Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Yet W did NOTHING to stop them. In fact, HE prompted them! Its never been a better time to buy a home!!!! watch for yourself - https://video.search...fp-t-203-s&tt=b funded with taxpayers money Hey dumbass 2002 WAS the best time to buy a house. I paid $318k for my home in 2002 and in four years it was worth $650k. He just didn't tell me when was the best time to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Sad to imagine anyone could be so self-serving and shallow in their interpretation of what THEY think is the motive of charitable people. Of course, you're a die-hard member of the "You people are too stupid to think for yourself" brigade, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to my church, and many of the churches in my community, to see first hand why people do serve and give. Though I'm sure you'll start spouting off about flying spaghetti monsters or some other mind-numbing progressive stupidity. i have no idea what is meant by a flying spagetti monster. i support Catholic charities. There are probably more Catholic US charity hospitals and patients cared for through them than from any other single charitable group in the country. but they are not enough. does that make it irrational for me to support gov't funded healthcare or other safety net social programs? NO. because the charitable programs aren't able to provide services to the level of care to a large cohort of the population that i would describe as minimally adequate for myself....you know,do unto others...the most effective way to ensure that happening is through gov't programs and taxes. charities aren't getting it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 i have no idea what is meant by a flying spagetti monster. i support Catholic charities. There are probably more Catholic US charity hospitals and patients cared for through them than from any other single charitable group in the country. but they are not enough. does that make it irrational for me to support gov't funded healthcare or other safety net social programs? NO. because the charitable programs aren't able to provide services to the level of care to a large cohort of the population that i would describe as minimally adequate for myself....you know,do unto others...the most effective way to ensure that happening is through gov't programs and taxes. charities aren't getting it done. The problem with your thinking is you're taking the single most corrupt and wasteful entity and trying to use to help others when it has proven time and again it is more interested in helping itself first. Give the tax break directly to the people making the donations and let the existing charities do what they do best. Besides, if you have a government making it easy for people to take their handouts, much like you have now, you know what you get? This: 86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Yet W did NOTHING to stop them. In fact, HE prompted them! Its never been a better time to buy a home!!!! watch for yourself - https://video.search...fp-t-203-s&tt=b funded with taxpayers money So are you telling me the Bush admin never went to Congress to try to curb Fannie/Freddie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ACA -- the most expansive, costly and ill-designed law in generations -- is 100% build on redistribution. But hey...you keep thinking it's some kind of half-assed idea that would be better if only it were single payer. How do you have a healthcare system, one acceptable to the morals of this US populace, without redistribution of citizen's funds? Health insurance prior to the ACA was built upon redistribution- private insurance coverage is the very definition of it. So what is the non-redistributive solution? I guess some people would say if you can't pay, then die... but i think you'd be hard pressed to build consesus around that concept, since Americans are for the most part empathetic. I assume much of the anger young paying in an getting little out- but that will not remain the case, the young will get old and will get sick- I still can't come to grips why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. If guess if I were young, I'd be more concerned about SS, paying in my whole life, wating until what will be 75 to get it, and likely to get 75 cents on the dollar, if anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) How do you have a healthcare system, one acceptable to the morals of this US populace, without redistribution of citizen's funds? Health insurance prior to the ACA was built upon redistribution- private insurance coverage is the very definition of it. So what is the non-redistributive solution? I guess some people would say if you can't pay, then die... but i think you'd be hard pressed to build consesus around that concept, since Americans are for the most part empathetic. I assume much of the anger young paying in an getting little out- but that will not remain the case, the young will get old and will get sick- I still can't come to grips why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. If guess if I were young, I'd be more concerned about SS, paying in my whole life, wating until what will be 75 to get it, and likely to get 75 cents on the dollar, if anything at all. First, I was making the case to birddog that ACA is income redistribution. He was asking for evidence that it had anything to do with that. Second, you answer, at least in part, your own question. I'm 51 and I have no reason to believe I will get SS when I retire, not do I believe it will be worth anything relative to what it would have been worth if I could take that money and invest it myself the past 30 years. Who's to say a 20 year old, paying high ACA terms and high deductibles doesn't wake up in 30 years and finds ACA -- like SS -- unsustainable and now, when his rates are supposed to be low, they're still high. They have every reason not to trust the federal government with this ridiculous pyramid scheme because the government will undoubtedly use that money for something else or otherwise find a way to FUBAR the entire gig. Its what they do. It's what they've always done. Edited April 17, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The best part of another Bush presidency is we could all reuse the old joke: Why did the gays vote for <insert Democrat candidate>? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 17, 2014 Author Share Posted April 17, 2014 Hey dumbass 2002 WAS the best time to buy a house. I paid $318k for my home in 2002 and in four years it was worth $650k. He just didn't tell me when was the best time to sell. How was it better than in 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 How was it better than in 2008? You could get financing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 You could get financing. Also, given the similar property value, you've also aquired 6 years of equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Not to mention from 2002-2006 we averaged 20% increase on the value of the property. Most areas did. Name me an area that averaged that kind of growth from 2008-2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 So are you telling me the Bush admin never went to Congress to try to curb Fannie/Freddie? suggesting an oversight committee in 2003 and actually implementing reform are 2 different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble "the most significant risk to our economy." Concerns about the impact of the collapsing housing and credit markets on the larger U.S. economy caused President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke to announce a limited bailout of the U.S. housing market for homeowners who were unable to pay their mortgage debts Hey dumbass 2002 WAS the best time to buy a house. I paid $318k for my home in 2002 and in four years it was worth $650k. He just didn't tell me when was the best time to sell. and how far underwater did it go? $300K? Not to mention from 2002-2006 we averaged 20% increase on the value of the property. Most areas did. Name me an area that averaged that kind of growth from 2008-2012. again how far did that value fall between 2007 - 2009? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 suggesting an oversight committee in 2003 and actually implementing reform are 2 different things. http://en.wikipedia...._housing_bubble Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble "the most significant risk to our economy." Concerns about the impact of the collapsing housing and credit markets on the larger U.S. economy caused President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke to announce a limited bailout of the U.S. housing market for homeowners who were unable to pay their mortgage debts Wikipedia, seriously? Try this, or this, or this On Sept. 22, 2004, OFHEO released results of its continuing investigation. The "Special Examination of Fannie Mae" was a dense 211 pages packed with technical accounting details. But the message was clear: OFHEO accused Fannie Mae of both willfully breaking accounting rules and fostering an environment of "weak or nonexistent" internal controls. OFHEO focused on exactly the issue that the skeptics had earlier noticed, which was Fannie's use of accounting rules to defer derivative losses onto its balance sheet. Except OFHEO said that Fannie hadn't just bent the rules, it had broken them. What got the most attention, though, was OFHEO's charge that in 1998, when an internal model said Fannie would need to recognize a roughly $400 million expense, Fannie only recognized $200 million. That, OFHEO charged, allowed the company to report earnings of $3.23 per share, which meant that Fannie paid out a total of about $27 million in bonuses. Both the SEC and Justice quickly announced their own investigations. Two weeks later Falcon and Raines faced off against each other in a hearing before the House subcommittee on capital markets, which was chaired by Baker. Consider the circumstances. Falcon was Fannie's regulator and had leveled serious charges, amounting to fraud, against Fannie Mae. Most CEOs would have seen the wisdom of humility at this point, but Raines showed little. "These accounting standards are highly complex and require determinations on which experts often disagree," he said, adding that "there were no facts" that supported OFHEO's charge that Fannie executives had deferred an expense in 1998 to earn bonuses. And most of the Democrats present agreed with him. "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines," said Congressman William Lacy Clay of Missouri. Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank said, "I see nothing in here that suggests that safety and soundness are an issue." Other Democrats complained that the mere fact of releasing the report could increase the cost of home-ownership. Now please, go away again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 suggesting an oversight committee in 2003 and actually implementing reform are 2 different things. http://en.wikipedia...._housing_bubble Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble "the most significant risk to our economy." Concerns about the impact of the collapsing housing and credit markets on the larger U.S. economy caused President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke to announce a limited bailout of the U.S. housing market for homeowners who were unable to pay their mortgage debts and how far underwater did it go? $300K? again how far did that value fall between 2007 - 2009? I posted this to one of your inane posts. You still haven't responded. Afraid to? Read post #81 of this thread and then read the link below that contradicts your premise that Bush didn't try to reign in Fannie & Freddie: http://elenaives.com...ae-freddie-mac/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 suggesting an oversight committee in 2003 and actually implementing reform are 2 different things. http://en.wikipedia...._housing_bubble Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble "the most significant risk to our economy." Concerns about the impact of the collapsing housing and credit markets on the larger U.S. economy caused President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke to announce a limited bailout of the U.S. housing market for homeowners who were unable to pay their mortgage debts and how far underwater did it go? $300K? again how far did that value fall between 2007 - 2009? Never went underwater. We sold at the end of 2008 for $450k and I've followed it and the value never dropped below $425K Next question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I posted this to one of your inane posts. You still haven't responded. Afraid to? Read post #81 of this thread and then read the link below that contradicts your premise that Bush didn't try to reign in Fannie & Freddie: http://elenaives.com...ae-freddie-mac/ how thick are you? read my lips - ATTEMPTING and DOING are 2 different things. he attempted, nothing was done to STOP it, ergo HE FAILED. it's that simple Wikipedia, seriously? Now please, go away again. Sure, why not. Wikipedia is not 100% wrong. (like Conservation media is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 how thick are you? read my lips - ATTEMPTING and DOING are 2 different things. he attempted, nothing was done to STOP it, ergo HE FAILED. it's that simple So you do admit that he did try to stop it. Now, go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 how thick are you? read my lips - ATTEMPTING and DOING are 2 different things. he attempted, nothing was done to STOP it, ergo HE FAILED. it's that simple Sure, why not. Wikipedia is not 100% wrong. (like Conservation media is) Well, Bush wasn't a dictator, like Obama so he felt he had to go through Congress to get it done. That was the Congress whose democrats excoriated a federal regulator for his warnings about Freddie & Fannie. Yes, those same democrats who were getting substantial campaign contributions from Fannie & Freddie. What is conservation media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 What is conservation media? pretty sure it's Greenpeace's newsletter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Well, Bush wasn't a dictator, like Obama so he felt he had to go through Congress to get it done. That was the Congress whose democrats excoriated a federal regulator for his warnings about Freddie & Fannie. Yes, those same democrats who were getting substantial campaign contributions from Fannie & Freddie. What is conservation media? the media arm of the EPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts