Posts Tagged ‘Mortgage Crisis’
The foundation for the housing crisis was laid with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, where the government took it upon itself to encourage home ownership by pressuring banks to lend to lower-income buyers, often to meet arbitrary racial quotas. Obviously they haven’t learned a thing from where that got us.
Would it surprise anyone to learn that as a lawyer, Obama sued banks to force them to issue subprime loans? He also worked for ACORN, which specialized in using the Community Reinvestment Act to shake down banks and pressure them to loan money to low-income minorities or face “discrimination” charges.
According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is pushing big banks to make more home loans available to Americans with bad credit – the same kind of government guidance that helped blow up the housing market:
In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.
Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.
Think about this statement. The administration is asking banks – banks that Washington bails out; banks that Washington crafts regulations for — to embrace risky policies that put the institution and its investors (not to mention, all of us) in a precarious position. So precarious, in fact, that banks have to ask government if they can be freed of any legal or financial consequences.
What could possibly go wrong?
These types of government policies initially emerged the mid-1970s, when “progressive” Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low-income minorities become homeowners. This led to the passage, in 1977, of theCommunity Reinvestment Act (CRA), a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to borrowers of meager means. Founded on the premise that government intervention is necessary to counteract the fundamentally racist and inequitable nature of American society and the free market, the CRA was eventually transformed from an outreach effort into a strict quota system by the Clinton administration. Under the new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran the risk of getting a low CRA rating from the FDIC. This, in turn, could derail the bank’s efforts to expand, relocate, merge, etc. From a practical standpoint, then, banks had no recourse but to drastically lower their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell explains, this led to “skyrocketing rates of mortgage delinquencies and defaults,” and the rest is history.
The CRA was by no means the only mechanism designed by government to impose lending quotas on financial institutions. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed rules encouraging lenders to dramatically hike their loan-approval rates for minority applicants and began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers who failed to do so, regardless of the reason. This, too, caused lenders to lower their down-payment and income requirements.
Moreover, HUD pressured the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a steeply rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers. Many of these were subprime mortgages—loans characterized by higher interest rates and less favorable terms in order to compensate lenders for the high credit risk they were incurring.
Additional pressure toward this end was applied by community organizations like the pro-socialist ACORN. By accusing banks—however frivolously or unjustly—of having engaged in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA, these groups commonly sued banks toprevent them from expanding or merging as they wished. Barack Obama, ACORN’s staunch ally, was strongly in favor of this practice. Indeed, in a 1994 class-action lawsuit against Citibank, Obama represented ACORN in demanding more favorable terms for subprime homebuyer mortgages. After four years of being dragged through the mud, a beleaguered Citibank—anxious to put an end to the incessant smears (charging racism) that Obama and his fellow litigators were hurling in its direction (to say nothing of its mounting legal bills)—agreed to settle the case.
Forbes magazine puts it bluntly: “Obama has been a staunch supporter of the CRA throughout his public life.” In other words, he has long advocated the very policies that already have reduced the real-estate market to rubble. And now he is actively pushing those very same practices again.
The 1977 “Community Reinvestment Act” laid the groundwork for racial bias in lending. Banks were forced to fulfill racial quotas – even if that meant relaxing lending standards – or face fines and shake-down campaigns from the likes of ACORN activists.
Now Obama is expanding racial bias to nearly every industry:
If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.
President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
Obama has a long history of punishing producers in his quest for minority justice.
State Sen. Barack Obama and his radical mentor and friend Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate loan businesses back in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)
In his next term Obama is going back to his roots as a community organizer.
This is what happens when government interferes in the marketplace and tries to pick winners and losers:
FORTUNE — Do we need to worry about Too Small to Survive?
Now that President Obama has been re-elected, analysts, consultants and dealmakers have turned from whether Dodd-Frank will be repealed to what it means for banks now that it’s likely here to stay. The overwhelming conclusion: Thousands of small banks will soon disappear.
More lost jobs, more individuals and small businesses struggling to get quality service from a “too big to fail” bank that knows it will be bailed out no matter what crappy decisions they make.
Obama: Banks Are In It To Make Money And That’s Why We Need To Regulate Them
View on YouTube
Whenever Obama goes off teleprompter, it’s only a matter of time before his Marxist roots start to show. He just can’t help himself:
“Look, these financial institutions are in to make money and that’s why we need some smart regulations and this is an example of the difference in this campaign because my opponent says he wants to roll back all those [Dodd-Frank] regulations.”
