• #4
    This is absurd. We never ever stop doing bad things to make money for the banks. I have been trying to tell you liberals for the past TEN THOUSAND posts that Obama is owned by Wall Street just like bush was. RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014 - 2016. It's the ONLY way to put enough fear in these asshats from both parties to stop selling us out.
  • #13
    Re-elect nobody? That will never work, both sides are owned before they're ever sworn into office. ELECT NOBODY, DO NOT VOTE and nullify all elections.
  • #40
    And both sides are owned by the same interests, who don't care who is in office. The top gets more while the bottom gets less. Notice NEITHER party ever changes that. The gap between the have's and have not's trends wider and wider.
  • #43
    @TheHandsomeOne "ELECT NOBODY, DO NOT VOTE" There will always be the faithful who vote for a candidate. "Nullify all elections" won't happen. The best action is not an action is not good in this case.
    The best action is to force term limits on the ones who won't term limit themselves! Haven't we wondered why these politicians put a term limit on the highest (most visible) office in our land but not on themselves? RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014 - 2016 is a viable, doable goal and I stand behind it......100%.
  • #44
    @stepped_in_it many registered voters have to abstain to nullify an election?

    voting signifies you condone and abide by the clearly corrupt and broken system that is in place only for the owners, not the people

    this is no longer an actual republic

    when you vote you agree to accept whatever it is, even if you don't know
  • #49
    @TheHandsomeOne "how many registered voters have to abstain to nullify an election?" I don't know, but, since you called for it, I'm assigning you the task to inform all and find out (see never raise your hand in school) <grinning>
    "corrupt and broken system" Voting as we have for 50+ years signifies you condone the system. "Rotating" out these clowns is the best solution. This country is not perfect, but, it does offer the freedom to have choices. It may not be all the choices we want, but, it's a far better thing to have some choices than to only have one (or none). We can go radical (not vote at all), which will not do anything but force them to choose for us...and I don't ever want that!
    You do know the best way to eat an elephant?
    One bite at a time!
    RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014 - 2016 (one vote at a time)
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    I've struggled for decades to keep my credit score up, knowing it was important to so many aspects of life in a capitalist society. Why should people be rewarded for a lack of personal integrity and responsibility? People need to EARN a good credit rating before being trusted with something as heavy as a mortgage. If you don't have the track record of paying your bills, you should be required to put up a 50% down payment. This is just another sign that Wall Street and Big Banks own our government, both Democrats and Republicans.
  • #45
    These fools will never learn. Does this have any reflection on why our country is in the shape it is in? Will these politicians EVER get their head and ass wired togeather?
  • #30
    The only difference between Cypress and the American bank bailouts are semantic. One takes a percentage of everyone's "money" and gives it to the banks. The other takes a percentage of the value of everyone's "money" and gives it to the banks.
  • #82
    Perfectly stated. Bravo. How could we be such fools to have allowed our families to be enslaved to the Federal Govt? Revulsion overTax Slavery under the YOKE of Big Brother/Big Govt was the basis for our Revolution. How sad for our children. How sad for us all.
  • #87
    @BossTweed What we are doing to our kids is immoral. Where would our generation be today had previous generations felt it was acceptable to finance over 40% of their government's cost unto us? In 50 years we have gone from "ask not what your country can do for you" to "what will the government do for me today"? I shudder to think where our country will be in another 50 years.
  • #18
    Oh yeah..... that is a fantastic idea!! The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results!!
  • #77
    True story, a girl I know was on public assistance while her now ex husband was in prison. She works for a furniture store, not a huge paycheck. She was raising her 2 kids by herself. She decided that being in housing wasn't for her. She found a USDA funded mortgage, backed by Gerrie Mean, Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mac. She needed no down payment an bought herself a small brand new house. She has since lost it, and is...... you guessed it, back in housing. The owning of a home is an expensive endeavour, and if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have one!! Earn it!!
  • #15
    Despite what it looks like, it's a play that benefits the banksters either way. Loan money that doesn't exist, if paid back, now it exists and they have it. Not paid back, they own more of America and more lives are destoryed.
  • #28
    The problem was fraudulent home loans and fraudulent banks.The idea that it was risky loans is just smoke and mirrors by the wasn't just poor people or first time buyers that were sold bad loans.The only problem with home buyers is that they trusted the banks.That's what shouldn't be done.
  • #25
    I have asked a similar question like this before: If Obama didn't bail out the banks, how were they going to stay afloat?? Who do you think funds the banks?? Aren't banks backed by the government anyway?? Hello?? Duh?!!
  • #6
    Obama's biggest failures have been in not prosecuting the banksters responsible for cratering the economy. In this case he is actually helping these same crooks. The banksters don't care whether a loan gets paid back or not. Either the borrower pays it back (at a high interest rate because he is a credit risk) or the government does if the borrower can't. They make a big bet, if it pays off they keep the profit and if it doesn't the gov't picks up the marker. Shame on you President Obama.
  • #9
    There is no country on earth that thinks people have to "own a house" in order to be successful other than the USA. Imagine my surprise when I went to Western Europe for the first time to meet my inlaws (who were multi millionaires) and expected a mansion but instead found them living in a Condo. Why? In the entire city they lived in, "house" owners were less than 5% of that German city. What is the point to this? House ownership require expensive maintenance, property taxes just keep climbing regardless and you NEVER actually own that home. the government does. It's ridiculous. People should be encouraged to get into a small condo as a starter and work their way up from there.
  • #11
    Then his biggest failure is not prosecuting Clinton for knowingly allowing it to happen with his first push at this.
  • #24
    @Arumizy I think you might have forgotten someone between Clinton and Obama. Guess who? That's right GW Moron!

