digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Wall Street Journal Bashes Angry Renter on Page One!

angryrenter.com — Movement of over 48,000 people who oppose the mortgage bailout is bashed by the Wall Street Journal on Page 1. Not surprising at all...?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Conspiracy20, on 05/17/2008, -12/+24Thanks dugg!
    • sanman, on 05/17/2008, -17/+16Vote for Obama, and you'll see more bailouts that will make the current one look like peanuts.
      • Chompy, on 05/17/2008, -7/+13Well *****, with the money we'd save just not being in Iraq we could bailout everyone in America and still have a few trill left over.
        • heliox, on 05/17/2008, -12/+5You guys really love bringing the war into EVERY ***** STORY on digg.
        • worldchanger, on 05/17/2008, -2/+15that's because you can't separate the spiraling US economy from the trillion-dollar war that [a] made it start spiraling in the first place, and [b] continues to increase the speed at which the economy is crashing.

          read up on economics sometime; it'll do you some good.
        • Pixelante, on 05/17/2008, -5/+3Keep in mind that to most diggers, the war in Iraq has been on since they were born...
        • jana67, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3The economy is a house of cards... What should we do as Americans? Assume personal responsibility...
          http://www.squidoo.com/donharroldvideoshowcase
      • haydesigner, on 05/17/2008, -6/+4"you'll see more bailouts that will make the current one look like peanuts."

        Proof, please.
        Or at least some reference to that effect that Obama has said in the past.
      • jana67, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Here's Obama proof: http://www.squidoo.com/obamavideoshowcase
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/17/2008, -4/+5Murdoch,Murdoch,FoxNews,Murdoch

      should you expect anything different?
      but for now..these press moguls are being held at bay with the senate...because Murdoch has his eye in Newsweek next...


      Obama/Webb 08
    • Schrodinger2, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4***** the WSJ's pointless ad hominem fest. This article got me to sign the petition. I suggest you all do the same.
    • jmkiii, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Sign it
      http://angryrenter.com/open_letter.php
    • SC4RP, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It is not a matter of "should we expect it" But should we put up with it. It is time we the people took back our country!
  • Minarchian, on 05/17/2008, -30/+31WSJ is yet another neo-con holding of Rupert Murdoch.

    If a story is not about growing the government bigger and more powerful any of Murdochs crappy holdings will vilify it.
    • tkeeley, on 05/17/2008, -6/+5Very good point.
    • chocobomog, on 05/17/2008, -2/+15You realize that the WSJ is "attacking" AngryRenter because it is promoting a conservative opinion and owned by Republicans, right?

      And Rupert Murdoch earned his fortune through the Fox channel which played "conservative" programming like Melrose Place, Who wants to Marry a Millionaire, Temptation Island, Married with Children, BH 90210, American Dad, etc.

      Just because Murdoch owns something doesn't make it conservative.
      • kublerross, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2so because fox carries who wants to marry a millionaire they are liberal?

        those shows are pure trash for entertainment, they arent designed to promote a message, they make money
        purposeful manipulation of news outlets by placing 'facts' so as to sculpt perception is much more effective

    • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4I've been reading the WSJ for years, it hasn't changed a whole lot since News Corp. purchased it.
      • KMye, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Part of the buy-out deal was to leave the editorial part of the paper out of News Corps' control. That independence will undoubtedly eventually erode away, but I agree, I haven't seen any major shift in this respect so far...
        • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That's interesting to know. I don't really recall any specifics behind the buyout, but that makes sense as to why it hasn't change a whole lot at this point.
  • kemp34, on 05/17/2008, -7/+105I am a renter and a taxpayer and any bail outs for idiot borrowers or lenders on my dime is freaking infuriating. I don't care if Dick Armey and Steve Forbes set up the site, they are right! Transfer of wealth based on idiocy is NOT OK. Anyone with any wit at all saw this housing bubble. I called it in March 2005. So to hell with fools and ridiculous politicians bailing out those who made careless mistakes. Socializing losses is one of the greatest paths to societal failure.
    • tkeeley, on 05/17/2008, -2/+20Not only that, but they're just setting a precedent that we simply cant afford. I read somewhere that 35% of those who are bailed out are likely to still go into foreclosure. It's ridiculous.
    • kaelyiesta, on 05/17/2008, -4/+21Ah, wealth redistribution; Immoral in theory and impractical in application.
    • quomen, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6The fed isn't doing it out of charity. Since Bearn Sterns was acquired by JPMorgan Chase, the fed will actually be making money off of the loan.
      • cohortq, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4You should see what JP Morgan secured the "borrowed" cash from the Fed with, you know those bad loans that was taking Bear Stearns under. That's all.
    • Crimsoneer, on 05/17/2008, -10/+2If you called it back in 2005, then how the hell are you not outrageously rich?
    • ncurses, on 05/17/2008, -8/+3try being more retarded
    • Crimsoneer, on 05/17/2008, -11/+2Sorry, but I think my comment has a point. Saying that "anybody with any wit saw this housing bubble" is a completely inane comment, seeing it caught the whole world with their pants down. The few people who did see this coming have made outrageously large amounts of cash off it.
      • Y0tsuya, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7Actually plenty of people have called it but were dismissed as being crazy. Also, most of them just know the prices are not realistic but don't really know how to make money off that assumption, short of selling and renting. Most short ETFs are less than a year old, myself having just discovered them a few months ago.
        • RX9735, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5You are right plenty of people have called it. I wasn't about to buy a over priced house I couldn't afford and now look, I should have so I could have gotten bailed out. It doesn't add up. If you can't afford a house don;t ***** buy one.
      • Wiggles2, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Crimsoneer, you're comment makes a point, albeit a completely idiotic one!