Obama is right in this regard; this worldview is an example of the difference between his campaign and Romney’s. The Massachusetts Governor does not believe making a profit is a bad thing government needs to regulate.
Further, what Obama does not understand is that such regulations — like Dodd-Frank — have actually hurt small and community banks that do not have the resources of the larger financial institutions to deal with the burdens such laws impose.
One of the biggest drivers of the financial crisis was the federal government creating artificial, politically-driven incentives that moved these financial institutions to even make these “reckless bets.” Finance isn’t blameless, but how is more government involvement and control a desirable idea?
[…] Firstly, the president has yet to sufficiently explain why a large, entrenched bureaucracy seeking political gain through fiat is somehow nobler than a private, productive business seeking monetary profit by meeting consumers’ choices. As Ammon Simon writes for Forbes, Dodd-Frank is the very definition of tyranny. Secondly, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are not financial anarchists, but yes, they do want to roll back these new economy-damaging, job-killing, small-bank-sinking regulations still being written that are protecting large institutions “too big to fail” status rather than mitigating it.
This is socialism in its purest form, but most Americans don’t recognize it because they have never experienced it and you can be sure that our liberally run education system would not teach it as such. Instead, they disguise it as being pro-poor people and teach our children that successful business people are the real villains of our land.
Others who have come here from other countries who have lived under socialist rule readily see what Obama is doing and try to warn us about letting him turn us into another failed socialist country. Many have come here to escape socialism and are now living with the fear that America will become like the countries they left.
Obama believes that businesses shouldn’t be in it to make money. If you take away the profit motive, and why would anybody work?
It is any wonder his policies have hurt so many businesses and jobs, while swelling the numbers on welfare and food stamps?
We can’t afford 4 more years of this!
Obama is deliberately selling the next two generations of Americans into debt slavery.
In presidential campaign ads, President Barack Obama claims that his economic plan includes “$4 trillion in deficit reduction.” For a president who has increased the national debt more than all U.S. presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined, the claim seems incredible. Indeed, it is.
A new analysis of Mr. Obama’s budget reveals the president’s plan would add $10.6 trillion in debt accumulation over the next decade, bringing the U.S. federal debt to a jaw-dropping $25.4 trillion.
[…] In addition, the Obama budget contains $1.8 trillion in tax increases over the next decade. Specifically, the top marginal tax rate would jump to 39.6 percent, taxes on dividends would skyrocket to 43.4 percent (from 15 percent), and the death tax would leap to 45 percent.
Rachel Alexander has an excellent piece at Townhall breaking down exactly how government meddling in the housing market caused the bubble and bust that ended up costing many Americans everything they had:
The epidemic of home foreclosures has been made far worse than necessary due to the banks’ unwillingness to work with homeowners. Although Congress has passed numerous laws to force the banks to assist homeowners, the banks have found ways not to comply. The banks also brazenly break other laws to further their profits at the expense of homeowners, most recently by falsifying interest rates in theLIBOR scandal.
Regular middle class Americans everywhere have unjustly lost their homes to foreclosure. They ended up in homes they could not sell due to the Federal Reserve Board, not their own actions. The Fed manipulates interest rates in order to grow or shrink the economy. It kept rates artificially low several years ago for a lengthy period of time. At the same time, Congress relaxed the laws on lending. The Obama administrationordered banks to lend to risky borrowers or face lawsuits. Many people with poor credit bought homes who were clearly risky borrowers. A large number were issued subprime loans they could not afford, ensuring their default.
Once the defaults began in 2007, the abandoned homes flooded the housing market, driving down home values for everyone. This left most homeowners unable to sell their homes, since most homeowners have a sizable mortgage. Someone who bought a home with a mortgage for $200,000 saw the value of their home dip to as low as half of that. Upside down, there is no way for someone to sell their home without owing the bank a considerable amount.
As people began losing their jobs due to the recession, they could not downsize to a smaller house or apartment because of being upside down on their mortgages. Many tried to short sale their homes, in the hopes of walking away without owing anything. In order to force the banks to accept a short sale, homeowners had to play chicken and stop paying their mortgages. Other homeowners stopped paying their mortgages in hopes of getting a loan modification, relying upon laws that were passed requiring banks to work with homeowners on loan modifications.
Very few of these homeowners were able to save their homes from foreclosure. The banks routinely turned down their requests for loan modifications, for trumped-up excuses like not turning in enough information or ironically missing mortgage payments, a catch-22. The banks turned down their short sale offers, for equally invalid excuses like claiming perfectly reasonable offers were not a good deal, or losing their paperwork. Finally, when some homeowners began to see their home values bounce back this year, allowing them to sell, the banks would not give them a payoff amount but went ahead with foreclosure.
Under Obama’s Homeowner and Stability Plan of 2009, the banks were given bonuses for each loan modification they implemented; $1,000 to the bank and $1,500 to the servicer. The banks put some homeowners in temporary “trial” loan modifications, collected the bonuses, then ultimately rejected the homeowners from permanent modifications and foreclosed on their homes. Half of the homeowners who entered the program were booted out. It soon became apparent that the program had been implemented to stave off foreclosures until after the 2010 election. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, architect of the 2009 Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, cruelly referred to the program as homeowners “foaming the runway” for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. Neil Barofsky, former special inspector for TARP, has written a book exposing the fraud, entitled “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” Barofsky is a Democrat and contributor to Obama, but was so appalled by what he encountered that he went public with the scandal.
Of the $46 billion in federal aid directed to distressed homeowners under TARP, only 10 percent has been distributed. One of the programs, which allocates $2.7 in TARP funds to encourage lenders to write down or eliminate second liens when refinancing, has not helped a single homeowner.
Housing Crisis Redux: ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ that caused mortgage crisis is back, as if 2008 never happened
The original housing bubble and subsequent mortgage meltdown began with the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977, which ACORN and politicians used to force banks to lend to low-income and minority applicants who were bad credit risks – all in the name of “compassion” and helping more people realize the “American dream of home ownership” before they were financially able. Government meddling created this crisis, and MORE government meddling under Obama has exacerbated the problem.
Now, they’re determined to repeat the mistake that cost the average American up to 40% of their net worth, much of it from their home value.
Do you remember that thing about how the banks wouldn’t lend to blacks and Hispanics because they were racists? And do you remember how they passed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks were forced to reduce down payments practically to zero and lend to a lot of people they knew were bad credit risks? And do you remember how Wall Street bundled all these risky subprime mortgages and sold them to investors around the world so that when it became clear that those people weren’t going to be able to pay their mortgages banks everywhere were left holding the bag and all five of the Wall Street investment houses either went under or had to be bailed out by the federal government?
And do you remember how, when it was all over, liberals said it was actually the banks’ fault for “deceiving” all those people into thinking they could afford to buy homes and that the banks should be punished for it and some of those people be allowed to keep their homes anyway? And do you remember how all this cost the government close to a trillion dollars and put the whole economy in a hole that we really haven’t begun to dig ourselves out of yet?
Well, get ready because the whole thing is about to happen again.
Yes, believe it or not, the federal government is now startinganother initiative to force banks to lend to low-credit-rated blacks and Hispanics — not just anybody but specifically blacks and Hispanics — and is threatening — and already imposing — huge punitive fines if they don’t. Moreover, this time they’re going even further. They’re going to take over the credit rating agenciesand force them to change their standards to accommodate blacks and Hispanics so that nobody will have any idea who is a bad credit risk and who is not. In so many words, the government is about impose its will on the whole home-lending market and force another round of bad loans so that the banks are going to be looted once again so that even the federal government may not be able to bail them out this time.
The principle instrument this time is not the Justice Department, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as it was last time, but the brand-new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, designed by good old Elizabeth “Nobody-Ever-Made-It-On-Their-Own” Warren, which should really be called the Bureau for Bringing Down the Entire Economy. As reported in last Sunday’s New York Post by Hoover Institution Media Fellow Paul Sperry, the CFPB has just announced that it is adopting a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” issues by the Interagency Task force on Fair Lending in 1994 that kicked off Attorney General Janet Reno’s draconic enforcement of the Community Renewal Act. Part of the policy statement reads, “Applying different lending standards or offering different levels of assistance to applicants who are members of a protected [i.e., minority] class is permissible in some circumstances. Providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible if done in response to a court order.” There are already plenty of court orders sitting around.
Just two weeks ago Wells Fargo caved to a Justice Department offensive and paid $175 million for alleged past discriminating against minority borrowers. All this occurred even though the bank received an “outstanding” grade in its most recent Community Reinvestment Act exam. The government did not even bother to prove discrimination in a single instance but relied instead on statistics showing lower rates of homeownership in minority neighborhoods. Thomas Perez, the Justice Department honcho who is spearheading this campaign, says banks discriminate “with a smile” and “fine print” and are “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Nice objective evaluation there.
As in most such cases, Wells Fargo chickened out about going to court and refused to admit any wrongdoing but agreed to all kinds of diversity training and sensitivity counseling. The bank will have to “prominently display” a notice informing minority customers that they cannot be turned down for loans just because they are receiving public assistance such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments or food stamps. (Maybe they can even use food stamps for the down payment.) Wells Fargo must provide minority customers $50 million for down-payment and closing-cost assistance, including “Borrower Assistance Grants” of up to $15,000 per individual. It was also ordered to pay $125 million to as yet unnamed victims of previous discrimination. But get this! If those past victims don’t show up, the money must be handed over to community organizing groups. President Obama, you have a job waiting for you if you lose office this fall.
When government steps outside of its legitimate, scriptural role of enforcing the rule of law and protecting unalienable rights – including private property rights – and grabs power to meddle in things outside its jurisdiction (such as the mortgage market), tyranny is inevitably the result.
The Wall Street Journal had a front-page article entitled “Cities Consider Seizing Mortgages” just two days ago.
The information in the article allows us to derive a formula that tells us how Emperor Obama and imperial functionaries plan to convert private property and rearrange capital markets for the “public good.”
San Bernadino County officials — together with the venture capital firm Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP) and particular investment banks — are looking for California judges who are willing to join with them in order to steal private property for the purpose of self-enrichment and, of course, for the purpose of advancing the public good.
The thieves’ tool is eminent domain. A key player is Mr. Roger Altman, who “served in the Clinton administration and is raising funds for President Obama’s re-election effort.”
According to the article, Mr. Altman’s investment bank, Evercore Partners, together with the investment bank Westwood Capital, has been retained by MRP for the purpose of raising funds from private investors. The goal is to channel those funds to cities that will then seize, via the gavels of judges, certain underwater mortgage bonds currently held by firms who seem not to be as selfless as our valiant protagonists.
Just call it a novel play in what might be a burgeoning “post-securitization” market.
You see, San Bernadino County, and many other areas, have high percentages of homeowners saddled with underwater mortgages.
The poor homeowners — so loaded with debt that they don’t buy enough things! And think of what more foreclosures would do to home prices! In turn, what would that do to property tax revenues?
But wait — the proposed program is geared only toward a certain segment of the mortgage bond market:
… [u]nlike the beneficiaries of most recent mortgage-modification efforts, who must show hardship, these borrowers would have to be current on their payments to participate. And the program initially would focus only on mortgage-backed securities that aren’t federally guaranteed — about 10% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages.
So, there’s clearly a very “big problem,” and obviously government must fix it. But they can’t do it alone — they need an assist from “private” capital.
The preceding quote shows that the “big problem” is that there’s a chunk of homeowners who have, for whatever reason or reasons, decided not to walk away from underwater mortgages. Since they’re also current on their payments, there is every reason to believe that they’re pretty good credit risks — which, statistically speaking, probably has something to do with why they aren’t eligible for Mr. Obama’s mortgage modification programs.
The problem is now obvious to anyone who’s given any thought to how things should work. The problem is: how can one steal (sorry, it’s not stealing — it’s eminent domain) reliable debt instruments from presumptively honest investors, thereby safeguarding the public interest, while somehow managing to enrich oneself in the process?
Enter our protagonists. Wouldn’t it be terrific for everyone involved if cities could successfully petition courts to seize reliable mortgage bonds at 80 cents on the dollar? Then, one could split the difference in part by arranging reduction (through the Federal Housing Administration) of the mortgage principal (thereby creating equity out of nothing on behalf of certain homeowners so that they can buy more things and better avoid foreclosure). What’s left over can be divided among cities, MRP, and its investors!
That’s the plan. All that’s needed are public-spirited courts.
Property taxes are a direct assault on the rights of private property. A free people should not have to pay Big Government a continuous extortion fee for the “privilege” of living in their own homes.
People are losing their homes over unpaid tax bills that, in some cases, add up to just a few hundred dollars.
Outdated state laws that allow local governments to sell tax liens on delinquent properties to investors in order to more quickly collect on overdue property taxes is sparking a second “foreclosure crisis,” a report from the National Consumer Law Center said Tuesday.
