One Month Left

[Robert W]

Did Republicans work with Democrats to write HR-2 and reach a bipartisan compromise?

Loading…

www.congress.gov

It is now in the Senate. Ask the Senate.

 

[22lcidw]

Bullshit. Dating back to Bush, we had been working on immigration reform by the Republican base has been opposed to any attempt.

It is fixing it without political demonizing. It is so easy to smear and condemn.

 

[Marener]

Loading…

www.congress.gov

It is now in the Senate. Ask the Senate.

Im asking you. Don’t you know? Or are you ignorant and clueless?

 

[Robert W]

Or are you ignorant and clueless?

You are as you kept asking me the question.

 

[Marener]

You are as you kept asking me the question.

Sure. I’ll answer since you’re ignorant.

The bill was not negotiated with Dems.

Adults know you have to negotiate and compromise to get legislation passed.

 

[Robert W]

Sure. I’ll answer since you’re ignorant.

The bill was not negotiated with Dems.

Adults know you have to negotiate and compromise to get legislation passed.

It was negotiated with the Democrats.

 

[Marener]

It was negotiated with the Democrats.

That’s an idiotic statement.

 

[DBA]

CRA had nothing to do with the subprime crisis since it didn’t regulate the mortgage brokers who were responsible for making the bad subprime loans. See, I already read up on the CRA and know this is a bogus right wing talking point.

You have no understanding of the role of Fannie and Freddie at all in the growth of the secondary mortgage market and the subsequent rise of the sub prime market in the private sector. Fannie and Freddie sold off their loans. Whether the loans they sold were the majority of those that defaulted are irrelevant. The government controlled their loan practices and the secondary market bought loans from them that were risky(per CRA). Those secondary markets extended those buying practices to the private sector. If it was ok to buy these from Fannie and Freddie, why wouldn't it be ok to buy them from a private equity firm? Sure, it was unethical, but Fannie and Freddie encouraged it and implied that it would be ok to buy such risky loans. The government, via CRA, said it was just fine.

I don't expect you to understand, but you have been fooled again by talking heads and pin heads who have put their politics above common sense.

Americans are not sitting on their duffs. Employment levels for Americans is nearly at all time highs. Children born to illegals are citizens. Not illegals. Children are an investment. They cost money up front and then spend 50 years contributing to the economy. The data doesn’t account for that.

I realize they are citizens. What I stated was that if these citizen children are taken into account and it is a net negative, that further exemplifies why we should not allow people to walk across our border unchecked and have babies that automatically become citizens that are a financial draw on society. If they are a net positive, as you seem to be suggesting, then why are you complaining that they are being included in the financial numbers? That would HELP your argument, but alas, illegal immigrants and their children(as you suggests) are included and they are a net negative.

You are all over the place and making no sense.

You’d think you guys would know more about the bill than just one little taking point but you don’t because right wing media keeps you ignorant. It would have very substantially changed the asylum process and made it much quicker and easier to handle, as well as harder to qualify for. You don’t know anything about it.

Why would I care what else is in the bill if there is something as egregious as allowing x number of people to cross the border illegally. Who would possible want that in a bill? What is the point of that? One can only assume that is it because there are some people(Democrats) that WANT illegal immigration. Just ridiculous.

 

[DBA]

Nope. They’re a private organization. The federal government did not set loan requirements. They could make loans to anyone they wanted.

Do some research on the secondary mortgage market and their relationship to Fannie and Freddie. You will need to think past step 1.

 

[Marener]

You have no understanding of the role of Fannie and Freddie at all in the growth of the secondary mortgage market and the subsequent rise of the sub prime market in the private sector. Fannie and Freddie sold of their loans. Whether the loans they sold were the majority of those that defaulted are irrelevent. The government controlled their loan practices and the secondary market bought loans from them that were risky(per CRA). Those secondary markets extended those buying practices to the private sector. If it was ok to buy these from Fannie and Freddie, why wouldn't it be ok to buy them from a private equity firm.

I don't expect you to understand, but you have been fooled again by talking heads and pin heads who have put their politics above common sense.

Fannie and Freddie weren’t the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis and maintained substantially higher loan standards than the true cause, which was private banking and mortgage brokers. Conservatives told us that investors were sophisticated and capable of assessing risk, so why would they make such a bizarre assumption that mortgage brokers had the same standards as GSEs? All the information was available to them, they just turned a blind eye because everyone was making money. It’s amazing to watch a conservative try to assign blame to anyone but the free market capitalists.

I realize they are citizens. What I stated was that if these citizen children are taken into account and it is a net negative, that further exemplifies why we should not allow people to walk across our border unchecked and have babies that automatically become citizens that are a financial draw on society. If they are a net positive, as you seem to be suggesting, then why are you complaining that they are being included in the financial numbers? That would HELP your argument, but alas, illegal immigrants and their children(as you suggests) are included and they are a net negative.

You are all over the place and making no sense.

All kids are a net negative when they’re kids but a net positive over their lifetime. That’s what it means to be an investment. It’s short sighted and dishonest to ignore long term benefits of these kids. Without them, our population would probably be shrinking and that would be very bad for the economy.

Why would I care what else is in the bill if there is something as egregious as allowing x number of people to cross the border illegally. Who would possible want that in a bill? What is the point of that? One can only assume that is it because there are some people(Democrats) that WANT illegal immigration. Just ridiculous.

Is that better or worse than the current situation?

 

[Marener]

Do some research on the secondary mortgage market and their relationship to Fannie and Freddie. You will need to think past step 1.

Already done ages ago. Mortgage brokers didn’t need Fannie and Fredddie to package loans for investors. Private banks did they.

Remember Lehman?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

One month left until the magic returns.

Trump isn’t even president yet and magic is already happening. I don’t need to list them. You know what they are.

 

[DBA]

Fannie and Freddie weren’t the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis and maintained substantially higher loan standards than the true cause, which was private banking and mortgage brokers. Conservatives told us that investors were sophisticated and capable of assessing risk, so why would they make such a bizarre assumption that mortgage brokers had the same standards as GSEs? All the information was available to them, they just turned a blind eye because everyone was making money. It’s amazing to watch a conservative try to assign blame to anyone but the free market capitalists.

Sorry, but the proliferation of risky mortgages being sold to secondary markets fueled this. Barney Frank also played a role by rejecting changes to CRA in 2005.

Believe what you will, but the bleeding heart is once again the problem for Democrats.

All kids are a net negative when they’re kids but a net positive over their lifetime. That’s what it means to be an investment. It’s short sighted and dishonest to ignore long term benefits of these kids. Without them, our population would probably be shrinking and that would be very bad for the economy.

Are you suggesting that they are only counting kids and not adults who were born to illegal immigrants?

I am not arguing that some adults who were born here from illegal parents are productive. My argument is that why on earth anyone would think it is ok to allow people to walk across our border illegally. It makes no sense at all from a financial or security standpoint.

Is that better or worse than the current situation?

Worse, because it is condoning illegal activity. Stealing a little is ok, right? That seems to be the mentality of current Democrats. Thank God most people realize how crazy that it is.

 

[Marener]

Sorry, but the proliferation of risky mortgages being sold to secondary markets fueled this. Barney Frank also played a role by rejecting changes to CRA in 2005.

Believe what you will, but the bleeding heart is once again the problem for Democrats.

We agree that the secondary mortgage market was a critical component of the subprime crisis. The problem is that the secondary market is not synonymous with GSEs or the CRA. Secondary market also exists outside these and was the primary driver of the bad loans.

Are you suggesting that they are only counting kids and not adults who were born to illegal immigrants?

I am not arguing that some adults who were born here from illegal parents are productive. My argument is that why on earth anyone would think it is ok to allow people to walk across our border illegally. It makes no sense at all from a financial or security standpoint.

You’re still trying to confuse policies. We aren’t discussing what should happen to the immigration system or the border. It’s about what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants that have been here for years. Deporting all of them would be an economic disaster.

Worse, because it is condoning illegal activity. Stealing a little is ok, right? That seems to be the mentality of current Democrats. Thank God most people realize how crazy that it is.

What a bizarre and nonsensical statement. This is some terminal partisanship. Fact is that crossings could only be curtailed by the proposed limit because there is currently NO limit whatsoever.

 

[DBA]

You’re still trying to confuse policies. We aren’t discussing what should happen to the immigration system or the border. It’s about what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants that have been here for years. Deporting all of them would be an economic disaster.

I disagree based on the numbers, especially in the long term. I guess you just don't believe those numbers. I can't help you there.

What a bizarre and nonsensical statement. This is some terminal partisanship. Fact is that crossings could only be curtailed by the proposed limit because there is currently NO limit whatsoever.

Not at all. We may be stuck with this "compromise" for quite some time. I don't agree with allowing any number of illegals into the country. Personally I think it is ludicrous. To each his own.

 

[Winco]

What current president would that be? We haven't had one for four years.

More like 8 years, soon to be 12.

 

[Marener]

I disagree based on the numbers, especially in the long term. I guess you just don't believe those numbers. I can't help you there.

Short term and long term, your numbers are simply not believable. They come from highly partisan and virulently anti-immigration groups with a clear agenda. Taking them at face value is foolish.

The fact remains that eliminating millions of workers from the economy will have dramatic economic consequences that you guys don’t want to discuss.

Not at all. We may be stuck with this "compromise" for quite some time. I don't agree with allowing any number of illegals into the country. Personally I think it is ludicrous. To each his own.

It takes some very absurd mental gymnastics to think a limit on crossings is better than no limit whatsoever.

 

[Robert W]

Fannie and Freddie weren’t the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis and maintained substantially higher loan standards than the true cause, which was private banking and mortgage brokers. Conservatives told us that investors were sophisticated and capable of assessing risk, so why would they make such a bizarre assumption that mortgage brokers had the same standards as GSEs? All the information was available to them, they just turned a blind eye because everyone was making money. It’s amazing to watch a conservative try to assign blame to anyone but the free market capitalists.

Fannie and Freddie are the Free market capitalists.


By
Wendy Connett

Updated September 24, 2023
Reviewed by
Chip Stapleton
Fact checked by
Suzanne Kvilhaug

There's a very good chance you've heard of Fannie Mae. But do you know what it does and how it operates?
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), better known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) founded in 1938 by Congress during the Great Depression. As part of the New Deal, it was established to stimulate the housing market by making more mortgages available to moderate- to low-income borrowers.
Fannie Mae does not extend mortgages to borrowers. But it does purchase and guarantee them through the secondary mortgage market. That reduces the risks to banks, making them more willing to loan money.

 

[DBA]

Short term and long term, your numbers are simply not believable. They come from highly partisan and virulently anti-immigration groups with a clear agenda. Taking them at face value is foolish.

You don't like the sources, but your sources are non-partisan. I swear you guys are hopeless.

It takes some very absurd mental gymnastics to think a limit on crossings is better than no limit whatsoever.

Why would any be allowed if we can stop it? What is the logic behind that?

 

[Robert W]

More like 8 years, soon to be 12.

Aren't you happy that you wanted Biden gone from office?