        couple of problems with your argument:
        1) calling a bubble != calling the 'top', 2) you assume orig. poster had equity at the time (playing the downside requires equity), 3) probably more problems with your stupid argument but i waste no more time on you

        many people called this a bubble or 'musical chairs' back in 2005, including me. no one knew for sure when it would bust, but it was obvious it would. the folks who got caught 'with their pants down' were the ones taking the gamble trying to be the last profiteers

        'The Whole World Got Caught With Their Pants Down' -- only a ***** dolt who gets his info from the evening news would think this... the news always makes bad events seems totally unanticipated by anyone
    • SC4RP, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1The hole purpose of gov. today is to bail out business, don't you know that! The gov. is so busy kissing big business' ass the leading cause of death it DC is probably diarrhea of the lips! Tell DC no more government of the business, by the attorneys, for the money, bring back government of the people, by the people, for the people! This country is in distress! If you agree fly your flag upside down and send a message to washington. ( I do not capitalize washington because they do not deserve that kind of respect.)
  • GodzGurl59, on 05/17/2008, -17/+47I just have one thought; will the renters stop voting to raise MY property taxs so thier kids can go to school? And I sure hope none of these renters are on welfare.
    • kemp34, on 05/17/2008, -6/+9Those are good points, however, the property tax deal is a local/state issue and not a federal government one. I agree in terms of welfare.
    • flip2trip, on 05/17/2008, -6/+29Even if they do vote to raise property taxes, they will still have to pay higher rental rates as I know owners pass those increased expenses on to the renter.
      • Taquoshi, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8While the school budgets are the major portion of the tax base at least in our litte corner of the world, please remember that it is the State and Federal government that keeps issuing "unfunded" mandates for the schools to meet. And guess where the money for those mandated services comes from??? You got it, your property taxes.

        And just for the record those people who send their children to private school get to pay twice. Those who homeschool paid in a different way, too. So I'm not really sure that it is the renters who keep driving up your property taxes to pay for the public education.
      • DuffyDirect, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4not when there's rent control, chief.
    • dunderballer, on 05/17/2008, -2/+12Those costs end up getting passed along to tenants as well. In the long term, it all comes out in the wash on the rental supply/demand curve.
    • ehalasey, on 05/17/2008, -4/+5You're blaming the renters for agreeing to fund local schools? No wonder we've got such a hefty deficit. Everyone wants the government support much-needed programs, but no one wants to have to pay for them.
      • NoBailouts, on 05/17/2008, -5/+3I don't consider a $300,000,000,000 bailout a much needed program, especially since it only impacts a very small percentage of homeowners.

        Education is a right and usually a guarantee for US citizens, however home ownership is a choice. The government has no business mandating bailouts for choices.
        • ehalasey, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I was TOTALLY talking about the bailout just then. Yep.
        • NoBailouts, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1lol, I see now.
      • digitalarcanum, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3right because I want to give money to a government whose officials have to have the biggest and the best, all brought to them by the sweat of the working man's brow, or the smart investor's cunning, or the farmer's bountiful crop. The same government that promised time and time again to give back to the communities who need it, to cut down on frivolous spending and keep jobs here in the US in such a time of economic turmoil.

        No more I say. I'm only 21 years, soon to be 22 so that means I haven't had to put up with paying taxes and watching the money I pour into the country be squandered for all too long. Write off my comment as youthful ignorance as you delight, but it infuriates me no less that you assume that none of us want to give money to the government in order that our nations infrastructure, education and economic facility improve

        Social contract theory basically says that we agree to abide by the rules. and I'm fine with most of them... except warrantless wiretapping, government blessed monopolies, NAFTA, zero accountability for actors and stars of the big screen and government officials, etc. al. but I don't agree to my tax money going to pay for some government official's Tahoe, Suburban, Expedition, Charger, whatever big fast car they choose to buy and their McMansions either. As far as I'm concerned they need should be right along side me earning the bread on their plate as elected officials, not enjoying a free ride on mine and many other taxpayers backs.

        THAT is my problem, THAT is why I'm so pissed. I have no problem giving money towards supporting education and those less fortunate, I have problems giving my money to elected officials who waste it.

        tl;dr: ***** uncle sam. I've given and will probably give much more in my hopefully long life and I've yet to receive much of anything back.
      • ehalasey, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Okay look, I understand that our government has done some reprehensible things and has grossly mishandled how the money is managed, but what does this have to do with funds that, once taken from the taxpayer, will then be earmarked for education? The fact that so much money is earmarked for what most of us might qualify as frivolities doesn't change the fact that our schools are presently underfunded. Meanwhile, if you want to talk about mismanagement of funds, you should take a look at this whole culture of spend and spend that has been brewing for years. We're paying for a war with money we don't have, which means we're paying for war with our futures. That means, lowered taxes isn't doing us any favors, here, and continuing to refuse to pitch in isn't either because that's not what's at the root of the problem. The goons in power are still goons. You want someone to whom you can direct your anger? Write your congressman. Get involved in local government. Incite people to change this culture of living beyond our means and hoarding or misusing our resources so that, in the end, we have nothing to show for it. This government you're talking about that is paying for things with which you don't agree with your money doesn't exist. All those programs that we actually need - public transportation, education, functional highways, clean air, disaster relief - have been raped and pillaged not just because the goons are doing the raping and pillaging, but also because people started saying that they shouldn't have to pitch in. There is no money anymore. Only debt. And it's our debt. And if you want to do something about it instead of just being angry, more power to you. Yelling at me on some internet forum, however, isn't going to do you any good. Shirking your personal responsibility to the greater good because you're embittered, isn't going to do you any good either. If you want to see this whole mess change, you have to be part of the movement for change.
        Oh, and one more thing: VOTE. Please. We all need to. I don't care who you vote for, I don't care what you vote for. I care that you vote your conscience, and that you do so at every opportunity.
        • DuffyDirect, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Didn't you read what he said? He's not against paying for education, he's against paying for giving ***** school administrators, BOCES workers, and worthless local officials who sit on their ass all day annual raises and guaranteed pensions while everyone else in the country has to work their ass off to keep their job and only gets stock options or 401k's that can turn worthless over night!

          School budgets always go up, they never go down. Even when old high-paid teachers retire, it still manages to go up. That's 90k a year administrators giving themselves another 10k, and its 1-5 million going towards some "expansion" project, aka building a lead painted ***** expansion to the school because of some contractor's kickback to the superintendent. Oh, and while this expansion/rennovation is being built, the kids get to sit in temporary portable classrooms in january with .5 inch aluminum walls.

          Hoo-ray for progress.

          You know what would make schools perfect? Teachers. Librarians. Free books. PERIOD. Liquidate the ***** administration.
    • chikara8, on 05/17/2008, -1/+12I am a renter in a small, independent city within LA, with an outstanding educational program. I don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but here, most people with children are homeowners. I have no children, yet I pay a 10% increase in rent every year is due to the fact that other people's children enjoy a great education. My income does not increase by 10% per year, but the homeowners' property value does. So who is paying?
      Understand that I do value education, and hope that my 10% increase does help the educational value of the kids in my city and not just making my landlord richer. I just don't understand why you blame renters for higher property taxes when most of us don't have children.
    • pastab, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4renters DO pay right along with you, knucklehead. The rent goes to who? THE OWNER. Guess what the owner pays? Taxes.

      Don't worry. NONE are on welfare. Cuz if they were, whoa. THEN what would we do?
    • Izult, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Seriously? That's the only angle you can look at this issue from? Schools? It's not about if renters do or do not pay taxes for schools (which they do in increased rents). It's about people being responsible with their finances and living with in their means. If you touch a hot stove you get burned. If you borrow more money than you can pay back you end up with financial problems. See? action - consequence. As a parent that concept shouldn't be too foreign to you.
  • rpfinley, on 05/17/2008, -8/+6I hope under Murdoch that the editorial board ideals are spread throughout the paper, the editorial board knows the value of a limited government.
    • andy314159pi, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Limited government and the failure to regulate these mortgages is what caused this. The poor regulatory environment is what allowed brokers to sell this bogus debt abroad, and that has started to erode the notion that America is a safe place to put your investments. This is obviously to our own detriment. But you can spin it however you want to support long ago debunked laissez-faire policies.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Definitely. I love the WSJs Op/Ed Page.
  • schif, on 05/17/2008, -3/+50All we hear these days is whining from reckless home borrowers and their banks.

    But did you know that renters are 32 percent of American households? And that homes in foreclosure are less than 2 percent?

    So why is Congress rushing to bailout high-flying borrowers and their lenders with our tax dollars?

    Unfortunately, renters aren't as good at politics as the small minority of homeowners (and their bankers) who are in trouble. We don't have lobbyists in Washington, DC. We don't get a tax deduction for our rent and we don't get sweetheart government loans.

    Quite simply, we are just Angry Renters. And now it is our time to be heard: no government bailouts!
    • Y0tsuya, on 05/17/2008, -0/+13Don't forget responsible homeowners who sat tight through the bubble without cash-out refinancing or HELOCing. We also have no desire to bail out the idiots.
      • ncurses, on 05/17/2008, -6/+3it's obviously in everybody's interest to have them just go homeless
    • lickmylovepump, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3You are a liar!
    • Falldog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Your copy-paste skills are impeccable, sir.
      • schif, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I was banking that no one would actually RTFA.
    • edmoser, on 05/17/2008, -2/+0You're missing the point. It's about the economy, not the actual who are being bailed out. They're idiots, yes, but they're idiots who will cause our country's economy to go to ***** if we don't stop the bleeding. I don't think anyone wants to have to bail them out, but the consequences of not doing it will be worse for everyone if we don't.
      • schif, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2not it is about bankers wanting to get paid for risky investments, that is the point. bailout or not the economy is in for some rough times.
  • KJeffV, on 05/17/2008, -7/+10Amen! Dugg, fwd'd, & signed.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/17/2008, -4/+10"You Puny mortals opinions are of no concern to our monolithic information mediums! We will continue to spew our propogandistic bile to our 2 or 3 octogenerian readers in Iowa and with the awesome power of their opinion we shall continue our rule over popular sensible public opinion!"
    - King Murdoch
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/17/2008, -7/+1Wow... it now takes 4 minutes to post? wtf..
  • dunderballer, on 05/17/2008, -4/+5It is quite odd that a conservative newspaper would put a liberal commentary piece on the front page. Of all the liberal positions to take, what the hell choose to adopt this one?? Conservatives should be dump their social and war agendas rather than their fiscal responsibility.
    • DaDrake, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5I really wouldn't call WSJ liberal or conservative... it goes both ways and I subscribe to their newspaper.
    • crashbang, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I am not sure if I agree with any sort of label on this one. If anything it seems to be a bailout of an industry they lost tabs on a long time ago. Greed is the problem. People buying mortgages they knew they couldn't afford, lending companies telling them to put down their income at $60K a year when they make $30K, then packaging the risk and ship it to someone else (like the hedge funds), hedge funds eat up those packaged turds, then everyone turns around when the party is over and says "gee, what the heck happened?"
      I pay my mortgage every month on time. Sometimes I don't buy everything I WANT just what I NEED. Maybe it's time to bring basic home economics back into the schools that can teach children how to manage, save, and spend their cash. I don't think this happens by some process of osmosis, it needs to be taught.
  • rockchops, on 05/17/2008, -4/+17buried for blogspam. link us direct to the actual article next time.
    • heypetray, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3But if they did that, you would have missed:

      "...Dick Armey with over 20 staffers across the country..."

      Hey, I loled.
  • bunki8, on 05/17/2008, -4/+25I don't think you people read the article. It's so harsh because the website is pretending to be grassroots and is backed / written by some very wealthy people (Forbes one of them). THAT was the point of the article. It actually posts the general arguments of both sides, but assails the website for trying to be something it isn't.
    You chose this article to assail Murdoch (who I don't like either) but if this article was partisan at all it was to the side of liberal.
    • loggia, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Dang, read the article, folks.

      The website is a phony, run by Steve Forbes and rich friends of Steve Forbes, inciting people to ask for something that will, yes, benefit Steve Forbes! And his rich friends!
      • sloppychris, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1And 99% of the rest of the country, while they're at it.
        • mikeb37415, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0sloppychris,

          try to recognize astroturf when you see it
  • EmporerTitus, on 05/17/2008, -8/+5the elitist, cosmopolitan WSJ, demanding Washington use the IRS and other gestapo agencies to steal American's money for the sake of Wall St., provides a perfect example of Minority Privilege.
  • groverblue, on 05/17/2008, -8/+17 The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

    The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

    The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.

    So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

    A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city – Boston.

    Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

    Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, many lenders have increased the lending fees associated with mortgage loans. This is simply an indirect way of doing what banks always do – and what they must do to remain solvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

    But this is discriminatory!, complained the "community organizations." Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having "predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.

    These are price control laws, and price controls always cause shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending fewer riskier loans. But in this case the banks are forced to continue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at the Fed and the other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above. So-called predatory lending laws therefore force the banks to "eat" the losses. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the bankruptcy of dozens of mortgage lenders over the past year.

    Then of course there is the issue of the Fed’s monetary policy having created the housing bubble, characterized by a spectacular escalation of real estate values in every American city over the past decade or so. This created a further problem for the financial institutions that are victimized by the CRA. They are forced to make a certain amount of bad loans, but because of the Fed-created explosion in housing prices, many thousands of subprime borrowers no longer qualified, by a long stretch, for conventional mortgages based on their incomes.

    The only way these borrowers could qualify for their mortgage loans (even ignoring their bad credit ratings) was to take out adjustable rate mortgages, some of which had astonishingly low first-year rates in the 3 percent range, and sometimes lower. This is what has largely fueled the subprime mortgage meltdown – the inability of thousands of subprime borrowers to afford their mortgages now that their rates have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination of the Fed’s enforcement of the CRA (with the help of political pressure groups like ACORN) and its post 9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for the bursting real estate bubble and the "subprime" mortgage meltdown.

    Don’t expect to read about this in the "mainstream media," however, which generally views groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers. Encouraged by such reporting, the odious Senator Charles Schumer of New York has promised federal legislation that will reign in these miscreants, while the Bush administration is proposing an indirect bank bailout by having the Federal Housing Administration cover many of the bad "subprime" loans. This will create what economists call a "moral hazard" by encouraging even more bad loans to be extended in the future. Every banker in America will be glad to extend loans (at high rates of interest) to the most uncreditworthy borrowers if he thinks there is no possibility of default with the FHA effectively guaranteeing the loan.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125. ...
    • AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1So you're saying it's because liberals forced banks to loan to black people.

      Yup, sounds about right to me!
    • Olfster, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I read it as banks and mortgage brokers take advantage of black people and poorer communities.

      Yup, sounds about right to me!
    • crashbang, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1To be honest I didn't really hear the banks complaining about this when they making money.
    • afruff23, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2None of you three bothered to read the article, did you?

      To AWBoy666 and Olfster,

      The government mandated diversity in loans and banks forces banks to take on more risk and in turn created this disaster.