When homeowners don’t pay property taxes or other municipal bills, like water or sewer fees, local governments have less money to maintain services like schools, police and fire departments and road maintenance. By selling tax liens, those governments can collect on what it is owed.
Investors, in return, effectively own a claim against the property until the homeowner pays the county or municipality back or until they default on the debt entirely. The investor can either collect interest on the taxes owed from the homeowner. Or, if the homeowner fails to pay up, the investor can take possession, or foreclose, on the home.
“It’s a win-win for investors,” said John Rao, a consumer credit and bankruptcy attorney and the author of the report. Either the investor gets their investment back with interest or they get the home — typically, for a pretty sizable discount to what the home is worth.
The report cited a case of an 81-year-old Rhode Island woman who fell behind on a $474 sewer bill. A corporation bought the home in a tax sale for $836.39. The woman was evicted from the home she had lived in for more than 40 years and the corporation resold the place for $85,000, the report said.
Our children are being sold into debt slavery. It’s fiscal child abuse for one generation to steal the future wages of the next generation before they can even earn it! When are Americans finally going to stand up and say ENOUGH!?!
The national debt has now increased by more than $64,000 per federal taxpayer since Barack Obama was inaugurated president.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the U.S. Treasury, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. By the close of business on July 10, 2012, that debt had climbed to $15,885,854,755,351.47—an increase of $5,258,977,706,438.39.
Bob Beauprez makes a sobering observation about the cost of government at Townhall:
President Obama is betting his re-election chances on convincing enough people that Americans are not taxed enough. His designated villain is millionaires – a class that virtually everybody would like to be in.
On the week that we all have the IRS and taxes on our mind, however, it is instructive to look at the bigger picture. The Tax Foundation and the Republican Study Committee offer us the following graph that shows Americans spend more on government at the federal, state, and local level that to provide the essentials of food, shelter and clothing. Yikes!
Ron Meyer at CNS News says that rather than fight against this overwhelming burden of Big Government, Americans have developed “Stockholm Syndrome”:
The Freedom Conference was the second in a series of nationwide student conferences aimed at energizing young conservatives. Speakers included Herman Cain, Sen. Johnson, and best-selling authors Jonah Goldberg and Jason Mattera. […]
In his speech to the conference, Sen. Johnson compared Americans to hostages who have become resigned, but need to stand up for themselves and fight back:
“We as a nation, as a people, are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. It’s when you’re a hostage, when you’ve been kidnapped, and when your kidnappers show you a little bit of mercy, you’re grateful for it.”
Referring to the threat of Obamacare, the senator said Americans are saying to the Supreme Court, “Please, we’re begging you – please help us maintain just this last little shred of freedom.”
It’s going to take a lot more than begging to turn this ship around before it sinks!
Stop this out-of-control spending train! I want to get off!
The federal government recorded its worst monthly deficit in history in February, according to a preliminary report Wednesday from the Congressional Budget Office that said the deficit in fiscal year 2012 is already more than half a trillion dollars.
The CBO’s figures show that despite repeated efforts to trim spending, the government has borrowed 42 cents of every dollar it spent during the first five months of this fiscal year.
The nonpartisan agency projected the government will run a deficit of $229 billion in February, the highest monthly figure ever. The previous high was $223 billion a year ago, in February 2011.
It is the 41st straight month the government has run a deficit — itself a record streak that dates back to the final months of President George W. Bush’s tenure. Before now, the longest streak on record was 11 months.
And that’s not the worst news. Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News reports that Obama has run a deficit of $700 BILLION in just five months, which breaks down to spending $140 BILLION we don’t have EVERY MONTH:
So far in fiscal 2012–which began on Oct. 1–the federal government has borrowed more than $700 billion, according to the official debt numbers posted by the U.S. Treasury.
That means that since Oct. 1, the debt has been increasing at a pace of approximately $40 per day per each full-time worker in the United States.
The federal debt is growing at a faster clip this fiscal year than it did in either of the two previous fiscal years that began during the presidential term of Barack Obama. At the beginning of those two fiscal years, however, Obama was working with a Democratic-majority Congress.
This fiscal year is the first one during Obama’s term to start after the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections.
Thus, with a Democratic president in the White House and a Republican speaker in the House federal borrowing has accelerated rather than decelerated.
Conservatives in the House have reacted by introducing a bill to balance the budget in 5 years by eliminating several bloated federal departments, among other things:
Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R.-Utah) and Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) introduced a budget plan on Thursday that would balance the budget in five years and pay down $2 trillion of the national debt in 10 years.
The plan includes spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax reforms.
Paul said that the “Platform to Revitalize America” is the only plan consistent with the balanced budget amendment Republican advanced in the U.S. Senate because that amendment requires that Congress balance the budget in five years.
The plan eliminates the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy.
“By eliminating departments we don’t have to make as significant of cuts in other areas,” Paul said.
“So entitlement reform could be more gradual because we eliminate some departments that we think should be done by the states and the localities,” he continued.
Other comprehensive steps to scale back the size of the federal government include selling off excess federal properties and land and defunding duplicative agencies.
On the regulatory side, the plan eliminates the president’s health care law and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
On the energy side, besides eliminating the Department of Energy, the plan proposes to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration and permits the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Tax reform includes a 17 percent flat tax for individuals and corporations.
“We think if the country would pass a flat tax like this that would eliminate a lot of the loopholes and special interest that lowers the rate for everybody, we think you’d see an economic boom in this country like you’ve never seen before,” Paul said.
I don’t recall any of these departments, programs and bureaucracies listed among the enumerated powers of the constitution, so they’re all expendable, as far as I’m concerned! Our Republic can no longer afford to support bloated, unconstitutional bureaucracies that meddle endlessly in our lives and steal our liberties one regulation at a time.
These are the same kinds of regulations, created by the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977, that led to the housing bubble and mortgage crisis. The idea is to force banks to make loans to minority and low income applicants – most of whom CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY IT BACK! If they don’t meet their quotas, banks are charged with “discrimination” and face heavy penalties.
Obama is not only forcing banks to lower their lending standards and transferring risk to the taxpayers…he’s going around congress again, unilaterally dictating by fiat. The president’s job isn’t to make or change laws – that’s the job of congress.
Wth no authorization from Congress, President Barack Obama has announced that his administration–through the Federal Housing Administration–will insure refinanced mortgages for 2 to 3 million borrowers without verifying their income or even if they hold a job, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Obama announced his latest mortgage program at a White House news conference on Tuesday.
Any American with a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) endorsed on or before May 31, 2009 and who is current with their mortgage payments would qualify, according to HUD.
No additional underwriting, or examining the verification of income, employment status or creditworthiness, will be done.
The intro was done by Andrew Breitbart himself, shortly before his death:
View at Breitbart.tv
Breitbart.com has received exclusive tape of an Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, billed as a group talk on “The Abolition of Capitalism.” One of the headline speakers at this session was Stephen Lerner, former leader and International Board Member of the SEIU and frequent Obama White House visitor. Lerner argued in favor of people not paying their mortgages and “occupying” their homes; he spoke in favor of invading annual shareholders meetings to shut them down. But his big goal was to get workers to shut down their workplaces. That’s where the SEIU agenda and the Occupy agenda truly meet: once workers begin to occupy.
These anti-capitalist activists – many of which hold prominent and powerful positions within unions and higher education – openly admit that democracy cannot coexist with capitalism, and they’re right. Free markets require individual liberty, which is the antithesis of tyranny by majority vote. That’s why they want to destroy what’s left of America’s free market system (much has already been socialized).
Our founders gave us a constitutional republic based on the rule of law instead of simple majority vote for this very reason. They knew from history that democracy inevitably dissolved into anarchy and finally totalitarianism.
What the Left in America wants is nothing less than the destruction of our free market, liberty-oriented constitutional republic and the establishment of a new socialist economy and system of government.
They cry openly for the overthrow and takeover of our nation. If this isn’t treason, what is?
Finally…someone in the financial world calling out this orchestrated fiscal crisis for what it is!
Bob Janjuah, a noted investment strategist for Nomura International, has written an analysis, appropriately titled “Bob’s World: Monetary Anarchy,” wherein he offers his own unique take on the current state of the markets.
Janjuah’s report, which first appeared on Zero Hedge, claims that we are in a bubble. What’s worse, according to his analysis, is the fact that the markets have also become so manipulated and rigged by policymakers that it’s near impossible to predict where things are headed.
He also notes that all over the eurozone, as well as in the U.S., the rule of law has been disregarded for the sake of “political expediency.” He warns that if this sort of behavior isn’t curbed or restrained, there could be long-term sociopolitical repercussions (i.e. the rise of totalitarian states).
Simply put, things look grim and a continuation of current economic and fiscal policies, mixed with a dangerous number of power grabs, will only lead to an increasingly dangerous situation.