Excellent article on the Tea Party movement

[Dr. Shane]

In July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed.

[Dr. Shane]

Home ownership was declared a right.

Please provide the name of the person or group that declared this right. When was the declaration made? What new organization reported it? I never heard about this declaration.

I did hear President Bush touting the home ownership figures during his state of the union addresses. Home ownership did rise during the Bush Administration - especially by minorities. Home ownership is good for society. Communities where the majority of the residents are home owners tend to have less crime than those filled with renters. Property values also tend to increase more rapidly. So it makes a lot of sense for the government to adopt policies making it easier and encouraging people, especially the low income, to own homes.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: karl

You consistently sound like a shill for the liberal agenda, Shane.

I'm going to have to agree with him Shill. I mean Shane.

When Bush was President, all the liberals called me a conservative. Now that Obama is President, all the conservatives call me a liberal. That probably means I am right in the middle. I am left of the conservatives and right of the liberals. That is what is also known as being a moderate. We decided elections.

[Guest]

The Liberals were wrong. You have never been a conservative.

And yes you may be a part of the crowd that decides elections. (Go ahead and pat yourself on the back)

But I can't think of too many good things to say about that crowd. Most of them simply don't know what they believe. They don't want to commit, one way or the other, so they stay undecided until the last minute, basking in the attention they get from the media as "undecideds". Then just before it is too late, they decide which way to vote. Many of them on the flip of a coin.

And then they proudly say: "I'm a moderate".

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't had to flip a coin yet. I normally vote during early voting. This year I will be voting for our Democrat Congressman and our Republican governor.

Now, that said, I have worked on three congressional campaigns for Republicans. I have worked on one state senate campaign for Republicans and one US Senate campaign for a Republican. I have never worked on a Democratic campaign.

[bonnie]

The Liberals were wrong. You have never been a conservative.

And yes you may be a part of the crowd that decides elections. (Go ahead and pat yourself on the back)

But I can't think of too many good things to say about that crowd. Most of them simply don't know what they believe. They don't want to commit, one way or the other, so they stay undecided until the last minute, basking in the attention they get from the media as "undecideds". Then just before it is too late, they decide which way to vote. Many of them on the flip of a coin.

And then they proudly say: "I'm a moderate".

A sentence from the bible comes to mind whenever I see "I am a moderate"

It seems God would rather we be either hot or cold.Not undecided and trying to fit into both

[bonnie]

Please provide the name of the person or group that declared this right. When was the declaration made? What new organization reported it? I never heard about this declaration.

[Guest]

Yep

[bonnie]

Home ownership is good for society. Communities where the majority of the residents are home owners tend to have less crime than those filled with renters. Property values also tend to increase more rapidly. So it makes a lot of sense for the government to adopt policies making it easier and encouraging people, especially the low income, to own homes.

The above is a great idea isn't it? Sadly it often is not true. My husband contracted with HUD for a few years.

Homes renovated were made available to minorities or those meeting the poverty level.Very generous and easy terms. My husband did all the painting and minor repairs . It was very predictable. 12-14 months he would be back revamping the same house again. Houses were a mess,broken windows,cupboard doors off the hinges and even feces on the bathroom walls.

That doesn't even deal with the non payment for most of that year.

[Dr. Shane]

Anecdotal evidence does not establish anything. Many studies have been done which show that an increase in home ownership decreases crime. In addition to that studies have shown children of home owners do better in school regardless of the economic class, marital status or education level of the parents. Homeowners are more likely to vote than renters. Homeowners are more likely to feel happy and satisfied with life. Homeowners increase the property value in their neighborhoods.

I am still waiting on who exactly it was that declared home ownership was a right. I have a sneaking suspicion it was something Rush Limbaugh said. Some good old red Kool-aid.

[Dr. Shane]

A sentence from the bible comes to mind whenever I see "I am a moderate"

It seems God would rather we be either hot or cold.

I think it would be a sin to compare a political moderate with someone who is religious lukewarm. Not sure a person would burn in hell for that but certainly not something that would make the angels dance. Well,,, anyway,,, if we can separate church from state and know the difference between the political and the religious,,, maybe we can continue this conversation.

[bonnie]

Anecdotal evidence does not establish anything. Many studies have been done which show that an increase in home ownership decreases crime. In addition to that studies have shown children of home owners do better in school regardless of the economic class, marital status or education level of the parents. Homeowners are more likely to vote than renters. Homeowners are more likely to feel happy and satisfied with life. Homeowners increase the property value in their neighborhoods.

I am still waiting on who exactly it was that declared home ownership was a right. I have a sneaking suspicion it was something Rush Limbaugh said. Some good old red Kool-aid.

No it was not Rush Limbaugh.

Home after home after home could very well be anecdotal to you.

It isn't to me.

When you are prompt in answering or "proof" your demands would have a better chance of being met.

You can wait till either I have a chance to talk with my son or search for it myself

[bonnie]

I think it would be a sin to compare a political moderate with someone who is religious lukewarm. Not sure a person would burn in hell for that but certainly not something that would make the angels dance. Well,,, anyway,,, if we can separate church from state and know the difference between the political and the religious,,, maybe we can continue this conversation.

Yes,I am sure you would see that as sin. I am glad in this instance you JUST aren't sure I will burn in hell.

Sometime in the future we will not have church and state separate

[bonnie]

Quote:

Please provide the name of the person or group that declared this right. When was the declaration made? What new organization reported it? I never heard about this declaration.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

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.

[karl]

Quote:

Shelby did not include the proposed set-aside in the bill he released yesterday, making it less likely that Democrats will vote for it. As a result, the bill, while likely to be approved by the Banking Committee next week, may not reach the Senate floor, said analysts.

"Chairman Shelby has tailored a bill to gain administration support at the expense of obtaining bipartisan legislation," said Howard Glaser, a housing industry consultant. "A partisan split tends not to launch a bill to the head of the line for consideration by the full Senate."

So basically, nothing was done because the Republicans wanted to play politics. Sorry about pouring some blueberry in that cherry Kool-aid.

You want it both ways don't you? You are exhibiting the liberal mindset at its worst, Shane. First you say its the do-nothing Republicans' fault because they did nothing to prevent the melt-down. Now, when confronted with the evidence, you say its the fault of the Republicans because they proposed a bill that would actually prevent the problems instead of a do-nothing bill that would appeal to Democrats.

You can't have it both ways.

This melt-down is the fault of liberals, Shane. EXCLUSIVELY!! Own it, buddy.

Even if the Republicans had actually done nothing, which I have shown is not true, this is STILL the fault of the liberals who insisted on these unqualified house-buyers getting loans and then rejected, on party lines, a bill that would have prevented the melt-down.

It was just too fiscally responsible for liberals to wrap their minds around.

[Dr. Shane]

you say its the fault of the Republicans because they proposed a bill that would actually prevent the problems instead of a do-nothing bill that would appeal to Democrats.

They proposed a bill in committee that they knew would not ever get to the floor of the Senate. That is like going hunting with a rifle and no ammunition and then complaining that you didn't get any game.

[Dr. Shane]

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

An internet blog? That's the source? I think Rush Limbaugh is more authoritative than that.