      To crashbang,

      They HAVE to give these loans as mandated by law. It's like I forced you at gunpoint to play the lottery. You would rather not waste your moeny on something so unproductive, but you still make some money off of it (and thus are slightly content for a while) until you hit the crapper and lose.
      • crashbang, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I am not sure if I buy the lottery analogy afruff23. The lottery is just that. A lottery. There is no way that the players in the lottery can influence the outcome. But the same industry that bemoans having to give loans to "less than qualified" borrowers, also told people that they should falsify information on their loan applications. This will in turn benefit the companies giving these loans as they can be packaged and sold (along with the risk) to whomever wanted to buy them. Which many many people did want to do . So to single out less than qualified buyers is erroneous and somewhat irresponsible. No body was holding a gun to anybody's head to cause this situation. We are all equally involved in this BS because of greed on everybodys part.
        By the way, all you have to do is write your own point of view. You don't need to ask whether I read the article or not. It makes you seem like a jerk.
        • afruff23, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2The CRA is a law. What that means is it is forced upon those it applies to at gunpoint. Beforehand, minorities and peoplle who were deemed credit risks were not given loans as easily.

          So to blame the subprime crisis on greed is a gross misrepresentation of how this mess came about.
  • michaelpinto, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6angryrenters is an inside-the-beltway website trying to pretend otherwise:

    "Founded in 1984, FreedomWorks is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers nationwide. The organization is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey."
    • Olfster, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2This is a 'whore' organization with little credibilty from another Dick we all could do without.
  • chkdg8, on 05/17/2008, -6/+11***** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
  • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -4/+6I do agree with the Angry Voters site in saying that people should not be bailed out for getting in over their heads. But no, I don't think that this should have applied to Bear Sterns. If BS wasn't offered help a lot of bad things would have happened, much worse than the fed making a fairly small loan.

    I also agree with the WSJ article though. It was an editorial attacking the facade that this Angry Renter website is putting on. I don't see a problem with that. It's using deception to get people to sign its petition and join its cause. I would much rather see that done through each individual making their own educated decision, not through playing on their emotions and ignorance.
    • loggia, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1"If BS wasn't offered help a lot of bad things would have happened, much worse than the fed making a fairly small loan."

      I love that - "a lot of bad things." Very specific. And what do you think is going to happen when millions of people are foreclosed on? Who will patrol the empty homes? Who will pay the property tax? Who will face declining property values because half of your neighborhood is boarded up?

      You. Keep pushing for the "cut off my nose in spite of my face" economic plan. We sure will have a larf when those people are dumped out of their homes, bankrupt, can't contribute to the economy... Oh, won't we all gladly pay the piper for that, because we'll know we sure gave it too 'em good.

      What? Oh, you want to throw the people out of their homes AND not destroy the economy? OK, well, just close your eyes and say "nah nah nah can't hear you, Ben Bernanke, nah nah nah, can't hear you."
      • jeffiek, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3"...can't contribute to the economy"

        They'll contribute just about exactly as much to the economy after the foreclosure as they did before. They lose their assets (if they had any) not their income.

        All the foreclosures haven't resulted in hordes of people wandering the streets. They just become renters in an apartment they can afford. Which is where they should have been in the first place.
      • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2That was a fairly random rant. I'll try to reply and help you out; but honestly, I'm not even sure what you're getting at exactly.

        The fact is that if Bear Sterns was simply allowed to collapse it would have caused an immense amount of turmoil in the markets, the financial markets, housing markets, stock markets, etc. It would have been broad and sweeping, hurting every single person in the United States, as well as millions and millions of people outside of the United States.

        Is that specific enough for you?

        As for the rest of your comment: I don't know what you're saying exactly. Please clarify and I will be more than happy to reply to that as well.
        • Sidzilla, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2In the end it would have sorted itself out and the economy would have come back stronger because it wouldn't have been propped up with taxpayer dollars supporting a company that made bad financial decisions. They continue to make bad financial decisions and the government bailout only puts them in the position of continuing to do so. Like airline bailouts, the short term gain keeps companies that should fail in business, but they fail over the long haul anyway. Do you think that the Bear Sterns bailout did anything beyond delaying the inevitable? I prefer the quick pain of a market correction than the slow decay of everything I have worked for. At least if I lose everything in a market crash I can begin to build over again. This way I am treading water while the bathtub slowly drains.
        • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure what you mean by the Bear Sterns bailout delaying the inevitable:
          The inevitable happened. The company failed and was given a loan by the Fed and JP Morgan to keep it from going into bankruptcy. BS going insolvent would have absolutely decimated the markets, as well as any confidence that people here and abroad had in the American economy.

          As for your concern of taxpayer dollars being put to use to prevent an economic depression, well I don't see how you can intelligently argue against that. It wouldn't have simply been a market crash and it wouldn't have only affected the United States.

          If you have something against taxes being wasted, as I do, then there are many other things to complain and speak out against.
        • loggia, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1"The fact is that if Bear Sterns was simply allowed to collapse it would have caused an immense amount of turmoil in the markets, the financial markets, housing markets, stock markets, etc. It would have been broad and sweeping, hurting every single person in the United States, as well as millions and millions of people outside of the United States."

          No such fact. You make many assertions, without any proof. You just like the idea of us having to bail out big corporation more than the idea the idea of bailing out individual homeowners. It's frankly far more conceivable that letting millions be foreclosed would be far greater a blow to the economy than letting one banking giant fail. We let Arthur Anderson, one of the most reputable accounting firms ever, die a quick death. Life went on. We let Enron, one of the biggest energy companies in the world, implode. Life went on.

          If Bear Steans died, life would have gone on. I don't think you like either bailout, actually, but since we went ahead with the BS one, you seem to need to justify it.
  • ncurses, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4All you need to do to bash this is say the dude's name, Dick Armey.

    Dick Armey Dick Armey Dick Armey Dick Armey Dick Armey Dick Armey Dick Armey
  • HappyScrappy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+13I'm not a renter, although I am a homeowner/mortgagee who took the wise selection (30 year fixed mortgage on a house I could afford) and now is looking at a situation where those who made dumber decisions than I are given federal handouts.

    Stop rewarding people the people who make the dumbest decisions by bailing them out. It just encourages others to make dumb decisions.

    It doesn't look like a hit piece to me though. It seems to correctly name the backers of angryrenter.com, and what's wrong with that?
    • Crimsoneer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4God, somebody else who read the article. I'm shocked.
      People, please stop digging this article just because it backs our preconception of WSJ as right wing propaganda. The article actually has a point.
    • ncurses, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3congratulations you're not completely retarded
    • Olfster, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2What erks me even more is that these mortgage brokers are getting another stab at the pot of gold. These are the very people who aided in getting people into their predicament. Knock these crooks out of the game before helping anyone!
  • AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -1/+9I'm really confused.......WSJ is conservative, AngryRenters is conservative, I'm conservative.....but WSJ is attacking AngryRenters for being conservative??

    And now Digg is supporting a conservative ideal?! WTF>?!!
    • johnnyfistfight, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3I'm so confused my head hurts. Could it be the term "grassroots' is confusing the average digger.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Grassroots = automatic digg, so good move by the conservatives!
    • LanceBoyle, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Sounds like somebody didn't get paid off properly. After all, merely pretending to give a ***** about poor people is a time honored, Republican tactic.
  • zerobyproxy, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3This is crap spam. Bury it.
    • Serial0Hacker, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0To Bury it would be a full blown construction project.
  • LoneRanger85, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4I always have to laugh when an expose is labeled as a "hit piece." If the TRUTH is a hit piece, then you are doing something wrong.
  • NelsonR, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Irrespective of the signers of this petition the government will do what the government wants to do and there are to many special interest groups in favor of another bailout. That's reality,
    Pass the bill for payment to the next generation.
  • dakbonsa, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2I read WSJ everyday since it directly relates to my job (financial services)..
    but ever since Bancroft Family sold the newspaper to Murdoch..... I am leaning towards FT.
  • loggia, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Dang, read the article, folks.

    The website is a phony, run by Steve Forbes and rich friends of Steve Forbes, inciting people to ask for something that will, yes, benefit Steve Forbes! And his rich friends!

  • loggia, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Um, any rich conservative people actually fighting to keep our rents down. WSJ, Steve Forbes, the fake/real AngryRenter.com?

    Anyone?

    Didn't think so.
  • plaboon, on 05/17/2008, -4/+0So know one is going to even bring up that Obama is also backed by Wall Street jsut like the other two candidates? You bring up Obama in every post except where you should - he is as crooked McCain or Hillary...

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wall_s ...
  • lhbaker, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Somebody better make a mirror....
  • dmourati, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4There's a flip side to all of this.

    "For starters, a sharp spike in foreclosures will increase the number of houses up for sale; additional inventory in an already glutted market will further depress prices. Second, houses in foreclosure generally fall into disrepair. Clumps of empty, boarded-up dwellings surrounded by weeds lower prices not only in the immediate area but also in nearby neighborhoods. And for every 1 percent increase in the foreclosure rate, a neighborhood's violent-crime rate rises 2.3 percent, according to a study by Dan Immergluck of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Geoff Smith of the Woodstock Institute."

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/22/real_estate/homeow ...
    • Olfster, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Weeds can actually be very attractive landscaping if designed right.
  • harsesus, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1"It's (Angry Renter) a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington."

    Read the WSJ article people... its left leaning, Angry Renter is a right wing smoke screen to ***** over the poor.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121090164137297527 ...
  • eliot2000, on 05/17/2008, -3/+9The site is a sham Republican AstroTurf campaign.
    As a renter, I do look forward to getting into a home. About a year ago, I applied for a $110,000 house (which is moderate here) with payments that I could well afford, with money to spare and was declined.
    If I had gotten that house, I would be paying far more than I could afford, and it would not have been foolishness on my part. The house is still on the market, and valued far below what I would be paying on because the housing market was driven way up by speculators and banks giving loans for far more than homes were worth.
    Mortgage companies got rich being reckless. Home buyers are being broken because they believed the economy would remain stable, not because they were buying outside their price range. Do we really want this country to become a place where buying a home for your family is an act of wasteful extravagance?
    When you vote this November, think of someone you love trying to make a house payment they can't afford, and remember that the Republican party tried to convince you they were reckless whiners who got what was coming to them.
    • eggsovereasy, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Just because I love someone it doesn't mean they aren't an idiot and the ***** government should bail them out and frankly I do think many of my friends are reckless whiners when they do stupid ass ***** and they have to pay for it. Your post is *****. There are plenty of reasons not to vote Republican, no need to appeal to emotion.
    • MrBJ49, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Do we really want this country to become a place where buying a home for your family is an act of wasteful extravagance?

      Unbelievable comment!!!

      Banks offering interest-only loans!!! People taking these loans only have one thing in mind---making a quick buck...the economy finally STABILIZED and now the quick buck is not there and the idiots aren't even building equity or providing for their families....that's wasteful extravagance.. if the government really wants to help they may consider keeping a closer eye on creative banking practices.
    • gobbleplex, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Wasteful extravagence is taking out a home equity loan to buy plasma TVs and late model hummers.

