Sen. Lindsey Graham: Sacrifice Obamacare To Avoid Sequester

It's not pro bono.

I've disagreed with the president on a number of his policies.

Please cite the post of mine you claim twists and massage the truth, so we can see that you're not just making baseless, false, personal attacks and ad homs. Again.

If you aren't an employee of Organizing for America the end result of your disingenuous posts is just the same as if you were. That's a distinction without a difference.[/QUOTE]

 

Of course there wasn't. This is yet another out right lie from the right to attempt to shift blame away from the real cause......conservatism.

 

Your chart supports what I said. Housing prices began their meteoric rise in the late 90's and did not stop rising until early 2006. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all of this started happening after the huge homeownership surge that took place after Clinton lowered borrowing standards across the board with his "National Homeownership Strategy" and threw millions of buyers into the housing market all at the same time. Supply and demand affects prices.

 

Folks can read the thread for themselves.

That was from the same thread!

That is absolutely untrue. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.

 

Housing prices have always ebbed and fallen thru history. There was nothing unusual going on during the Clinton years that would have justified any action on his part.

It was from 2001-06 that the bubble blew up to its absurd levels and started crashing while the administration and government did nothing. Clinton wasn't president during that time, except for the first few days of 2001.

Home Ownership is good and industry can regulate itself, don't you know?

 

Repetitive.

So what? You claimed "I haven't quote you from that thread once", when you did quote me.

Repetitive.

 

But Clinton did nothing to cause the housing bubble, we all know how that came about.....deregulation.
And we all know who wrote the bill that deregulated the banking industry....don't we?
Thats right, conservative republicans.

Honesty, it is why the Democrats are kicking the rightwings ass.

 

Have fun.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'
It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ITS BENEFITS - 1995
At the request of President Clinton, the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is working with dozens of national
leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the
National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private
partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the
next 6 years.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf2.txt

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Bill Clinton, Home Wrecker
"I want to target new (housing) markets, underserved populations, tear down the barriers to discrimination wherever they are found," Clinton said. "We have to do a better job of reaching the underserved; of eradicating discriminatory practices that prevent minorities from finding, financing or buying the home of their choice.

"We can widen the circle of homeownership beyond anything we have ever seen," he added.

Indeed, Clinton's policies for the first time threw millions of previously unqualified buyers into the mortgage mix, fueling an unprecedented housing bubble.

http://news.investors.com/article/585922/201109231847/bill-clinton-home-wrecker.htm?p=full

Do you have anything to refute the above evidence or are you just being a partisan troll?

Iriemon will spam a similar list accusing Bush of continuing these Clinton era homeownership policies. I agree. Bush absolutely did, probably due to the fear of being labeled a "racist" for taking away these freebies from minorities and other entitlement Democrats. He didn't begin them, though. Clinton lowered borrowing standards across the board and millions of previously unqualified home buyers entered the market at the same exact time, which drove up competition for housing and increased prices.

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bubba_the_housing_bubble_8cUhYsqNdXVlWjflbbjiUO

 

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;CTbIb75JdwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY[/video]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

 

Clinton was the one who signed deregulation into law. He could have vetoed it. So even if that's the excuse you are choosing, Clinton still shoulders the blame.

Creating government dependency and a subclass of welfare addicts isn't something to be proud of.

 

Just as I've said.

Of course you did. You don't get to tell me what I assume and not. That is hardly your call.

No. Unsupported editorializing.

As you would, if you could. I guess the only alternative is the nationalize the wealth of the richest few. That always turns out well.

Not my claim. You figure it out.

This is not in conflict with what I already said and a flat across the board cut will always benefit the people paying the most to begin with. Get a new talking point that isn't so tiresome and filled with class envy.

How sad. No matter what graph I see the result is the same. Where projections are appropriate they are given but for the actual years that can be measured the spending curve is consistently going up.

You are proof anyone can use a statistic to backup a disingenuous conclusion. For instance it's a fact that the richest few got the most money back from tax cuts under Bush, which you always point out.
But by omitting the fact that the richest few pay the most in taxes to begin with (which should be obvious anyway) you leave people with the dishonest impression that the rich are just being given more just for the heck of it.

 

A few billion here or there in hyperbolic or rhetorical error doesn't invalidate the argument.

ObamaCo has drastically increase spending and sustained the increased spending via CR budgeting from 2009 (we really don't know what they're doing in regards to spending, as there hasn't been an actual, constitutionally required budget passed in 4 years...just CRs and baseline budgeting on an "already approved" budget from years ago),
they've drastically increased taxes on not only the evil rich, but everyone...either directly or indirectly (income taxes... Obamacare taxes, fines and the mandates on businesses that will show up in higher consumer prices...interminable, demand side "stimulus" is not only a de facto tax increase, it devalues savings and purchasing power.... punitive conventional energy policies that are designed to make "green" a more attractive, economically palatable, and more "equal" alternative are devouring discretionary spending usually reserved for small businesses...who need that income to hire, expand, and/or remain viable...calls for a $9.00 an hour "living wage" will result in the indirect tax of higher consumer prices....they want millions more low skilled, uneducated voters who will devour social infrastructure "safety nets" and facilitate the need for MORE tax revenue.......I can go on and on and on )

ALL of which is laughably unsustainable and deleterious to the economic growth our fiat currency demands...

which is obviously fine...because for government-centric progressives to remain a relevant political force, there needs to be tens, if not hundreds of millions of "victims" and "Julia's" looking to them for substantial "help" with their day to day existence.

