Obamas Power Grab -- AMNESTY!!

[keck553]

keck553 I think you have it wrong about the why an how the president is trying to win the election .
The dems can easily win the vote here without illegals . President Obama is doing a good job at it right now . He has gotten us to take our eye off what has driven him an others down in the polls . It's the economy not the illegal immigration issue. Immigration has people on both sides firmly in place most will not budge no matter if the president did Friday . Hammer him on the economy the dems lose keep this distraction going he an others might win

Bill

We'll see. .

[NHL Fever]

Yep the economy is by far the biggest shock. If the numbers are relatively good over the next few months he will win, and if they are really bad he will lose. Normally in this situation it would be no contest, the contender will beat the incumbent in a bad economy. But this time there seems to be much more awareness of the direct role the very wealthy who the GOP tends to support played in the collapse, and Romney has failed to avoid that label. I think for that reason people are just more aware, and even in a bad economy Obama may still win.

[keck553]

Not all of us are fooled by such hyperbole. Obama's the one with the $30,000 per plate money fests. And most us us are sick of this class warfare, racism and Obama's crony capitalism.

[student of the Lamb]

Not everyone fully understands what caused the economic collapse. The two main factors were the over spending by the American people and lack of paying back the creditors. The other problem was that the Congressional committee headed by Democrats refused to believe the warnings that came for several years that their opening up the doors for homes to people that could not afford them would create a major, major malfunction.

Prior to the collapse Americans had created well over one trillion dollars in credit card debt and many were not paying, defaulting, on their credit cards or paying the very minimum allowable. This meant that the banks had to shell out billions of dollars to pay back the companies who were owed for what the credit card users bought. Because the credit card holders were not paying back as they should this left many banks with a major lack of cash on hand and eventually caused a part of the collapse.

The situation with the housing also hit the banks between the eyes as they were forced by legislation to give out bad loans to people that could not afford the home loans, particularly after the adjustable rates set in. The banks then found themselves paying out cash for loans that eventually left them with homes that could not be resold in a dead market. They were then left with the cost of taxes and upkeep of the homes. Today the word is coming out that one reason that the foreclosures had slowed was because the banks had so many homes on the books that they had to get rid of some of that burden before they continued on with further foreclosures. That will begin soon as banks are now starting to be able to deal with the rest of the foreclosures that remain.

There are plenty of Youtube videos showing the warnings giving to the Congressional committee and there are videos of them lying to Congress as to what the affects would be. There is even video of them denying reality and refusing to admit that they were wrong. Today the spin (propaganda) remains as the lies continue to be "truth" and the truth continues to be "lies."

[keck553]

So, what is the source of this "easy" credit that led to this debacle? I know we can trace the source for the housing mess back to Clinton and the Barney Frank club. What about CC's?

[student of the Lamb]

The Sub Prime Lending Mortgage crisis was created when the Congressional committee passed a regulation forcing banks to give 30 year mortgages to people who could not afford to pay the mortgage, particularly after the adjustable rates changes hit. I believe there were four adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). They were 2, 3, and 5 year adjustable rate mortgages. The bill was passed in 2005 forcing banks to make the loans and those who made the loans knew that the people could not make the payments but they were receiving bonuses for securing the loans. Millions of loans were made and the 2 year adjustable rate adjusted in 2007. The second in 2008 and the third in 2010. The adjustments in the adjustable rate was much more than most if not all of the people that took these loans out could afford. This flooded the housing market with millions of homes and the banks lost the loan money and also had homes on their hands that they could not unload.

This would instill in almost any banking facility a sense of self preservation by trying to increase its cash n hand and be very, very wary of making any loans that were even remotely dangerous.

Some of the material here may be repeated but the overall material will bring to light the truth behind the economic collapse of 2007-2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Ic4ehABxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM

[NHL Fever]

These types of videos tend to avoid some of the most important facts about the collapse. Such as the fact that during periods of greater deregulation, loans given at those times failed much more often than those given during periods of higher regulation. And the the fact that governments sponsored loans outperformed other sub-prime loans. And the fact that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were not mandated by government, but were willingly lent by large banks\lenders because they perceived that profit could be made even in a default.

[keck553]

"Everyone deserves a home" - Bill Clinton

From businessweek.com:

"The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.

The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

Studentofthelamb, you are also correct in the statement that banks were forced to make risky loans via Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act. Also groups like ACORN raised such a stink that the FED was literally ordering banks to authorize bad loans. The banks went into survival mode.

[Fenris]

This is continued erosion of the rule of law.

[keck553]

This is continued erosion of the rule of law.

Not to mention the rule of common sense.

[Free Indeed]

OK, most everyone knows that I'm not at all an Obama fan, but remember, Reagan also signed an anmesty bill. However, he did come to regret it later.

Which brings me to this question: If Reagan thought it was wrong back then, why is it a good idea now? (aside from BHO wanting the Latino vote)

As His Least correctly pointed out, this is not an amnesty. It simply gives kids, who were brought here as children illegally and know no other home than the USA, an opportunity to keep from being automatically deported into what is, to them, a foreign country. It gives the judges in these cases the leeway to look at individual cases and make decisions based on those individual circumstances.

[keck553]

As His Least correctly pointed out, this is not an amnesty. It simply gives kids, who were brought here as children illegally and know no other home than the USA, an opportunity to keep from being automatically deported into what is, to them, a foreign country. It gives the judges in these cases the leeway to look at individual cases and make decisions based on those individual circumstances.

I think the main issue here is with procedure, not the act itself. As had been stated, Reagan signed a bill, abiding in the law of the land, not leapfrogging over our other branches of goverment to score political points.

Presidents are not supposed to be despots creating their own laws.

[Fenris]

Presidents are not supposed to be despots creating their own laws.

Exactly. The president does not have the right to decide what laws he will and won't enforce. He enforces the laws passed by Congress.

[Bandit]

Exactly. The president does not have the right to decide what laws he will and won't enforce. He enforces the laws passed by Congress.

Unless, that is, the sitting president has no respect for the constitution.

[Liquid Tension]

As His Least correctly pointed out, this is not an amnesty.

Yeah, HL's posts did make things a bit clearer for me.