SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/21/2010 11:46:08 AM
From: DebtBombRespond to of 306849
 
And these are the guys holding a "job summit" ;-O If wall street has it's way....unemployment is going to 30% IMO.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/21/2010 11:48:00 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
More than 40 pct. leave Obama mortgage-aid program

Obama mortgage-aide program struggles as more than 40 percent of those enrolled drop out

Alan Zibel, AP Real Estate Writer Tuesday July 20, 2010
news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 40 percent of homeowners seeking help from the Obama administration's flagship effort to rescue those at risk of foreclosure have dropped out of the program.

The latest report on the program suggests foreclosures could rise in the second half of the year and weaken an ailing housing market.

About 530,000 borrowers have fallen out of the program as of last month, the Treasury Department said Tuesday. Nearly 1.3 million homeowners had enrolled since March 2009.

Treasury officials say few of these borrowers will wind up in foreclosure. But many analysts are concerned that a new wave of foreclosures could greatly impact the struggling housing industry.

Another 390,000 homeowners, or 30 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.

A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

Many borrowers complain of a bureaucratic nightmare. They say banks often lose their documents and then claim borrowers did not send back the necessary paperwork.

The banking industry said borrowers weren't sending back the necessary paperwork.

The Obama plan was designed to help people in financial trouble by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Homeowners who qualify can receive an interest rate as low as 2 percent for five years and a longer repayment period. The average monthly payment has been cut by about $500 on average.

The homeowners receive temporary modifications. These are supposed to become permanent after borrowers make three payments on time and complete the required paperwork. That includes proof of income and a letter explaining the reason for their troubles. In practice, though, the process has taken far longer.

The more than 100 participating mortgage companies get taxpayer incentives to reduce payments. But as of mid-May only $132 million has been spent out of a potential $75 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Though the program has been widely criticized for making only a small dent in the foreclosure crisis, administration officials defend their efforts. They say that the foreclosure prevention program has spurred changes in the mortgage industry, prodding lenders to make more significant cuts to borrowers' monthly payments than before the government effort started.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/21/2010 12:12:24 PM
From: DebtBombRespond to of 306849
 
Everyone voted for change....we got change alright.
Mark to fantasy
New wars
Reward losers
Bail out banksters
Even bigger deficits
The problems began with "O"'s appointees, IMO.
Who did they bring back? Summers, Clintons, Rubins, etc.. Folks that dismantled Glass Steagall.
OMG....you just can't make this stuff up.
But, it's worse than all of that. On Sept. 15th 2008....they let wall street march into D.C. and hi-jack the place, IMO.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/21/2010 12:14:29 PM
From: pstuartbRead Replies (4) | Respond to of 306849
 
* Obama - 8%*

Interesting stat. I skimmed the wikipedia entries for the 15 cabinet members.

Janet Napolitano was a lawyer in private practice at one time, and of course Hillary was too.

Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, worked at Bell labs at one point and was also a professor at Stanford.

Roy LaHood, Secretary of Education, was a teacher in Catholic schools at one point. Don't know if that counts as a "job."

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, also practiced law for a time.

Being a partner in a law firm may not qualify you as a reasonable human being, but private law firms are businesses, I guarantee you that.

Eric Shineski, Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, is on the boards of Honeywell and a bank and insurance company. Maybe just being a board member doesn't count as a job.

So anyway that's at least 5 of the 15 cabinet members who had jobs in the private sector at one point or another, or 33%. Still on the low end of the 20th century presidents, with only Kennedy being lower.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/21/2010 12:20:35 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favorRespond to of 306849
 
I like Ike.....



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (262650)7/22/2010 11:07:35 AM
From: pstuartbRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 306849
 
Factchecking the claim that only 8% of the current cabinet has private sector experience. This site rates the claim false, and extracts an apology from the author of the original study, Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer for J.P. Morgan Private Bank. After Cembalest published the study in Forbes, Glenn Beck lifted a chart from the study and presented it without explaining how Cembalest reached his conclusions. From there, the chart circulated on the internet.

politifact.com

Someone posted this yesterday on Mish's thread.

Excerpt:

We wondered if the claim was right, so we did some math of our own.

In Obama's Cabinet, at least three of the nine posts that Cembalest and Beck cite — a full one-third — are occupied by appointees who, by our reading of their bios, had significant corporate or business experience. Shaun Donovan, Obama's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America's storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family's farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.

Three other Obama appointees had legal experience in the private sector.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke spent part of their careers working as lawyers in private practice. Clinton and Vilsack worked as private-sector lawyers at the beginning of their careers, while Locke joined an international law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, after serving as governor of Washington state. At the firm, Locke "co-chaired the firm's China practice" and "helped U.S. companies break into international markets," according to his official biography. That sounds like real private sector experience to us.

Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.

The occupants of the two remaining Cabinet posts cited in the chart do not appear to have had significant private-sector experience: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Obama's Cabinet has even more private-sector experience if you go beyond the nine. Two of the Obama appointees could be considered entrepreneurs — the very people Beck would "unleash." Vice President Joe Biden, officially a Cabinet member, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. (The future vice president also supplemented his income by managing properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool.) And Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag founded an economic consulting firm called Sebago Associates that was later bought out by a larger firm.

It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal . That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck.

We tracked down Cembalest to ask about his methodology. He said any effort to address the topic is heavily subjective, and he expressed regret that his work had been used for political ends, saying that it was not his intention to provide fodder for bloggers and talk show hosts.

Cembalest said that he did discount the corporate experience of the three lawyers we identified — Clinton, Vilsack and Locke — and added that he awarded nothing for Donovan, Chu or Salazar, even though we found they had a fair amount private sector experience. Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again. But he added that the kind of private-sector experiences Chu and Donovan had (managing scientific research and handling community development lending, respectively) did not represent the kind of private-sector business experience he was looking for when doing his study.

"What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation," Cembalest said.

Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done — except this one chart — was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out."

Which brings us back to how Beck used Cembalest's data. We'll acknowledge that rating someone's degree of private-sector experience is an inexact science, and it's true that Beck accurately relayed the information contained in Cembalest's chart. But at PolitiFact we hold people accountable for their own words. So we rate Beck's claim False.