• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama: Romney Lacks "Serious Ideas"

MaggieD said:
Where are your links, my fine feathered friend? CRA regulations relaxed all lending rules and regulations.

I witnessed people who no money down buy homes; I was their Realtor. I saw people get their downpayments from the Seller through Federal programs such as AmeriDream thru FHA and, damn, I can't remember the other name, more popular. I saw appraisers use those AmeriDream hokey sales to increase value by 6% immediately after purchase. (Bush outlawed these programs in 2008...too late.)

I lived it, Adam. I saw what our government did to cause this meltdown. And the CRA started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I've problably posted the links 20 times ... I'll do so again if you really want.

I perfectly understand that no-paperwork mortgages were as common as dirt, but those kinds of loans are actually forbidden under CRA regs, which specifically require lenders to take into consideration the ability of the borrower to pay. That's why your Countrywides and your HSBCs were among the biggest subprime lenders.

Okay, I will provide some facts to back it up:

2006: Private Firms Issued About Six Out Of Every Seven Subprime Mortgages. As reported by McClatchy:

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. [McClatchy, 10/12/08, emphasis added]

2008: The 15 Largest Subprime Servicers Were All Private Companies, Despite Large Drops In The Volume Of Their Subprime Business Compared To 2007.

Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act | Political Correction
Click to expand...

In other words, this was a crisis engineered by private equity firms -- not government. Hmm, that rings a bell; isn't there some guy saying he wants to run the government like a private equity firm?
 
Bronson said:
Laughable

Obama has destroyed millions of jobs with his failed economic policies and regulations on energy companies. He's stopped all drilling off the gulf and won't issue permits for any drilling on Federal Land. Romney's energy plan is release private sector exploration and innovation with fracking technology. Look at the unemployment rate in S Dakota at 4.3%. That's Romney's Plan. Obama's plan is 15% Real Unemployment after 5 trillion spent. People like you don't understand economics and you fail to grasp even it's most basic concepts. You rely on pictures with emotional platitudes like children, who lack critical thinking skills.

Wind Power relies on Federal subsidies to survive. So did Solyndra and all the other Green Scam companies that went bankrupt? :roll: If wind power is viable, take away the Federal money and see how it does on it's own.
Click to expand...

You need to educate yourself on what Obama has done, I don't know who you are listening to but how about checking out your facts before you put them on DP.
 
AdamT said:
Honestly, I've problably posted the links 20 times ... I'll do so again if you really want.

I perfectly understand that no-paperwork mortgages were as common as dirt, but those kinds of loans are actually forbidden under CRA regs, which specifically require lenders to take into consideration the ability of the borrower to pay. That's why your Countrywides and your HSBCs were among the biggest subprime lenders.

Okay, I will provide some facts to back it up:

In other words, this was a crisis engineered by private equity firms -- not government. Hmm, that rings a bell; isn't there some guy saying he wants to run the government like a private equity firm?
Click to expand...

I appreciate your posting up some information. Media Matters.

We will continue to disagree on this, Adam. Me from my own experience and factual information. You with no experience other than reading the media spin.
 
MaggieD said:
I appreciate your posting up some information. Media Matters.

We will continue to disagree on this, Adam. Me from my own experience and factual information. You with no experience other than reading the media spin.
Click to expand...

Some people are impervious to facts, choosing instead to draw bad conclusions from anecdotal evidence. :shrugs:

So this conclusion by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will in no way alter your opinion:

In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing
goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was
enacted in 1977 to combat “redlining” by banks—the practice of denying credit to individuals
and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness.
The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide
services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank
safety and soundness.

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending
or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates
only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to
the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they
were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same
neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
Some people are impervious to facts, choosing instead to draw bad conclusions from anecdotal evidence. :shrugs:

So this conclusion by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will in no way alter your opinion:
Click to expand...

Okay. I will have to think about this, Adam. I appreciate your going to the trouble of looking this up and presenting it here. Part of my reason for being on DP is to learn. Perhaps I'll have to re-evaluate my own experiences in light of this information. I think I'm just about ready to say that the CRA didn't contribute significantly to the mortgage crisis.

The policies of the FHA, however, did, in my opinion. You'll have to do more work to convince me otherwise. ;) ;) Almost all of the business I did in real estate was (Ooooo!!! Nehemiah Program! That's the name I couldn't think of!) financed by "conforming loans" -- Fanny/Freddie guidelines. More FHA than anything else because their underwriting requirements were much less strict ratio-wise. Seeing clients lulled into getting 3-yr adjustables, low-interest teasers for a year or two, no-money-down mortgages, etc., Nehemiah/AmeriDream programs, all FHA-sanctioned, cannot help but reinforce my belief that our own government failed homeowners big time.

Thanks for the discussion. I learned something today. See ya' around the boards. :)
 
CONSagainROMNEY said:
I bring up the NAZIs because they were socialists. And they are the example that history has provided us with as to what kinds of abuses are capable of being done under the system of socialism. And I think it is CERTAINLY something to keep in mind here - we must always be mindful of history imo. Socialism conforms people. The mandate is trying to conform people into a unified health care system. It is forcing people into going alonq with things that are against their principles.
Click to expand...

...actually, they were fascists, not socialists. The NAZI's pretty much hated communism and socialism.

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, socialism seems to have a pretty broad definition, then and now. There are elements of socialism in every economy, including ours, but to varying to degrees. For the most part, however, the term socialist in our country has a connotation of evil... and many tend to want to brand someone as socialist simply because they are to the left of their political thinking. ie... Obama has been called a socialist, but he is very far from it.... then, there are those that want to think that socialism and communism are fundamentally the same thing. Of course, those people lose the argument that Hitler was a socialist, as he despised communism for than just about anything.

Sorry, but one of Hitler's first actions was to ban left wing parties, which then led to their leaders being rounded up.

The Third Reich - Consolidation of Power: German History


... but, back to your main point about what Nazi abuse tells us.... not much about socialism, but far more about military dictatorships, particularly those that are founded on nationalism and ethnic purity.
 
upsideguy said:
...actually, they were fascists, not socialists. The NAZI's pretty much hated communism and socialism.

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, socialism seems to have a pretty broad definition, then and now. There are elements of socialism in every economy, including ours, but to varying to degrees. For the most part, however, the term socialist in our country has a connotation of evil... and many tend to want to brand someone as socialist simply because they are to the left of their political thinking. ie... Obama has been called a socialist, but he is very far from it.... then, there are those that want to think that socialism and communism are fundamentally the same thing. Of course, those people lose the argument that Hitler was a socialist, as he despised communism for than just about anything.

Sorry, but one of Hitler's first actions was to ban left wing parties, which then led to their leaders being rounded up.

The Third Reich - Consolidation of Power: German History


... but, back to your main point about what Nazi abuse tells us.... not much about socialism, but far more about military dictatorships, particularly those that are founded on nationalism and ethnic purity.
Click to expand...

The NAZI got the people of Germany to be reliant on them. They provided them with food, benefits, clothing, etc. They made it so that the fortunes of these folks went hand-in-hand with the fortunes of the NAZIs.
That mentality of making folks too reliant on Big Government is very dangerous. That dependency can be used to manipulate people, conform their ideas and actions, CONTROL them.
Certainly I am not against all (or een MOST) social programs. What I am against is when people start to look to the government first for ALL their needs, instead of using their own individual meddle. I mean, we might as well all just be sheep following the herder, if that is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom