Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
Part of the reason for the financial crisis was the government's insistence on lowering requirements for loans so that people who had no business taking out a mortgage could do so. Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe
That, and people taking out home equity loans to finance a lifestyle they really couldn't afford were contributors to the problem. |
That's true, but Bush and the GOP could have and as it turns out he should have put an end to it. If I remember Bush talked about it being a problem. So it not like he didn't know, he just failed to act. I really don't know why, they had control of both houses and the Oval office, they didn't act. They managed to push through a bunch of other stuff they wanted. I have a feeling making SOTU speeches with a line of "home ownership is at an all time high" might have influenced his motivation to act.
At any rate both sides of the aisle have a had a hand in this and own this problem. Most people I talk to want to blame the "other" side, whichever is "other" to them This type of thing has been going on for years. I think Bush I and Clinton (and I honestly think Clinton had it shoved down his throat by a GOP controlled congress) tried to turn it around in some ways but really it's just been spend, spend, spend... often money they (we) don't have. Currently spending is really out of control. I'd like to see a lot of that slashed. There's also a lot of talk about extending Bush's tax cuts, that just adds to the problem as it would not be paid for. So in my mind both sides have no problem increasing the debt and deficit spending as long as it goes to the things they want.
I agree people using their homes as freaking cash machines was crazy. I know just around my house in rural Oregon I was always amazed when I'd see families, that I knew made considerably less per year then I, purchase RV's, boats and other "toys" that I never felt I could have afforded. I never asked but many told me things like "You like it? Damn near costs me what I spent on my house. But the bank offered us a second and it's only costing us "X" per month, so we just had to have it." I always ended up thinking "you spent 1/2 of what you spent on your house on something you're going to use two weeks a year? That sounds nutty to me."
But really if you think about it you had a POTUS out their repeatedly telling people to spend, spend and spend some more. And that's what the Fed. government was doing too. Want to go to war and don't have the cash... freaking borrow it! Want to cut taxes and don't have the cash? Freaking borrow some more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
The government has the right to enforce its borders. You should note that Mexico. among others is far less tolerant of illegal immigrants.
If people in other countries want to provide cheap labor, let them do it from their home countries.
Any candidate that proposes any form of amnesty for illegal immigration has lost my vote.
|
The problem with that thinking in my mind is it's much like trying to deal with the current economic problems. It doesn't take into account the moneys already been spent. It doesn't take into account there is already something like 11 million people here illegally. Just saying send them home won't work. It sounds good, it's sounds simple... too simple. It's a complex problem and a simple solution will not solve it. We let these folks come here for decades, Reagan tried to deal with it, but his efforts really didn't close the border. So what we ended up doing was creating a bunch of citizens without stopping the flow of new illegals. Half a solution to a problem will not solve that problem.
This, like the economy, has been left alone so long it's become a monster.