What Qualifies Obama to be President of the US?

[Heracles 417]

2. Bush's policies are largely responsible for the mess we are in today. Right winger's will blame the democrats (another shocker) and even Bill Clinton (that was 8 years ago, not even a plausible excuse). I'm from a military background & I was always taught that, for better or worse, the commander is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of his/her unit. Well Bush is the Commander in Chief and the country is his "unit", so ultimately the blame falls on him as far as I'm concerned. McCain's foreign policy is nearly identical to the Bush doctrine, which by almost any measure has been a utter failure. McCain's economic policies are somewhat different, but Obama's policies are more in line with my opinion on the matter.

The question is who first initiated this concept of arms loans and so forth. Who established policies to provide loans for the poor, and minorities, to buy homes using welfare payments as income. Wall street is not to blame here. While I understand why they did this, it clearly did not work. The logical of let them buy the house and car then the job will come is flawed. You need the job first, then you can get the house and car. A house should be a privilege one has to work for and certainly not a right.

I have heard people go on and on about Enron, which affected thousand of people. Hollywood even produced a few films like Fun with ####### and Jane about it. How many films will they produce about flawed social re-engineering which has affected and brought down the entire country...

[rebeccajo 14]

Talk about generalities.

You forgot to throw out a "oh noes uz hate brownz peoplz"..

Were you talking about brown people?

Was I talking about brown people?

Since neither of us was - just what exactly are you on about?

[Heracles 417]

Talk about generalities.

You forgot to throw out a "oh noes uz hate brownz peoplz"..

Were you talking about brown people?

Was I talking about brown people?

Since neither of us was - just what exactly are you on about?

Clearly you missed the point. Where one accuses others of generalizing but has not problem throwing out, in other threads, generalizations themselves. EG One must hate brown people to be against illegal immigration.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Aficionado

[rebeccajo 14]

The question is who first initiated this concept of arms loans and so forth. Who established policies to provide loans for the poor, and minorities, to buy homes using welfare payments as income. Wall street is not to blame here. While I understand why they did this, it clearly did not work. The logical of let them buy the house and car then the job will come is flawed. You need the job first, then you can get the house and car. A house should be a privilege one has to work for and certainly not a right.

ARM loans as a concept started in the late 70's. They were designed generally to appeal to upwardly mobile borrowers who either received substantial annual raises OR were transferred frequently.

There's a little thing out there called Equal Opportunity Lending. It prohibits lenders from discriminating due to a person being poor or from one of the "minority" ethnic groups.

If you think that everybody who obtained an ARM was poor, or from a minority group, or on welfare - well there's your ignorance about the situation showing itself again.

And..........NOW you are talking about brown people. In quite an inflammatory manner I might add.

Clearly you missed the point. Where one accuses others of generalizing but has not problem throwing out, in other threads, generalizations themselves. EG One must hate brown people to be against illegal immigration.

I didn't miss a single point.

Try again.

[Mags 112]

*wanders in*

Respect others' opinions please and don't resort to insults. Those who are guilty know who they are!

*wanders out muttering to self*

Edited October 6, 2008 by Magenta

[Heracles 417]

The question is who first initiated this concept of arms loans and so forth. Who established policies to provide loans for the poor, and minorities, to buy homes using welfare payments as income. Wall street is not to blame here. While I understand why they did this, it clearly did not work. The logical of let them buy the house and car then the job will come is flawed. You need the job first, then you can get the house and car. A house should be a privilege one has to work for and certainly not a right.

ARM loans as a concept started in the late 70's. They were designed generally to appeal to upwardly mobile borrowers who either received substantial annual raises OR were transferred frequently.

There's a little thing out there called Equal Opportunity Lending. It prohibits lenders from discriminating due to a person being poor or from one of the "minority" ethnic groups.

If you think that everybody who obtained an ARM was poor, or from a minority group, or on welfare - well there's your ignorance about the situation showing itself again.

And..........NOW you are talking about brown people. In quite an inflammatory manner I might add.

Funny that hey.. You guys were saying about republicans and corporations????

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am yet to met a poor lawyer. Lawyers are also not exactly financial gurus either, quite the contrary actually. They make their money exploiting loopholes and technicalities in the outdated legal system. That is all America needs.

Talk about generalities.

Well there are pro-bono lawyers aren't there?

Not every lawyer is a Johnny Cochrane "if glove fits wear it" trial lawyer.

Keep going. You're getting sillier and sillier by the minute.

Sorry - I was addressing the "I've yet to see a poor lawyer" point. The legal profession is like any other oversaturated job market, it doesn't really pay as much as people think it does - outside of premier league law firms (or indeed TV shows like Boston Legal).

[rocks 494]

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.

that is why these problems occured, shareholders.

[rebeccajo 14]

Arthur, can you read?

Of course, Fannie and Freddie relaxed the underwriting criteria! But that doesn't mean EVERYBODY who is going belly-up right now is poor, from a minority group, or on welfare.

Read! Comprehend!

[rocks 494]

Arthur, can you read?

Of course, Fannie and Freddie relaxed the underwriting criteria! But that doesn't mean EVERYBODY who is going belly-up right now is poor, from a minority group, or on welfare.

Read! Comprehend!

indeed, and if the republican party is understanding of the "average joe" as Aficionado claimed previously then why is it that the clinton administration were the ones pushing for more average joes to be able to get mortgages?

[Heracles 417]

Arthur, can you read?

Of course, Fannie and Freddie relaxed the underwriting criteria! But that doesn't mean EVERYBODY who is going belly-up right now is poor, from a minority group, or on welfare.

Read! Comprehend!

I never said minorities or the poor are to blame. I posted an article which shows who pushed these sort of loans in the first place.

Hint: It was not GWB..

PS for the 100th time Arthur was from Adelaide, I am from Melbourne. Arthur moved back to AUS many years ago. I am married and living here. Gezzz.

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.

that is why these problems occured, shareholders.

but not this hey..

as been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people

Edited October 6, 2008 by Aficionado

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

He's qualified because, he's fresh,new,can speak well,wants to spend like a sailor,makes false promises, all things libruls love! No substance at all. When he cocks his head to the heavens and speaks, libruls fall to their knees and bow. Such emotional creatures they are.

[rocks 494]

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.

that is why these problems occured, shareholders.

but not this hey..

as been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people

you know as well as i do that shareholders are the problem here.

also... nothing to say to that?

if the republican party is understanding of the "average joe" as Aficionado claimed previously then why is it that the clinton administration were the ones pushing for more average joes to be able to get mortgages?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The shareholder pressure would have been curbed by increased regulation.

[rocks 494]

The shareholder pressure would have been curbed by increased regulation.

just look at what happened to our train lines... and after all those people died, they still wanted more money instead of paying to replace the tracks. regulation is definitely required here.