Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

[txlonghorn]

Welfare is in EVERY state. Just as lazy people are in EVERY state. Why not come up with some way of weeding out the USELESS BUMS and making sure that the real needs are met. Hey, if he wants to bring about change I can believe in, then he could start with that instead of throwing more money at the ever growing problem. Last week, there was a job expo in my "conservative" state. There were over 200 different companies represented there. Some were national companies, others local and then some small businesses too. The place was packed with job offers...and amazingly, at 2 PM on a sunny afternoon, there was a slim crowd of attendees. You'd never know that unemployment is at an all time low. There were a few college kids there and I leaned in and did a little eaves dropping on their conversation. One student commented that they had to have at least 35K to start or it wasn't worth their time. OMG!!!! No wonder unemployment is rampant!

So guess who we'll be helping out next year??? That poor little piss ant! I hope daddy's money doesn't run out before he's able to retire! This country will never be able to pick itself up if we don't FORCE our future workforce and leaders to grow up and LEARN TO EARN!!!

 

[xsited1]

PFreedom to be a servant to those in need, but of my own choosing, so that I can decide who is the most deserving of my help.

You made a lot of good points but I wanted to focus on this one because I think a lot of liberals misunderstand how conservative charity works.

If I come across a mother and her hungry children I will take them to the store and buy them food (actually I would probably take them to my church where we have a food bank, but if I didn't have that source I would pay for it myself).

If I come to a highway exit ramp and you're standing there with your hand out you can suck exhaust fumes. If you can stand there all day you can wear a silly costume and twirl a sign for a muffler shop and EARN an honest dollar.

I have no charity for the lazy or greedy. I will give my last dollar to someone in honest need. I don't want the government to take my money away and give it to people that could work but refuse to work. Where I'm from you know your neighbors and if they are in need everyone will pitch in and help if you deserve it. If you piss your money away drinking and gambling then sorry you're going to lose the house before you get help. Personal responsibility will take you most places in life, good friends and family will give you a boost if you really need it.

You let charity work any other way and people will abuse whatever system you can make.

I bet you can't find a conservative on here that doesn't agree.

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

You're misunderstanding the data. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements rank high. High spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the number of federal employees. States with higher incomes per capita like New Jersey, pay much higher federal taxes per capita because of the income tax’s progressive structure. The citizens in these high-income, high-tax states do not always live better or save more than people in low-income, low-tax states because the cost of living is usually that much higher or more. Then you've got natural disasters which occur more in Southern States.

 

[oreo]

PFreedom to be a servant to those in need, but of my own choosing, so that I can decide who is the most deserving of my help.

You made a lot of good points but I wanted to focus on this one because I think a lot of liberals misunderstand how conservative charity works.

If I come across a mother and her hungry children I will take them to the store and buy them food (actually I would probably take them to my church where we have a food bank, but if I didn't have that source I would pay for it myself).

If I come to a highway exit ramp and you're standing there with your hand out you can suck exhaust fumes. If you can stand there all day you can wear a silly costume and twirl a sign for a muffler shop and EARN an honest dollar.

I have no charity for the lazy or greedy. I will give my last dollar to someone in honest need. I don't want the government to take my money away and give it to people that could work but refuse to work. Where I'm from you know your neighbors and if they are in need everyone will pitch in and help if you deserve it. If you piss your money away drinking and gambling then sorry you're going to lose the house before you get help. Personal responsibility will take you most places in life, good friends and family will give you a boost if you really need it.

You let charity work any other way and people will abuse whatever system you can make.

I bet you can't find a conservative on here that doesn't agree.

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Please explain "the most conservative in nature states" receive the most government welfare & earmarks?

 

[oreo]

Welfare is in EVERY state. Just as lazy people are in EVERY state. Why not come up with some way of weeding out the USELESS BUMS and making sure that the real needs are met. Hey, if he wants to bring about change I can believe in, then he could start with that instead of throwing more money at the ever growing problem. Last week, there was a job expo in my "conservative" state. There were over 200 different companies represented there. Some were national companies, others local and then some small businesses too. The place was packed with job offers...and amazingly, at 2 PM on a sunny afternoon, there was a slim crowd of attendees. You'd never know that unemployment is at an all time low. There were a few college kids there and I leaned in and did a little eaves dropping on their conversation. One student commented that they had to have at least 35K to start or it wasn't worth their time. OMG!!!! No wonder unemployment is rampant!

So guess who we'll be helping out next year??? That poor little piss ant! I hope daddy's money doesn't run out before he's able to retire! This country will never be able to pick itself up if we don't FORCE our future workforce and leaders to grow up and LEARN TO EARN!!!

I received a very interesting e-mail along these lines. A employed man complaining that he has to pee in a jar every now & then to keep his job--suggesting that anyone who receives a welfare check or other type entitlement has to do the same to get that check.

 

[xsited1]

You made a lot of good points but I wanted to focus on this one because I think a lot of liberals misunderstand how conservative charity works.

If I come across a mother and her hungry children I will take them to the store and buy them food (actually I would probably take them to my church where we have a food bank, but if I didn't have that source I would pay for it myself).

If I come to a highway exit ramp and you're standing there with your hand out you can suck exhaust fumes. If you can stand there all day you can wear a silly costume and twirl a sign for a muffler shop and EARN an honest dollar.

I have no charity for the lazy or greedy. I will give my last dollar to someone in honest need. I don't want the government to take my money away and give it to people that could work but refuse to work. Where I'm from you know your neighbors and if they are in need everyone will pitch in and help if you deserve it. If you piss your money away drinking and gambling then sorry you're going to lose the house before you get help. Personal responsibility will take you most places in life, good friends and family will give you a boost if you really need it.

You let charity work any other way and people will abuse whatever system you can make.

I bet you can't find a conservative on here that doesn't agree.

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Please explain "the most conservative in nature states" receive the most government welfare & earmarks?

I believe she's referring to data from the Tax Foundation entitled "States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid." I responded to her post because she misunderstood the data. It's a common tactic the Left likes to use to try to prove an invalid point.

 

[Amanda]

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Doubt away, makes no difference to me.

I've watched the guys circle up the trucks so there was light while a distressed cow was helped to give birth.

I've helped can food for days on end so a family would have food.

I've been riding with my dad when he's stopped to help pull strangers out of a ditch with his truck.

I've helped with every charity effort done by the churches I've attended for the last 5 years.

I could go on and on.

 

[Care4all]

1. Fiscal responsibility: Meaning no more taxpayer dollars going to the pig stink in Iowa program. That belongs to Iowa, it's Iowa's problem & the citizens of Iowa can handle their own problems with pig stink. If they don't want the pig stink then it should be up to the taxpayers of Iowa to pay for the removal of the pig stink.

2. More state control. States are much more effective at handleing their own problems, such as immigration, medical insurance, roads & bridges, & education concerns than someone in Washington, D.C. is. Plus most states have to balance their budgets--a real plus in my book.

3. Federal government to stay out of the private sector: The ground ZERO collapse of our economy is because of Fannie/Freddie- Basically federal government-intervention into our private sector banking process. Our government "pressured" banks into lending to people with bad credit, no down payment & no income to pay for. FOR PROOF:

Go to: New York Times
Date: Sept. 30, 1999
Title: Fannie reduces credit requirements to aid mortgage lending

Make certain to also read the warning at the bottom of the article: It's unbelievable.

Also to note--that our Federal government was set up to protect this country--period. It was never intended to be a catch all for every known problem of man. Every time our government has worked it's fingers into the private sector, they have ALWAYS managed to screw it up.

Government is not the solution, it's the problem: "Ronald Reagan"

Here's the link to the article you keep spamming without giving the link for it....

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

It is a very informative article, but i do not believe it is some smoking gun that you are implying it is....I guess you got the email from who you take your marching orders from and this is why you keep spamming it...did you even read the full article oreo....? Or did you once again take things out of context? OF course you didn't read the whole article...you couldn't even supply the link for it, and certainly did not understand it if you did read the full article...again, imo.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills? Anyone who reads this article--knows that this democrat policy of "everyone deserves homeownership" is Ground Zero for all of the economic crisis we are having today. Only someone extremely intent on protecting the political party they typically vote for would state that this is "no smoking gun". Hell it's bigger than a gun, the above article is a 50 ton bomb of record & fact.

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

 

[xsited1]

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Doubt away, makes no difference to me.

I've watched the guys circle up the trucks so there was light while a distressed cow was helped to give birth.

I've helped can food for days on end so a family would have food.

I've been riding with my dad when he's stopped to help pull strangers out of a ditch with his truck.

I've helped with every charity effort done by the churches I've attended for the last 5 years.

I could go on and on.

Care took a cheap, partisan shot based on data she doesn't understand. I expect that from people like Ravi, but not her.

 

[Care4all]

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Doubt away, makes no difference to me.

I've watched the guys circle up the trucks so there was light while a distressed cow was helped to give birth.

I've helped can food for days on end so a family would have food.

I've been riding with my dad when he's stopped to help pull strangers out of a ditch with his truck.

I've helped with every charity effort done by the churches I've attended for the last 5 years.

I could go on and on.

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

and sweetheart....read what i wrote, no need to defend yourself, i said i believed that you did such, there was no doubt of that, with me.

care

 

[Sinatra]

Here's the link to the article you keep spamming without giving the link for it....

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

It is a very informative article, but i do not believe it is some smoking gun that you are implying it is....I guess you got the email from who you take your marching orders from and this is why you keep spamming it...did you even read the full article oreo....? Or did you once again take things out of context? OF course you didn't read the whole article...you couldn't even supply the link for it, and certainly did not understand it if you did read the full article...again, imo.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills? Anyone who reads this article--knows that this democrat policy of "everyone deserves homeownership" is Ground Zero for all of the economic crisis we are having today. Only someone extremely intent on protecting the political party they typically vote for would state that this is "no smoking gun". Hell it's bigger than a gun, the above article is a 50 ton bomb of record & fact.

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

I know first-hand the impacts of that program, which in turn led to the sub prime industry, which eventually was a significant contributor to the current financial crisis that in turn has evolved into a global recession.

When Fannie and Freddie let the regulatory strings loose, the outcome was predicted by those within the industry. Many banks went into feeding frenzy mode, buyers and sellers did the same, but as many of us knew, there would be a reckoning.

But of all the root causes, the Fannie and Freddie fiasco roots go deepest - and are most intertwined around the leadership of the Democrat Party.

I guarantee, if it were Republicans who had dominated Fannie and Freddie, this current Democrat Congress would be holding very public hearings into the matter and there would be prosecutions. As it is though, members of this very mess are posturing morality, or being positioned as economic advisors to the President...

 

[Amanda]

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

Who besides the needy needs help?

 

[oreo]

Here's the link to the article you keep spamming without giving the link for it....

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

It is a very informative article, but i do not believe it is some smoking gun that you are implying it is....I guess you got the email from who you take your marching orders from and this is why you keep spamming it...did you even read the full article oreo....? Or did you once again take things out of context? OF course you didn't read the whole article...you couldn't even supply the link for it, and certainly did not understand it if you did read the full article...again, imo.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills? Anyone who reads this article--knows that this democrat policy of "everyone deserves homeownership" is Ground Zero for all of the economic crisis we are having today. Only someone extremely intent on protecting the political party they typically vote for would state that this is "no smoking gun". Hell it's bigger than a gun, the above article is a 50 ton bomb of record & fact.

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

The article specifically states:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"note that sub-prime loans went to sub-prime borrowers." "People who could qualify for a fixed 30-year loan got those." ARM's or adjustable rate mortgages have been around for decades. They started clear back in the late 70's a Jimmy Carter program--Fannie Mae--Freddie Mac. American taxpayer "guaranteed" mortgage loans.

The article goes on to say:

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

I don't think it's me that has the reading comprehension problem.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, in fact collapsed under these policies. They took the rest of the economy with them. Our entire mortgage & banking system & our economy went down with them. Bill Clinton even stated that he tried to reign in his own party on these very loose lending practices. FACT. Any & every single time someone warned of the on-coming train wreck, starting back in 1995, politicians fought tooth & nail to not impose higher lending standards. Mostly coming from democrats on the hill.

I know it's very difficult to see fault within your own party--that's why I registered as an independant--then I can blast both sides & lay blame where it belongs.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

WRONG--Conservatives want everyone to be successful & happy. We view liberals as wanting to take the money of the successful & redistribute it to others who did not work has hard as the successful in order to attain success.

"While a liberal is concerned about distributing the golden eggs that the Golden Goose produces, a conservative is more concerned about the health of the Golden Goose."

Conservatives care about equal opportunity, liberals about equal outcomes.

 

[Sinatra]

Government's first duty is to protect the people - not run their lives.

-Reagan

 

[Care4all]

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

Who besides the needy needs help?

is your helping and your family and friends and church helping the needy, enough to take care of all of the needy in your state deserving of help?

IF you, the churches, and others can not help everyone deserving because there are so many, and there are still many people in need of a helping hand in your state, who comes in to help them? The government? Or no one?

 

[Zoomie1980]

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

Who besides the needy needs help?

is your helping and your family and friends and church helping the needy, enough to take care of all of the needy in your state deserving of help?

IF you, the churches, and others can not help everyone deserving because there are so many, and there are still many people in need of a helping hand in your state, who comes in to help them? The government? Or no one?

No one. And there is nothing wrong with that. It has been the American way since 1776.

 

[Care4all]

Do you have any reading comprehension skills? Anyone who reads this article--knows that this democrat policy of "everyone deserves homeownership" is Ground Zero for all of the economic crisis we are having today. Only someone extremely intent on protecting the political party they typically vote for would state that this is "no smoking gun". Hell it's bigger than a gun, the above article is a 50 ton bomb of record & fact.

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

The article specifically states:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"note that sub-prime loans went to sub-prime borrowers." "People who could qualify for a fixed 30-year loan got those."

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

I don't think it's me that has the reading comprehension problem.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, in fact collapsed under these policies. They took the rest of the economy with them. Our entire mortgage & banking system went down with them. Bill Clinton even stated that he tried to reign in his own party on these very loose lending practices. FACT. Any & every single time someone warned of the on-coming train wreck--politicians fought tooth & nail to not impose higher lending standards. Mostly coming from democrats on the hill.

subprime borrowers are NOT SUBPRIME LOANS, they were put in to conventional loans, with no need to refinance when their adjustable rate mortgage went up etc....these loans ARE NOT the type of loony loans that are the main mortgages that lead to this crisis...

 

[Care4all]

they didn't collapse because of those policies oreo....WHERE do you get this stuff?

 

[Zoomie1980]

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

The article specifically states:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"note that sub-prime loans went to sub-prime borrowers." "People who could qualify for a fixed 30-year loan got those."

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

I don't think it's me that has the reading comprehension problem.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, in fact collapsed under these policies. They took the rest of the economy with them. Our entire mortgage & banking system went down with them. Bill Clinton even stated that he tried to reign in his own party on these very loose lending practices. FACT. Any & every single time someone warned of the on-coming train wreck--politicians fought tooth & nail to not impose higher lending standards. Mostly coming from democrats on the hill.

subprime borrowers are NOT SUBPRIME LOANS, they were put in to conventional loans, with no need to refinance when their adjustable rate mortgage went up etc....these loans ARE NOT the type of loony loans that are the main mortgages that lead to this crisis...

Was it Freddie and Fannie that backed all those house-flipping loans? There were not low-income people social legislation was forcing lending to that led to this. The asset bubble was create by all the real-estate "gurus" who in their infomercials trumpeted how to make money with other's money and a willing Wall St backed infusion of money derived through derivatives on these loans all fueled by a maniacal Greenspan effort to keep interest rate artificially low.

The real villains? The HOUSE FLIPPERS!!!! And the investment banks that sold their paper over and over again!!! And the investors who bought that crap!!!

In otherwords, WE, the American people, caused this and now we are paying the price. Too bad....time to pay up people. It's the national price for living beyond our collective means. Quite normal, quite expected, and quite NEEDED!!!

 

[Amanda]

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

Who besides the needy needs help?

is your helping and your family and friends and church helping the needy, enough to take care of all of the needy in your state deserving of help?

IF you, the churches, and others can not help everyone deserving because there are so many, and there are still many people in need of a helping hand in your state, who comes in to help them? The government? Or no one?

It's a complicated thing to try to discuss on a message board. I think that the truly needy will be taken care of under most circumstances. That said, people learn from adversity. Someone can suffer and that can lead them to learn a lesson they needed to learn. I don't think the elimination of suffering is possible or necessarily a desirable goal. Yes, much suffering is difficult to witness, but it's often what we need to experience.