• 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!

Obama to Unveil $1.5 Billion in Housing Assistance in Vegas

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

Updated February 19, 2010
AP
President Obama is unveiling $1.5 billion in housing help, a boost timed to his appearance in the city with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation.

President Obama is unveiling $1.5 billion in housing help, a boost timed to his appearance in the city with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation.
Obama's move, detailed by aides in advance of his town hall here Friday, is the latest by a White House determined to show it is helping families rebound from a deep recession. The downturn is taking an election-year toll on Obama's party as voter frustration builds.
Obama was to announce that housing finance agencies in the five hardest-hit states in the housing crisis will receive $1.5 billion to help spur local solutions to the problem. Those five are Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada.
The policy wrinkle comes during a two-day Western trip with different agendas for the president. He will be back in town-hall mode, a venue that aides say allows him to connect with people and distance himself from the messy process of Washington governing.
The president is also out to help vulnerable senators protect their seats and, in turn, gain as much legislative leverage as he can.
As some of us have stated here comes the stimulus money to save the Democrats.
 
Heaven forbid, government actually helping people! Jeez. :roll:
 
Yeah, this is a "Help Harry Reid" campaign contribution, and nothing more.
 
Yeah, this is a "Help Harry Reid" campaign contribution, and nothing more.

Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates, highest house foreclosures, and lowest education in the country. This is hardly a Help Harry Reid campaign. Besides Reid is going to be done election time. I would wager to say that most people in Nevada are not happy with his performance, including me.
 
Heaven forbid, government actually helping people! Jeez. :roll:

If by "helping people" you mean "stealing money from productive citizens and future generations to bail out irresponsible home owners", then, yes, I would certainly agree with you.
 
Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates, highest house foreclosures, and lowest education in the country.

So what? That's Nevada's problem. You're free to dedicate your own money to their economic recovery - nothing's stopping you...
 
Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates, highest house foreclosures, and lowest education in the country. This is hardly a Help Harry Reid campaign. Besides Reid is going to be done election time. I would wager to say that most people in Nevada are not happy with his performance, including me.

Start shipping out the illegal immigrants & watch the unemployment rates drop & the education level rise.....;)
With regard to the foreclosures, how many of those were spec houses bought by specualtors who got caught with their pants down?....:roll:
 
If by "helping people" you mean "stealing money from productive citizens and future generations to bail out irresponsible home owners", then, yes, I would certainly agree with you.

Overgeneralize much?

When people loose their jobs or have their hours cut, they're "irresponsible" because..?:confused:
 
Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates, highest house foreclosures, and lowest education in the country. This is hardly a Help Harry Reid campaign. Besides Reid is going to be done election time. I would wager to say that most people in Nevada are not happy with his performance, including me.

Unfortunately your single unitary vote will be lost in the crowd.
 
Overgeneralize much?

When people loose their jobs or have their hours cut, they're "irresponsible" because..?:confused:

They bought something they couldn't afford and made other people pay for it.
 
Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates, highest house foreclosures, and lowest education in the country. This is hardly a Help Harry Reid campaign. Besides Reid is going to be done election time. I would wager to say that most people in Nevada are not happy with his performance, including me.
That can happen when you roll the dice.
 
Start shipping out the illegal immigrants & watch the unemployment rates drop & the education level rise.....;)
With regard to the foreclosures, how many of those were spec houses bought by specualtors who got caught with their pants down?....:roll:
Run Reid out of the state and watch the IQ rise.
 
Obama helped to fuel unemployment in NV with his statements which directly cost jobs when over 400 conventions canceled, over $300 millions dollars were lost and the over all economy crash push housing prices down. A home that was $200,000 in 2008 is now as low as $50,000 today.
Obama ie trying to plug a hole in the dam he helped create by thowing some of the 2/3 of the stimulus more still un used at the problem.

He's a dumb ass and he thinks it will mend some of the fences he and Reid have torn down.

I think it's too late to save Reid and Obama in 20012.

Remember the Dems we don't dump in 2010 can be dumped in 1012 along with Obama, and we can start to restore the Constitution and our Nation and the economy and trash the Liberal/Socialist plans they are now shoving down our collective throats like it or not.
 
Beginning of this year the U.S. unemployment rate should be improved.
 
They bought something they couldn't afford and made other people pay for it.

That statement is hands down the most idiotic statement of the week.

Let's put in context for all to see.

I asked:

When people loose their jobs or have their hours cut, they're "irresponsible" because..?:confused:

And your answer:

They bought something they couldn't afford and made other people pay for it.

So, in your mind, people should never get a loan unless the can afford to repay it without working--meaning they already have the principal saved up prior to getting the loan--just in case the economy takes a downturn and they get laid off.

And the loan officer who reviewed their application and approved it, doesn't he bear some responsibility? Shouldn't he have been able to see 5 years down the road and predict the borrower would be making less money?

Or the upstart loan broker trying to make a name for himself (and collect some fast fees) by bringing in as many borrowers as possible through deceptive and misleading practices.

These people didn't plan to lose their jobs or get sick and then get behind in the mortgages.:(
 
Obama helped to fuel unemployment in NV with his statements which directly cost jobs when over 400 conventions canceled,

Please, show us the 400 conventions that cancelled as a result of President Obama telling people not to "blow" the kids college money in vegas...

Please... just this once, back up one of your asinine comments with some actual facts.

Tell us the names of all 400 conventions that pulled out immediately after the comment because they were so afraid that their people would be "blowing" college saving...

Show the statements of the company planners...
 
That statement is hands down the most idiotic statement of the week.

If you subtract every other statement made on the board starting of course with yours, then its absolutely true. :2wave:

So, in your mind, people should never get a loan unless the can afford to repay it without working--meaning they already have the principal saved up prior to getting the loan--just in case the economy takes a downturn and they get laid off.

And the loan officer who reviewed their application and approved it, doesn't he bear some responsibility? Shouldn't he have been able to see 5 years down the road and predict the borrower would be making less money?

Or the upstart loan broker trying to make a name for himself (and collect some fast fees) by bringing in as many borrowers as possible through deceptive and misleading practices.

These people didn't plan to lose their jobs or get sick and then get behind in the mortgages.:(

Its that kind of mindless planning that brought on this latest crisis in the market.

Liberals like yourself forced the banks to make loans to people WHO COULD NOT AFFORD THEM based on some moronic emotional based claim and guess what happened, they defaulted on the loans costing the banks billions and plunging us into recession.

I don't expect you to grasp this because you are far to wrapped up in your liberal emotions to see the logic behind this but it needed to be said.

I once told you Ryan, if only one fact gets out its a victory...
 
If you subtract every other statement made on the board starting of course with yours, then its absolutely true. :2wave:



Its that kind of mindless planning that brought on this latest crisis in the market.

Liberals like yourself forced the banks to make loans to people WHO COULD NOT AFFORD THEM based on some moronic emotional based claim and guess what happened, they defaulted on the loans costing the banks billions and plunging us into recession.

I don't expect you to grasp this because you are far to wrapped up in your liberal emotions to see the logic behind this but it needed to be said.

Yet another example of how getting your news from an non-news editorial source source (FOX/talk Radio) leaves you completely ignorant about an issue.

Tell you what, sport, why don't you get yourself up to speed on CRA.

The history, the numerous legislative changes over the years including FIRREA (Bush I), who lobbied for them, who voted for them, and who benefited from them.

Do a little reading and get back to me -- because when you're talking out of your ass, there's really no point to even trying to explain it to you.
 
If by "helping people" you mean "stealing money from productive citizens and future generations to bail out irresponsible home owners", then, yes, I would certainly agree with you.

You do know future generations are dependent on the poverty levels today right? The more people who end up being poor the less of a future the next generation actually has. It is the reason 100 years ago, the only people who actually had any future at all were people with a lot of money. Everybody else was working ****ty jobs, living in squalor and dying from tooth decay. But I do not expect any Libertarians to actually think past what is right in front of them.

The best part about it is that you use to be in the military. You know. A group that benefits from all the "stealing" our government does. You know what? Why don't you return to me all the money that the government took from me without my consent? I bet you won't. I guess stealing is okay sometimes.
 
Last edited:
That statement is hands down the most idiotic statement of the week.

Let's put in context for all to see.

I asked:



And your answer:



So, in your mind, people should never get a loan unless the can afford to repay it without working--meaning they already have the principal saved up prior to getting the loan--just in case the economy takes a downturn and they get laid off.

People shouldn't get a mortgage if losing their job for a few months will cause them to default. Buying a house without any savings is just plain idiotic. Any sensible person should know that losing their job is a possibility, which makes their failure to plan for such an eventuality an act of irresponsibility; doubly so when they force society and our unborn children to incur the costs.

