PDA

View Full Version : John Boehner: Stop Helping Homeowners



Qtec
02-02-2012, 05:55 AM
Classy. B is a POS that should be in jail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner thinks it's about time for the government to stop trying to aid people with underwater mortgages. </div></div>

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 06:08 AM
Why should they do anything in the first place?

Where in the COTUS is the state empowered to do such a thing?

If we help people with underwater mortgages ... why not underwater car loans ... or underwater credit cards?

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 12:13 PM
You 'prove' too much.

The Constitution is not a rigid suicide pact.

If 'the general welfare' is at stake in any particular fact scenario, the federal government is empowered to act in that regard, by the language of the COTUS. Combine the general welfare clause impact with the necessary and proper clause, and there you go!

So, if car loans or credit cards reached a detrimental level sufficient to damage the country's general welfare, those would be allowable areas for federal action. They are not at this time.

The housing market, however, has reached that level of severe impact.

LWW
02-04-2012, 03:47 AM
Again, I suggest that you actually read the document.

BTW ... I can show you where this program is in direct violation of the COTUS.

Qtec
02-04-2012, 09:58 AM
Fraud is a crime. The Govt can seize the assets of criminal enterprise.

The banks drove up house prices. They OK'd $400,000 loans on houses that were really worth half that to people who they knew couldn't afford the huge rise in payments after 2 years.

This went well when house prices were rising . Let the sucker pay 2 years mortgage, take back the house that has risen in value, that he can't afford due to the small print, and repeat.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The banks drove up house prices. </div></div>

They had to. Otherwise the whole Ponzi scheme would have fallen apart sooner.

Instead of fixing the problem, they increased the problem to such an extent that they knew the Govt would have to step in.

Q

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fraud is a crime.

Q


</div></div>

Yet you adore it ... are you a criminal?

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Govt can seize the assets of criminal enterprise.

Q</div></div>

The US gubmint as it is currently constructed is a criminal enterprise.

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The banks drove up house prices.

Q</div></div>

How did they do that?

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They OK'd $400,000 loans on houses that were really worth half that to people who they knew couldn't afford the huge rise in payments after 2 years.

Q</div></div>

Why would they do this?

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This went well when house prices were rising . Let the sucker pay 2 years mortgage, take back the house that has risen in value, that he can't afford due to the small print, and repeat.

Q</div></div>

How did the "SMALL PRINT" make the loan unaffordable?

Do you know anything about US mortgage law?

Obviously not.

Have you ever had a mortgage?

I doubt it.

llotter
02-06-2012, 08:29 AM
Both the General Welfare and the Necessary and Proper clauses only apply the the specific items listed with Article 1, Sec. 8. Neither the states or the citizens would ever ratify the Constitution if were understood to mean that the Federal Gov. could do anything that that same gov. could describe as doing what's best for everyone. Would you and anyone sign a 'contract' with another party where where that party had the power to modify the terms in any way where, in their opinion, it would benefit you. Yes, for your own good, we, the party of the second part, are going to start taking money from your paycheck to pay for other people's retirement, for the good of society in general.

As Madison said, 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined'. But even beyond the unlawful stretching of the 'contract', is the total inability of central planners to understand what the general welfare is or how to create programs to bring it about. The evidence is so overwhelming that such attempts by government to 'redistribute' resources under the guise benefiting the welfare of society, it inevitably causes problems worse than the solutions.

Qtec
02-06-2012, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither the states or the citizens would ever ratify the Constitution if were understood to mean that the Federal Gov. could do anything that that same gov. could describe as doing <u>what's best for everyone</u> </div></div>

What about the State Govt?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">James Madison, Federalist, no. 45, 313--14
26 Jan. 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
</span>
The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State Governments will here enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendency over the governments of the particular States <span style="color: #3333FF">LOl He was Soooooooo.. wrong</span></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">James Madison, Jr. was born at Belle Grove Plantation near Port Conway, Virginia on March 16, 1751, (March 5, 1751, Old Style, Julian calendar), where his mother had returned to her parents' home to give birth. He grew up as the oldest of twelve children.[4] His father, James Madison, Sr. (17231801), was a tobacco planter who grew up on a plantation, then called Mount Pleasant, in Orange County, Virginia, which he inherited upon reaching maturity. </div></div>

Joe the Plummer???????????

Q

eg8r
02-06-2012, 09:05 AM
He has already admitted that he is a criminal.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-06-2012, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, I suggest that you actually read the document.

BTW ... I can show you where this program is in direct violation of the COTUS. </div></div>

Reading is one thing, and understanding is another.

I suggest more of the latter for you.

The Founding Fathers themselves disagreed one from another, criticized some overreach from the different party only to overreach themselves, which they admitted. (Jefferson thought Hamilton's programs of having a national bank and taking over the debts of the states was not allowable, and a violation of limited powers, only to himself undertake the Louisiana Purchase which required an expansive reading of the COTUS). How did THEY justify their actions which were far from anything enumerated as powers? By the general welfare clause, and the necessary and proper clause. Right there, just after the beginning of the Constitutional Republic, by the Founders themselves.

The whole idea of judicial review of laws for Constitutionality is NOT IN THE COTUS, and was instead INVENTED by the SCOTUS itself in a self-serving ruling, Marbury v Madison (although there was some consistency with prior common law precedents, and some talk among the Founders to this point prior).

LWW
02-06-2012, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither the states or the citizens would ever ratify the Constitution if were understood to mean that the Federal Gov. could do anything that that same gov. could describe as doing <u>what's best for everyone</u> </div></div>

What about the State Govt?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">James Madison, Federalist, no. 45, 313--14
26 Jan. 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
</span>
The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State Governments will here enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendency over the governments of the particular States <span style="color: #3333FF">LOl He was Soooooooo.. wrong</span></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">James Madison, Jr. was born at Belle Grove Plantation near Port Conway, Virginia on March 16, 1751, (March 5, 1751, Old Style, Julian calendar), where his mother had returned to her parents' home to give birth. He grew up as the oldest of twelve children.[4] His father, James Madison, Sr. (17231801), was a tobacco planter who grew up on a plantation, then called Mount Pleasant, in Orange County, Virginia, which he inherited upon reaching maturity. </div></div>

Joe the Plummer???????????

Q </div></div>

How do you get it without ever getting?

The state's can do far more than the federal gubmint, and the thinking was sound.

As an example ... let's take abortion. If people in California believe that everyone should be able to have an abortion for any reason at any time, then the state can allow it.

OTOH, if people in Mississippi believe that abortion is a mortal sin ... they can ban it.

If the federal gubmint decides ... then one side wins while the other loses.

Now, taken to the individual level, if a Mississippian decides that the state abortion laws are simply unacceptable to them ... they can escape the tyranny of the state easier than the tyranny of the nation.

Likewise, if a Californian finds their states laws violate their moral code they can also move to where more like minded folks reside.

LWW
02-06-2012, 05:28 PM
Are you actually asking us to believe that the COTUS denies the gubmint the right to make treaties?

The argument against the LP being against the COTUS was a smokescreen attempt to block the sale after it became obvious that it was going to happen.

The real concern was whether or not France even owned the territory, and if not then it would lead to war with Spain.