      We're *already* living in a time when buying a home is an extravagence, and the only thing that will fix that is the housing prices to come in line with wages. That either has to happen by having wages rise or the housing prices correct. I
    • anubis2night, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I was a real estate agent and I have also been in property management for the last 10 years. I can tell you that while your case is unique in that once you were denied you didn't take the lesser road of stated income or creative loan agreements to get into the house you wanted. And I applaud you on that, it would seem that you were rewarded with the knowledge that you didn't overpay for the house nor were you stuck in a loan that might balloon out of your affordable means. But yours is the singular case here and while it's commendable it's hardly the norm. I got out of the industry just as it was about to collapse mostly because I wasn't making much money for what I was spending. This was due to the mindset of both lenders, and buyers. While lenders might bend the rules for profit there were also many great lenders that knew their fiduciary duty as I did and took it seriously. The result often times was perspective buyers that knew they couldn't qualify and simply went to another lender until they got the answer they wanted to hear. This basing your reality and future on what what you want your reality to be is what got us in this predicament. I remember a couple of times people coming down from larger cities to purchase a 2nd home for an investment taking the credit out of their just recently purchased home merely because they had a large sum of equity accumulated in a year and a half. Now prudence told me that this person shouldn't make that kind of decision. Since they were fairly lucky that they got the original house based on a great loan. But when coupling what they make against the value and payments of both homes it was a house of cards rather than a solid investment. The only thing that made the math make sense was the rising value of homes, but what makes value of homes go up? Demand. Demand can't always go on with a market based on speculation and everyone even first time buyers were gambling on speculation. They would get into a house they could afford with a fixed rate loan instead opting for a 0 or 1% adjustable rate mortgage hoping that the value of the houses would rise in 2 - 3 years to justify them being able to refinance their homes into a fixed rate mortgage, thus they could get away with not having the 20 - 30% down for a home. Their thinking also counted on them getting large enough raises to afford the invariably larger rate that a fixed rate loan would be set at in 2 years time. In both of these scenarios people were making decisions on would be pie in the sky, best of all world outcomes. The sad truth was that like all bubbles some people will get in an out unscathed but those people got in at the beginning and the ones that survived the fallout knew when to quit. Many of the troubles we've seen are from the scenarios I both witnessed and outlined above. I got out because I refused to get caught up in this type of thinking. It's a quick fix band aid mentality and doesn't do your client, yourself, nor the economy any good. I mentioned a fiduciary duty earlier, it's what we as real estate professionals are supposed to do, the problem with the housing bubble was far too many people didn't take that duty seriously, and the buyers as a result didn't value that duty when it was presented to them. Instead they bought in to the dream, but make no mistake, they knew what the down side of that dream was the gamble they were taking. They choose to make it anyway. Bailing these people out will only reward them for these choices and that will only give rise to the next speculator's bubble.Be it tech stock's, housing, oil, energy or some other get rich quick at the expense of others scheme. It's time to stop those antics and get back to the ethics of america in the 30 - 50's. Were hard work and saving paid off.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 05/17/2008, -3/+6***** Rupert Murdoch. Kick him out of America.
  • mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -5/+2Who cares what renters think? There is a reason you dont own a house, its because you failed at life and are pissing your money into someone else's pocket.
    • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2The very same logic could be used to dismiss Mortgages as well.

      I don't think that you've thought your argument out very well, unless you're advocating the purchase of homes that cost several hundred thousand dollars with cash...
      • punx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Sorry, but are you dead from the neck up, Qong? The difference between renting and owning, even with a mortgage, is that you still OWN that house. Renters never will own that house, they just make the mortgage payment with no benefits. When the time comes, renters will be booted from said house, and where is their profit? Oh, that's right, they have none, no equity, and no ownership, etc, because they were too busy paying someone else's mortgage.
        • gobbleplex, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Try telling the government you "own" a house and therefore don't have to pay your rent (taxes) on it and they have no right to evict you (imminent domain) whenever they want to.
        • Qong, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Did you read his comment? Perhaps you're the one that is dead from the neck up:

          "There is a reason you dont own a house, its because you failed at life and are pissing your money into someone else's pocket."

          That is a direct quote from his comment, I was simply pointing out the fact that he is also pissing his money into someone else's pocket by paying a mortgage.


          And as for your ridiculously ignorant comment:

          There is no guarantee that you are going to make any profit at all when you purchase a piece of property. As can be seen from the current housing bubble.

          The fact is that many people rent apartments in these things called apartment buildings. They are huge buildings in big cities built to house large amounts of people in small spaces. It is far cheaper to rent an apartment in these places than to purchase the land.