And the loan officer who reviewed their application and approved it, doesn't he bear some responsibility? Shouldn't he have been able to see 5 years down the road and predict the borrower would be making less money?

If the loan officer was wrong then the bank will lose money. If they lose enough money they will go out of business. Problem solved.

Or the upstart loan broker trying to make a name for himself (and collect some fast fees) by bringing in as many borrowers as possible through deceptive and misleading practices.

These people didn't plan to lose their jobs or get sick and then get behind in the mortgages.:(

Again, why should any of this concern me? I didn't make the damn loan and I sure as hell didn't sign the mortgage agreement. If the deal goes south then the bank and the homeowner are left holding the bag, as it should be.
 
You do know future generations are dependent on the poverty levels today right? The more people who end up being poor the less of a future the next generation actually has. It is the reason 100 years ago, the only people who actually had any future at all were people with a lot of money. Everybody else was working ****ty jobs, living in squalor and dying from tooth decay. But I do not expect any Libertarians to actually think past what is right in front of them.

What does this have to do with bailing people out that couldn't pay their mortgages?

The best part about it is that you use to be in the military. You know. A group that benefits from all the "stealing" our government does. You know what? Why don't you return to me all the money that the government took from me without my consent? I bet you won't. I guess stealing is okay sometimes.

The Constitution allows for a military, which means it's legal to fund it via taxation, which means it's not stealing, since you consent to be governed by the Constitution.

Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying I should have served for free?
 
People shouldn't get a mortgage if losing their job for a few months will cause them to default. Buying a house without any savings is just plain idiotic. Any sensible person should know that losing their job is a possibility, which makes their failure to plan for such an eventuality an act of irresponsibility; doubly so when they force society and our unborn children to incur the costs.

A few months...

What a nice perfect little world you live in where people are able to find work in their field so quickly...



If the loan officer was wrong then the bank will lose money. If they lose enough money they will go out of business. Problem solved.

Try to follow along:

  • Existing loans were packaged as mortgage-backed securities.
  • Credit rating agencies overvalued this paper which was sold to investors all over the world.
  • The collapse of the housing bubble caused the values of securities tied to real estate pricing to plummet.
  • This resulted in a liquidity shortfall in the banking system and declines in credit availability.

Businesses could not make payroll, or stock their stores, or purchase equipment because the big banks stopped lending. In other words, we were all almost totally Screwed!

Again, why should any of this concern me? I didn't make the damn loan and I sure as hell didn't sign the mortgage agreement. If the deal goes south then the bank and the homeowner are left holding the bag, as it should be.

See above -- it was a little more complicated then that.
 
What does this have to do with bailing people out that couldn't pay their mortgages?

Can you tell us what happens when people lose their homes? Have you ever lost your home? Obviously not. I'll give you a clue. You do not lose your home because you simply can't pay your mortgage. You usually start by losing your job that leads to not being able to pay your mortgage. Given the economy and the lack of jobs there are, people do not go to a smaller house. A sizeable percentage end up with no house. It is how we've ended up with tent cities in California.

Now that you understand how somebody loses their home it is clear that allowing people to sink further and further into poverty harms future generations more than any kind of redistribution of wealth ever could. The proof is in the last 500 years.

Can you name a time at which the human race has been more prosperous than in the last 120? I can't. It was only when governments started taking active steps to protect citizens from poverty that western civilization stopped having people die by millions from preventable diseases, having massive amounts of crime and major cities live in complete squalor.

It is simply not in the interests of the future generations you talk about to have the massive amounts of poverty that not doing anything would most certainly bring.

The Constitution allows for a military, which means it's legal to fund it via taxation, which means it's not stealing, since you consent to be governed by the Constitution.

The Constitution also says that it is the government's job to provide for the welfare of citizens in the U.S. - allowing the large amount of "irresponsible home owners" to fall into any further poverty would go against that - do you not think? So what do we have? Your double standard considering taxation. It is not stealing if it benefits you.

Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying I should have served for free?

You did volunteer. I didn't ask you to volunteer. Nor did I ever agree to pay for your salary. But here, let's replace your quote with this :

"stealing money from productive citizens and future generations to pay the salaries of kids who couldn't get into university"

See? I can play the generalizations game too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom