.  They would have preferred to stay put, pay the mortgage, and hope for a future bounceback in home value but were left with insufficient income and obviously no further equity to borrow from. 

    The shitty part of all this is that the handful of real culprits, those atop Investment Banks and big Mortgage companies parachuted out with big packages and didn't suffer the lifestyle consequences that hard-working middle income families did.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:24 pm

    rmapasad wrote:

    The shitty part of all this is that the handful of real culprits, those atop Investment Banks and big Mortgage companies parachuted out with big packages and didn't suffer the lifestyle consequences that hard-working middle income families did.

    Totally.  Pretty sad.  The people that caused it made out like bandits.  Many of them bought on the short while everything was underpriced.  Working people struggled through it and many were left in the dust.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7503
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by alohafri on Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:44 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:We would ask ourselves, "sure, we can afford it, but do we want to eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day for the next twenty years?"

    You would also ask yourselves "Do we want to give up our season ticket package?"

    We kinda did. Long story short, one of the partners dropped out, the other partner bought us out. We are now with a 2 seat, 10 game package. Less money, worse seats, but we're happy. We still have a good relationship with the former partner who has said she will throw Elvis Night tickets our way.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2716
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:35 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:Sounds like if the president likes you (maybe you said something nice about him!), then you can be nominated or appointed to a cabinet.  Ronnie Jackson has been given the nom for VA Secretary, and now there is a buttload of negative stuff coming out about him.  Does this Orange moron vet ANYONE?  It's not as if the VA Secretary position isn't important.  What, Ronnie Jackson said Trump is healthy and weighs 239 pounds and that qualifies him?  WTF?  I knew when he was elected that he'd be a bit of a moronic and inept president.  I mean...I expected it to be pretty bad.  This is 10X worse then I ever even could have imagined.  It's so laughably bad that it's kind of enjoyable, to be honest.  Maybe that makes me un-American.  Guilty as charged.  Lots of young minds watching all of this and making political judgments that will stick with them for decades or their whole lives based upon this administration.  

    Turns out this is rapidly becoming fake news

    Figures the Schmuck from St Chuck falls for it.  After all, he fell for decades worth of Rogers invented math

    Once again Schmuckie refuses to vet

    And where is the board teacher to correct his work?  Probably playing pinball
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:54 am

    Becoming fake news? It either is or it isn't fake news. Which is it, and how do you know? Because the orange, lying imbecile says so? Did he tell you this in a tweet storm?
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7867
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Soxillinirob on Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:27 pm

    I'm still waiting to learn how this turned out to be fake news.  Sounds like there were a lot of GOP members of the Senate that were planning on standing in the way on this nomination for reasons that aren't yet clear, and not all of the claims against Jackson popped up recently.  Some of them were out there longer ago than when he was nominated.  For a while, it struck me that this might be a hit job against him (the way I think there was possibly a hit job against Franken), but I've seen a few conservatives suggesting it's very much not.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7503
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by alohafri on Tue May 01, 2018 7:09 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:I'm still waiting to learn how this turned out to be fake news.  

    Playing the "Trump card" (pun intended). If it's something I disagree with, it must be "fake."

    Sponsored content

    Re: Cabinet Nominee Lottery

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 20, 2018 12:22 pm