 

Then what would you call it?

This says nothing about the way you consistently give cover to the president that is spending us into oblivion.

In every post I make to you I cite such examples.

 

Down from where? What level?....the 800 billion dollar "one time stimulus" they've been CRing their "budgets" and baselines from?

 

For years now we have been hearing from the idiot conservatives that we have to cut spending to fix the economy, cutting spending was the answer to all our problems.
Now that spending cuts are going to happen, the morons on the right are screaming that we can't cut spending becasue it will crash the economy!

Lying, two faced worthless rightwingers.
How does anyone vote for them?

- - - Updated - - -

For years now we have been hearing from the idiot conservatives that we have to cut spending to fix the economy, cutting spending was the answer to all our problems.
Now that spending cuts are going to happen, the morons on the right are screaming that we can't cut spending becasue it will crash the economy!

Lying, two faced worthless rightwingers.
How does anyone vote for them?

 

LMAO! Wasn't someone just commenting on cut-n-paste files and keeping quotes?

It was nice Clinton did all that stuff.

Clinton wasn't president when the housing bubble blew up to its absurd heights and starting crashing.

This guy was.



BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS NEW HOMEOWNERSHIP INITIATIVE
Martinez Announces $1000 Homebuyer Cash Back Incentive

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/pr02-075.cfm


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all


American Dream Downpayment Initiative The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorized up to $200 million annually. ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/

Bush Campaign Promotes Great American Dream
THE NATION Homeownership: The president's program aims to help people with low incomes, particularly Latinos and African Americans.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/16/nation/na-bush16


National Homeownership Month, 2005
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

More Americans than ever own their own homes, but we must continue to work hard so that every family has an opportunity to realize the American Dream. In 2002, I announced a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. Since then, we have added 2.3 million new minority households. My Administration has also set a goal of adding 7 million new affordable homes to the market within the next 10 years. In my FY 2006 budget, I proposed a single family housing tax credit and two mortgage programs -- the Zero Downpayment mortgage and the Payment Incentives program -- to help more families achieve homeownership. In 2003, I signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, and I have proposed more than $200 million to continue the American Dream Downpayment Initiative to provide downpayment assistance to thousands of American families. By promoting initiatives such as financial literacy, tax incentives for building affordable homes, voucher programs, and Individual Development Accounts, we are strengthening our communities and improving citizens' lives.

- - - Updated - - -

Or like this?

 

I didn't call it anything.

It says I don't agree with him on all his policies.

You got nothing, again. Figured.

 

Yep, and you were right on cue, as I predicted:

I don't think it was. "Homeownership is a right" is a liberal idea that, while well-intentioned, carries negative unforeseen consequences. Not everyone can afford a home, and it was wrong to lower credit and borrowing standards to get one.

Repetitive. You can't differentiate between Clinton's and Bush's homeownership policies. They are both based on the same liberal idea that the Government should be involved in helping "underrepresented borrowers" obtain loans.

I would have loved to see lefties like you complaining about how racist Bush was if he tried to take away these homeownership policies from minorities.

You seemed to have missed this post:

 

Spending was already skyrocketing before Obama took office because of the Great Recession he inherited. It is true it spiked up in 2009 (a year he was president only part of) for that reason.

Since then it has been flat, actually decreased in two years for the first time in 5 decades, and is now proportionately lower than it was in some Reagan years. That is fact.

It is also fact that proportionately the Govt over the past three years has collected less in revenues than it have over the past 6 decades. That is also fact. For all of Obama's tax increases you all constantly whine about, you have to go back to the late 1950s to see a year in which tax collections relative to GDP were lower than they are now. That is also a fact.

I've posted these numbers many times, and can do so again.

I appreciate you hate paying taxes. No one likes it. But the fact is, the Govt is collecting far less revenues that it should. I agree that Reagan spent too much and we need to bring spending down relative to GDP as we've done over the last three years. But let's not pretend that the problem with the deficit is simply because we are spending more. That is not fact.

 

The capacity to follow along in a conversation is paramount to having an enjoyable experience on message boards....for all involved.
Perhaps a new hobby is in order, sir.

 

Thanks for the white flag.

 

You must have misunderstood my post. I was making fun of you hypocritically commenting on me keeping files I cut and past from when you obviously do the same thing.

Who said home owernship was a right? Clinton never said that.

Wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong because the Bush administration did not simply continue Clinton's programs but expanded programs to allow more and more low income folks into homes and expanded F/F policies.

It is irrelevant because Clinton wasn't president when the housing bubble blew up to its absurd levels. Bush was and the Republicans controlled the Government. That is a fact.

He didn't just not take them away, he expanded them. Because he liked to brag about how successful he was getting more people into homeownership, highest percentage ever he'd brag.

Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Just seemed kind of funny to me.

 

Who didn't see that coming? lol

 

So you really think any of that is evidence that Clinton caused the housing melt down??
WOW!
That is a level of delusion that is up til now unheard of!
is this the latest party line they are feeding you?
Amazing.
Home ownership goes up under Clinton, and that is the cause of the housing melt down......2+2=967 in GOPland.