    Here's an article from 2004 describing the differences between Bush the lesser and John Kerry on housing issues. The relevant part "On issues of housing and mortgages, there are clear differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Bush pushes homeownership, especially among minorities. Kerry emphasizes providing decent and affordable rental housing. "

    Bush not only did nothing to curb the irresponsible lending he encouraged it and did his best to cut back on the kinds of "unnecessary regulations" that might just have stopped it. Certainly if Clinton should have been prosecuted then Bush should have been the one to do it. He didn't. He accelerated the sub-prime loan programs and bragged about it.

    That's the difference between us on the left and you on the right. I call out Obama for being wrong. Those of you on the right march like lemmings behind whatever your leaders tell you. You apparently either don't know the difference between right or wrong or don't care if someone does something wrong as long as they have a "-R" after their name.
  • #31
    @PNWest Yes that is right your insults have won you the arguement and shown your keen intellect. I have never once said that Bush didn't share the responsibility, nor have i said the same punishment that you are wanting on the bankers, yet i said extend to Clinton did not imply doing it to Bush either. The difference between right and wrong is that you are so blinded by your hatred of the right that you are willing to belittle yourself, you intellegence and others to try and make it seem like the right is the only one who does wrong. I called Bush out for being wrong many, many times but the majority of todays sheep are on the left and blindly follow anything Obama says. Now you have proven to me that you are not worth the breath used to continue a conversation, my advice grow up and act like you have a twinkle of intelligence in that empty space between your ears.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    The fool obama knows the destruction this practice can create.No wonder his administration would suggest such a thing.
  • #26
    who wins and who is Obama working for........ the banks loan money that doesn't even exist, not even in fractions since "it" was given to them, via keyboard entries, by DC.... loans repaid then the banks win huge..... loans defaulted then the bank and DC owns more of America than they already do and they rape and pillage more wealth aside from real property in the process of foreclosure.

    Let's not forget about all the revenues the various governments collect by the various transfers associated with the sham of private ownership of real property in the USA.

    Can't make them work because the rich ain't paying, make them kick some up for the false hope their home purchase really isn't a thinly veiled tenancy.

    Mitt would be doing the same thing except he'd less likely try to make it look like encouraging debt, of which Bernake has sworn is the answer to this nation's economic woes, was for anyone's betterment but the banks.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #89
    This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Did we learn nothing? People are still calling for bank execs to be thrown in jail for doing this exact thing and yet our president want to do it all over again? Just plain stupid.
  • #86
    We should be perfectly fine with giving out more money to riskier loan recipients as long as the banks act responsible. Reckless banks manufactured the "housing bubble" and "global recession" to wipe out the competition and that they now three banks control the worlds economy and three food company's control the food we eat and three oil company's control control the price of oil...I thought monopolies were illegal in America
  • R Load more comments...