What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 7 - now what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Carrie Prejean, anti gay marriage activist, came to a settlement with the Miss California pageant officials. She gets to keep her fake cans in exchange for dropping her lawsuit.

The reason? That pillar of morality made a sex tape.
 
Plante26 said:
Ummm, obviously the lenders (ie., Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA) loosened their criteria. Being that they are GSEs or government-backing for loans, and you have your answer: The government loosened the criteria, and the government fought to keep the standards loose despite the Bush Administration sounding the alarm numerous times.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Private lenders — not government-backed Fannie and Freddie — issued the vast majority of subprime loans. Fannie did not issue large amounts of non-traditional mortgages relative to the private sector. Something like 80% of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. In fact CRA loans date back to the late 70's well before the collapse began and it was the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA which coincided with the subprime boom. And the banks mostly responsible for issuing these loans did not do so to meet CRA obligations, they did so to make money.

pirate said:
uh, that would be Barney Frank
Click to expand...

Read up on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Acts of 2005 and 2007.


As for gun control, while I have no problem preventing Joe Schmoe from buying a howitzer (gun ownership is not a God given right, it's a government provided privelege), law-abiding citizens should have the ability to arm themselves. I'll leave that at that because it's a never ending discussion.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
it's a government provided privelege
Click to expand...

I can't think of one single instance in which use of this phrase might be accurate. I hope never to read it again. (It says that without government, nobody would have guns)
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
You're missing the point. Private lenders — not government-backed Fannie and Freddie — issued the vast majority of subprime loans. Fannie did not issue large amounts of non-traditional mortgages relative to the private sector. Something like 80% of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. In fact CRA loans date back to the late 70's well before the collapse began and it was the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA which coincided with the subprime boom. And the banks mostly responsible for issuing these loans did not do so to meet CRA obligations, they did so to make money.



Read up on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Acts of 2005 and 2007.


As for gun control, while I have no problem preventing Joe Schmoe from buying a howitzer (gun ownership is not a God given right, it's a government provided privelege), law-abiding citizens should have the ability to arm themselves. I'll leave that at that because it's a never ending discussion.
Click to expand...

Barney's hands, and other body parts, are all over the mortgage issue.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Plante26 said:
Sigh. Read the rest of the thread. No where do I say I wish to deny gay couples the right to marry. I don't think the government has any place in regulating marriage.
Click to expand...

That's great, I'm glad you think so. But that's not the world we live in. Government has been involved with marriage for centuries.

If folks like yourself were out there beating the drum to end straight marriage in the eyes of the government, I'd give your position a little more credence. Instead, it's a rather convenient stance to take against gay marriage, because it represents a fantasy land that's never been true.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
That's great, I'm glad you think so. But that's not the world we live in. Government has been involved with marriage for centuries.
Click to expand...

Hence the contemporary distinction between "marriage" (a church thing) and "civil union" (a state thing). That distinction already exists under the surface, today. Catholics who remarry without annulments aren't considered married in the eyes of the church, but that doesn't mean the Catholics can try to force the government to treat them as unmarried. Everything you can say to justify a "no gay civil union" law could be said to justify a "no divorcee civil union" law.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm starting to see a trend in this thread: automatic weapons, polygamy, gay marriage, banking policy ... yep, it all makes sense now. It's all Oprah's fault. :mad:
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
That's great, I'm glad you think so. But that's not the world we live in. Government has been involved with marriage for centuries.

If folks like yourself were out there beating the drum to end straight marriage in the eyes of the government, I'd give your position a little more credence. Instead, it's a rather convenient stance to take against gay marriage, because it represents a fantasy land that's never been true.
Click to expand...

Just because it's been that way for centuries doesn't automatically make it right.

FWIW, there are a lot of us conservatives who have only beaten the "government has no place regulating marriage AT ALL" drum the whole time.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Kepler said:
Hence the contemporary distinction between "marriage" (a church thing) and "civil union" (a state thing). That distinction already exists under the surface, today. Catholics who remarry without annulments aren't considered married in the eyes of the church, but that doesn't mean the Catholics can try to force the government to treat them as unmarried. Everything you can say to justify a "no gay civil union" law could be said to justify a "no divorcee civil union" law.
Click to expand...
Not quite - we're married, but outside the sacraments. It may be illicit, but not illegal and the kids are AOK in the Church's eyes.

And you know what? I'm OK with it. I'm still Catholic and believe all that she teaches to be true and that we are the one true faith. I still go to Mass almost every Sunday. I'm not sure what happens when I die, do I get a funeral Mass or not and can I be buried in consecrated ground? But I wil render an account of my life to Christ and He will judge me accordingly. I'd like to think that I'm going up or make the way stop in purgatory, but, just in case, one day I'll make the stop at the rectory and check my soul insurance.

Sorry for derailing the thread. We now go back to your regularly scheduled bashings.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

moe24 said:
Just because it's been that way for centuries doesn't automatically make it right.

FWIW, there are a lot of us conservatives who have only beaten the "government has no place regulating marriage AT ALL" drum the whole time.
Click to expand...

So why haven't I seen ballot questions for the removal of state sponsored marriage?

I'll answer my own question - because it's unrealistic and there's no good reason to undo centuries of legal and cultural tradition.

However, using that as a reason to deny people their rights goes against our legal traditions, as well.

All marriages should be equal in the eyes of the state.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
So why haven't I seen ballot questions for the removal of state sponsored marriage?

I'll answer my own question - because it's unrealistic and there's no good reason to undo centuries of legal and cultural tradition.

However, using that as a reason to deny people their rights goes against our legal traditions, as well.

All marriages should be equal in the eyes of the state.
Click to expand...

1 - The reason is much more simple then what you give. There just aren't enough people who feel the same as I do.

2 - No one (that I know at least) is using that as a way to deny anyone their rights. If the state wants to recognize marriages for tax or benefit purposes that's fine, but they should leave the defining of a religious institution to the religious organizations. This actually makes it easier and more open for gays to marry as there are plenty of liberal christian churches perfectly willing to marry gay couples.

3 - 100% agreed. But just as I said in #2, the state should only be recognizing marriages, not defining them.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

ScottM said:
Today's comedy relief is, again, provided by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota's 6th District.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_13720095?source=rss
Click to expand...

Dear fellow conservatives;

How about we try some counter proposals and opposing ideas instead of this kindergarten level obstructionist ideology. Health reform is too big an issue to sit by waiting for your chance to say "I told you so". Let's try something novel like actually doing something.

Sincerely;
Disgruntled conservative fed up with the GOP.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

moe24 said:
2 - No one (that I know at least) is using that as a way to deny anyone their rights. If the state wants to recognize marriages for tax or benefit purposes that's fine, but they should leave the defining of a religious institution to the religious organizations. This actually makes it easier and more open for gays to marry as there are plenty of liberal christian churches perfectly willing to marry gay couples.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what gay marriage is? The state recognizes it - no one is forcing churches to start wedding homosexuals.

So, if the whole argument is about semantics - they just don't like the fact that it's called marriage - that makes the arguments against it even weaker, IMO.

Gay couples should get exactly the same rights as straight ones. Marriage is and will continue to be recognized by the state, therefore allowing gay marriage is the only way to go.

Those opposed to this very simple thing are on the wrong side of history.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
You're missing the point. Private lenders — not government-backed Fannie and Freddie — issued the vast majority of subprime loans. Fannie did not issue large amounts of non-traditional mortgages relative to the private sector. Something like 80% of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. In fact CRA loans date back to the late 70's well before the collapse began and it was the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA which coincided with the subprime boom. And the banks mostly responsible for issuing these loans did not do so to meet CRA obligations, they did so to make money.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, CRA and banking regulation was weakened under Clinton near the end of his term.

That aside, it was the expansion of Fannie/Freddie loan qualifications that drove the banks further to the fringes of qualified borrowers. You can argue that the lenders didn't have to make those loans, but between having the expansion of government-backed lending on pushing on one side, and then having groups like ACORN pulling lenders on other, bad things were going to--and did--happen. The FHA is getting killed right now because the number of bad loans they are backing is going through the roof. The subprime mortgage market started the fuse.....but if that were the only problem, then why were Fannie/Freddie going under last year? Answer: They loosened their criteria and took on borrowers that were not qualified.

And for clarification: There is no such thing as a "CRA loan". There are loans that are made that fall under the classification of lending in a CRA-qualified area, but there is no "CRA Loan Program". Visit the US Bank on 20th West and Superior St. in Duluth. The Lincoln Park/West End neighborhood is a dump.....ask UMDBHIK--he lives there. ;) There is little reason for that bank to be there, other than to pad US Bank's resume with regards to the CRA. The bank loses money hand over fist operating out there, even with the skeleton crew they have running it. Believe me, they don't approve loans there just to "make money". Everyone has to qualify just the same.

You're also yelping at the wrong bunch. If it was the non-CRA regulated lenders making the bad loans, then why are you chirping at banks? The vast majority of mortgage-lending banks are governed by the CRA.



Read up on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Acts of 2005 and 2007.
Click to expand...

Neither of those bills ever became law, smart guy:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1427
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461

And on top of that, ACORN was a major supporter of the 2007 version.....sponsored by.....wait for it......Barney Frank. Which is nice:

http://www.naca.net/_assets/shared/633154392959218750.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top