Your Autocratic President Hard At Work
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, October 24th, 2011 | Policy, PoliticsI mean seriously… that Constitution? Just gets in the way of progress, dammit!
The FHFA intends to loosen the terms of the two-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which helps borrowers who have been making mortgage payments on time but who have not been able to refinance as their home values have dropped.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the changes should boost refinancing because they will let banks avoid the risk of any “buy-back” on a HARP mortgage as long as borrowers have made their last six mortgage payments and they prove that they have a job or another source of passive income.
So not only does Obama get to rule and reign by executive decree, he’s giving the Occupiers precisely what they demand… in a happy marriage of corporatism (who is ostensibly thrilled to be refinancing loans without assuming the risk) and socialism by decree.
You’re welcome, America.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
21 Responses to "Your Autocratic President Hard At Work"
So Shaun, under Bush, the republican President and Congress bailed out Wall Street to the tune of some $800,000,000,000, and you are arguing that a rule change that will provide a better program in a law already passed by Congress in unconstitutional? Sounds like you have swallowed republicanism hook line and sinker; that is, anything corporations demand, republicans will vote to give it to them, but damn the people in this nation. Frankly, that about sums it up.
Mike as usual gets his facts wrong* and will never make an effort to correct them but I must say his philosophical point is not the usual off the wall demagoguery. Yes Obama does all kinds of crony stuff including the deal on the GM and Chrysler bailout where he shafted the bondholders and violated contract law. But it’s true that both parties have gone along with the corporate bailouts and this particular additional bailout is not a fundamental change on that. Conservatives surrendered on the media, the schools and the courts over the years and now they are upset that Obama can selectively promote one autocratic rule and dissemble about and ram through the others.
*The TARP funds spent by Bush were ~400 billion and were repaid. The second tranche of $400 was Not spent by Bush but by Obama and not repaid. In addition far more Dems including Obama voted for all these bailouts than did the Repubs.
valentinus,
Well said. Additionally, MB conveniently overlooked the 2006 midterm elections and the fact that it was a Democratic Congress, not a Republican Congress, that passed TARP.
Mike also seems to be under the same delusion as the OWS children who think that banks possess their own money and should lend it out for free. That concept ignores the reality of a pesky group of people known as shareholders and depositors who expect a reasonable return on their investment. Start reducing bank revenues by executive fiat and watch the banks’ cash reserves begin to shrink as investors withdraw, putting market pressure on credit rates and eventually creating inflation as the cost of credit climbs higher than overall growth. But, as Mike so articulately stated, damn the people in this nation, particularly the ones who earn a middle living and create wealth.
How much of the $400B spent under Obama will flow back into his campaign?
Yes, I figured the far right would be out in force on this one. The protectors of those poor 1% of the population who have the ability to hire an army of lobbysists to ensure they are protected from the fiscal collapse, and whose incomes have continued to rise as they pay themselves bonuses on the income from taxpayer money. Yet let the rules change so that an owner of a home who has a good job and a record on payments and you oppose a change to allow him/her to refinance at lower rates, the lower rates available to the protected 1%? How selfish and elitist can you actually be? You guys make Eric Cantor look like a saint.
Well, Mike, at least we’re honest with our support of capitalism instead of hypocritically hiding behind opposition to a constitutional amendment that will cost developers money by pretending to protect the taxpayers.
HisRoc, that is hilarious. President Bush must have been defining a new brand of capitalism; that is, even if you abuse the system, use high leverage, cheat and steal from your customers, sell bad investments even as you bet they will fail, if you are a hedge fund manager or a mortgage crook, we will bail you out. But refinance a mortgage for a homeowner hook winked by these crooks, even if the homeowner can pay, and even if they want to retain their home that is under water, we consider that to be unconstitutional.
Your admission of your irrational subservience to the wealth of the top 1% is honest, yet bizarre nonetheless.
Mike,
Are you forgetting the bank regulation reform and the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac reform that Bush proposed and that was blocked the Senate and House Banking Committees by Chairman Dodd (D-Countywide) and Chairman Barney Fwank (D-Citigroup)?
Am I missing something…
Is it bad that homeowners will be able to refinance their loans at better rates?
Does anyone care to actually address the validity of the idea or are you just caught up that Congress, with 14% approval ratings, was skipped over because Obama’s tired of dealing with their bickering and wants to get things done when it can. If this were unconstitutional I’m assuming we’ll see some challenges from someone in Congress. If in fact it’s continued political crying, I’m assuming we’ll see more complaining from the right.
Mike… could you please baseline your political sanity by taking the quiz below? It will be graded on a curve.
1. What is the current President’s last name?
(a) Bush
(b) Obama
(c) Norquist
(d) Trumka
(e) I don’t know
2. Who had the majority in the house when Bush was President?
(a) Democrats
(b) Freddie Mac
(c) Republicans
(d) Americans for Tax Reform
(e) All of the above
3. Who had the majority in the Senate when Bush was President?
(a) Republicans
(b) Fannie Mae
(c) The Tea Party
(d) Democrats
4. Who has the current Majority in the Senate while the answer to question 1 has been President?
(a) Communist Party
(b) Democratic Party
(c) Fascist Party
(d) Public/Private Sector Unions
(e) Republican Party
5. What party is the answer to question 1 running against in 2012… yes, not 2008, 2010, but 2012?
(a) The Tea Party
(b) Republican Party
(c) Socialist Party
(d) Democratic Party
(e) All of the above
HisRoc,
Mike will never contribute a post with any facts to back up his assertions that he will then defend honestly. I remember about a year ago he made some fanciful and logically questionable assertion. So I asked him a simple question. He responded with a diatribe without noticing the question. But I kept at it. I asked the same question each time he posted even across two different threads. Finally he said ok I’ll answer you and cut and pasted his Original post! Thought you’d find that amusing.
As for Tor, he’s another one that ignores what is actually posted or any factual response and does his outraged leftist act in vacuo. Leftists have two poses: the Airy Dismissal and the Hysterical Outrage whichever one fits the moment.
Val… shhhhh… Mike is taking the test…
And he’s having trouble with the first question…
Val,
I think you proved your point on the Red State Revolution posting. Still waiting. You know, you love to state something about someone else that actually defines yourself. I’ll be waiting for your response. As of now, I assume you’re either a)too stupid or b)know you’re wrong and therefore not posting.
I hate to get too personal, but you’re tiring.
I have to congratulate the far right for quickly doing such a good job of damage control. Simply unable to justify their support of the Bush bail out or their opposition to this refinancing program, they immediately begin the personal attacks. This is a classic far right strategy; if you can’t win on the facts, attack the messenger. If you think anyone of your looney candidates can win on opposition to a mortgage re-finance program and support of the Bush bailouts for rich, wealthy, international conglomerates, many of which paid no income tax, please keep it up. Fact is, the entire mantra of the Party is finally coming under broad suspicion for exactly what it is; protection for the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Cantor is your model; protect hedge fund managers at all cost, the middle class workers be damned. Almost fits on a bumper sticker.
Uh, Mike… were you able to figure out question #1 or do you need a hint? I see you are still doing a lot of “Bush” talking and hope that you aren’t still stuck on that first question.
Of course you want to change the subject; mistakes of the magnitude made by President Bush and the republican party only happen once or so a century. Of course, the party has not learned one lesson; in fact, their mantra of cut taxes is now a threat to not only our financial security, but to national security. No wonder you want to change the subject with your childish antics and questionaires.
Mike, you are stuck back in an era that is now being written into high school government and history text books, and the history they are teaching doesn’t agree with your fanatic rants and diatribes. You are also a proud member of a cult of liberal zealots that are pandering revisionist history to others who don’t know any better.
By the way, I will whisper the answer to the first question…. “Obama”. If you plug that answer into the other questions, you may pass the test… unless you don’t understand the questions.
Well Tim, I am used to the personal attacks on me when you don’t have an answer to the points I raise in my posts. So every time you attempt to insult me or make fun of my posts, I consider that to be a victory. So thanks for another one.
Mike, your “questions” invoking the distant past of a previous administration are based on a premise of blame, liberal bias and are intellectually bankrupt. In your strange and warped liberal value system, only you would think that sarcasm highlighting your hypocrisy would be a “victory”. And then there are some of us who can’t help ourselves and will always make fun of the village idiot. By the way, that would be a great costume you could wear to the BD Halloween party this year….
A new term to describe the OWSACORNOBAMA movement…
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.