          I suppose that you live out in the middle of nowhere though, which is likely considering the ignorance portrayed in your comment; but some of us live in cities, wherein unless you have several million dollars to invest in real estate, the chances of you owning any property in the area are nil.
  • username484767, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2You need to firebomb the banks and such. When will you ***** people learn that petitions and bitching will do nothing, Molotov cocktails just might.
    And yes I rent and it ***** sucks donkey dingo, the houses around here cost $500,000-$1,000,000 for just a normal old 3 bedroom small-medium house or condo, WTF ASSHOLES
    • Olfster, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Move to Florida. I hear they think their homes are worth 500k but no one seems to believe them, including me. I think the worst part of any bail out of homeowners, other than I can not partake, is that it keeps prices artificially high thus making it hard on people such as yourself.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Most renters reflexively vote Democrat because they are too stupid to realize that the proposed mortgage bailout hurts them the most.
    • sassafras1232, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it's too bad that we have to have things like ending the Iraq war, universal health care, and environmental protections bundled into a party platform with this mortgage bailout. Two-party system FTL. I'll still vote Democrat.
  • cr8vnrg, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2If you are left-leaning and agree with Angry Renter, you are being duped... again...

    A bailout at this point is necessary because of lending deregulation during the late 90's that was applauded by people like Steve Forbes and Dick Armey. Don't be fooled.
    • Sidzilla, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Lets see, that would have been during the Clinton administration? Or early Bush? There is no difference. the bottom line is that left, right, or middle, no one else should pay because I screwed up, no matter why I screwed up. It's no worse than a renter being evicted for having loud parties. They move in somewhere else and life goes on. Just a few fat cats don't get a big bonus that year. How much is the bear Sterns CEO going to get in bonuses this year?
  • govsucks, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3So liberals give the government the ability to take money from people in the name of the "Common good" and somehow people think that they will stop with welfare for brood mares and bums? No, no, they will take money for ANYTHING they can declare as being for the "Common good". This "liberal" interpretation of the "Common good" wording in the constitution WILL come back to bite us all in the ass mark my words.

    Iraq war = "common good"
    Government listening to phone calls = "common good"
    Taking money from my child for someone else's child = "common good".
    Wireless government camera in your home = "common good"
    Government mandated diet CERTAINLY = "common good"
    Taking someone's home or land and giving it to Wal-Mart to increase government tax revenue = "common good"
    See how easy and fun this is, thanks for opening pandoras box liberals!
    • 5xSTUN, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I'm confused by your assertion.

      Are you saying that conservatives are running up unprecedented deficits and starting unwinnable and incredibly costly wars because they learned from "liberals" that it's okay to do that?

      Is The New Deal the "pandoras box" to which you're referring?
    • govsucks, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2They are not conservatives or constitutionalists
  • 5xSTUN, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1The public radio program This American Life did an in-depth story about the inner-workings of this crisis. It's worth a listen, even if you don't agree with the conclusion the show reaches that the blame for the fiasco is most reasonably distributed among the entire chain of transactions. (You know what I mean, that the home buyers should've done their own research, the banks should've been more careful and less greedy, the market should've paid more attention to the economists, and so on.)

    More than anything, the crisis is the result of a lot of misplaced optimism.

    http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
  • edmoser, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1As much as this whole situation sucks, you have to understand the reasons behind it. The gov't isn't doing this just to bail out these people; it's doing it because the economy depends on it. As a renter myself, the fact that we have to bail out a bunch of idiots who took risks and lost infuriates me, but it's a necessary evil. The next logical step isn't to fight the bailout, but rather to change the law so people can't take these kinds of risks to begin with.
  • httpgeek, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2causes for this...

    1. people taking out ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) loans, then being stupid to take out a HELOC (home equity line of credit) against the value they have on their home, Basically the average home owner being completely ***** stupid.
    2. lending companies with no over sight, and no punishment for predatory lending.

    result...

    big companies crying for a bail out or they will lay off people and laying off people doesn't get someone re-elected.

    so i blame stupid home owners, and the government for not punishing predatory lenders cause instead they just bail them out.
  • jmkiii, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1sign it
    http://angryrenter.com/open_letter.php
  • NoBailouts, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1To anyone who thinks this is a bogus project, check out some of the comments rom people who've signed the petition, this is a real concern to many Americans. You can view them at: http://angryrenter.com/view_all.php
  • klooper, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Angry renters? Hell, they all live in million dollar homes. Don't be a dupe. AngryRenter is funded by conservative a-holes. I didn't hear angryrenter complaining when the government bailed out Bear Stearns. No, they are backing up banks that don't want to be forced to renegotiate mortgage rates that they accrued by predatory lending practices. Everyone associated with this site is a lobbyist.

    Think twice about digging this story. Then think again. Buried.
    • Wbennett22, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Looking at the signatures, AngryRenter wasn't even up until almost a month after the Bear Stearns bailout.

      And the site clearly says: "Quite simply, we are just Angry Renters. And now it is our time to be heard: no government bailouts!" ... I think that is referring to all bailouts.

      They are a free-market organization, I'm quite confident that they weren't for the bailout.
  • Wbennett22, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1These arguments saying that people shouldn't sign this petition simply because it's funded by someone? I hate to break it to you, but in order to get 50,000 signers and get that to the Hill in a small window of time, it's going to take some help. I have no problems with this.

    Wow, they even put it at the bottom of the AngryRenter website in the copyright "FreedomWorks", as well as in a few other places. This isn't deceiving, folks!

    I think this clearly illustrates the problem we're now facing. People don't read the fine print before they sign something. If borrowers completely read the terms of their loans, this problem would be reduced. If people read the FAQ's or the Privacy Policy of Angry Renter, they would know who is running it, what they stand for, and then make their decision based on that.

    If you wanted to know more about them... wow, they even link to the main site.

    And for you more technical folks, simply look-up the who-is, on this. If they wanted to hide something, they would have left it anonymous.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.