Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why mention property in bill of rights, if it ain't a right?
because its not a right to OWN property...its a right to be ALLOWED to own property
they can ALLOW you (you pay taxes and licenses) and they can TAKE it from you with out compensating you
permission means its not a right
its just like the opening life , liberty and the PERSUIT of happiness....no one says you WILL BE happy. or it even a right...but you have the right to PERSUE it
just like when the preamble mentions welfare..its not INDIVIDUAL welfare but welfare of the country....Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union."
Bush attempted to have Glass-Stegal reinstated, a Democrat controlled Congress would not allow it. Barney Frank continued to claim that there was no financial problems with Freddie Mac......while his boyfriend profited.
The guy who made $$ and slinked off quietly and scott free was Christopher Dodd. He should be in the Federal Pen.
Republicans controlled both chambers of the Congress. Seriously. Anyway, it was nothing but a failed power grab attempt. His proposal was to have the Treasury Department supervise and control F&F, so basically they would have answered to the White House. Not even the Republicans would have, or should have allowed that. Of course now, after the melt down that say 'Bush tried to warn F&F'. Don't be naive. It was about power, and Bush was not the first or the last to try to increase the power of the White House.
Property is an asset. Why are you having such difficulty understanding the difference between not allowing government to take something you own, and saying you have a right to own something that you dont?
If its a right you can demand one, and not even pay for it. Again, can you do that with a home?
I'm not having any difficulty understanding anything, I'm having a good time at amusement your choice of words provide, as if they would help make your case better. How about we get to the point:
Is it a right of a person to own a property?
You don't need to worry about anything other than a Yesor a No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
because its not a right to OWN property...its a right to be ALLOWED to own property
Barney Frank wouldnt let the bill out of committee.
Do you think it would be a good idea if the White House had control over these things? I dont' think so. Would you be OK if Obama had practically unlimited control over F&F? I say this, because if Bush has succeeded, then now Obama would enjoy those new powers of the purse.
If Bush's power grab had succeeded, the supreme court would have been forced to cancel it, because it would not have been constitutional. And there were Republican senators who opposed the idea from the begining. Maybe they understood that Republicans would not control the WH forever.
Barney Frank wouldnt let the bill out of committee.
You're wrong PGH, the video states the bill made it out of the Committee and the Republicans did not bring it to the floor because they felt they did not have enough votes (meaning they were plenty of republicans who would have voted against it). Barney Frank wasn't even the Chairman at the time.
I just do not see how this lies on just the Democratic party (failure to rein in Fannie and Freddie). The Republicans had the majority of Congress and the White House and could have passed any bill to rein in the GSEs. Period!
Secondly I always seen this as a moot point anyway. Had Fannie and Freddie been "Reined in" or even eliminated, THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ANYWAY!
Every single book I've read on the crisis or any bipartisan committee (like the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) HAVE ALL said Fannie and Freddie "contributed to the crisis, far from a primary cause of the crisis".
I'm trying to be objective here. I've heard for years from Conservatives pretending as if Fannie and Freddie had been "reined in" the mortgage crisis would not have happened. THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNTRUE!
1) Goldman Sachs (and the other big investment banks) was buying a large portion of the subprime mortgages from lenders (this is completely outside of Fannie And Freddie)
2) The Mortgage Lenders would have still done mortgages loans (subprime, etc.) and sold the bundled crap to invest banks and other investors (as they did)
3) The investment banks would have (and they did) bundled these bad mortgages into CDOs and Mortgage backed securities (this is completely outside of Fannie and Freddie)
4) The Credit Rating Agencies (S&P, etc....) would have still (and did) rate these bundled junk mortgages as AAA investments (again having nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie)
5) These bad investments (MBS/CDOs) STILL would have been spread around the Financial Sector through derivatives and credit default swaps (AIG, etc...) (which was a large part of the financial crisis) again COMPLETELY OUTSIDE of anything related to Fannie and Freddie.
6) The Investments Banks/Hedge Funds (Goldman Sachs, Bears Stearns, Lehman Bros.) would have STILL (and did thanks to Paulson) been allowed to leverage far more (borrowing to buy the Mortgages) EVEN IF FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT EXIST. Allowing these investment banks, etc.... to borrow far more (in some cases 30-1) than what they had in assets IS WHAT LEAD to the Financial Crisis (once ppl started foreclosing).
So again from an objective point of view, without Fannie and Freddie ALL OF THIS would have still happened in its entirety! Where am I wrong?
You're wrong PGH, the video states the bill made it out of the Committee and the Republicans did not bring it to the floor because they felt they did not have enough votes (meaning they were plenty of republicans who would have voted against it). Barney Frank wasn't even the Chairman at the time.
I just do not see how this lies on just the Democratic party (failure to rein in Fannie and Freddie). The Republicans had the majority of Congress and the White House and could have passed any bill to rein in the GSEs. Period!
Secondly I always seen this as a moot point anyway. Had Fannie and Freddie been "Reined in" or even eliminated, THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ANYWAY!
Every single book I've read on the crisis or any bipartisan committee (like the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) HAVE ALL said Fannie and Freddie "contributed to the crisis, far from a primary cause of the crisis".
I'm trying to be objective here. I've heard for years from Conservatives pretending as if Fannie and Freddie had been "reined in" the mortgage crisis would not have happened. THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNTRUE!
1) Goldman Sachs (and the other big investment banks) was buying a large portion of the subprime mortgages from lenders (this is completely outside of Fannie And Freddie)
2) The Mortgage Lenders would have still done mortgages loans (subprime, etc.) and sold the bundled crap to invest banks and other investors (as they did)
3) The investment banks would have (and they did) bundled these bad mortgages into CDOs and Mortgage backed securities (this is completely outside of Fannie and Freddie)
4) The Credit Rating Agencies (S&P, etc....) would have still (and did) rate these bundled junk mortgages as AAA investments (again having nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie)
5) These bad investments (MBS/CDOs) STILL would have been spread around the Financial Sector through derivatives and credit default swaps (AIG, etc...) (which was a large part of the financial crisis) again COMPLETELY OUTSIDE of anything related to Fannie and Freddie.
6) The Investments Banks/Hedge Funds (Goldman Sachs, Bears Stearns, Lehman Bros.) would have STILL (and did thanks to Paulson) been allowed to leverage far more (borrowing to buy the Mortgages) EVEN IF FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT EXIST. Allowing these investment banks, etc.... to borrow far more (in some cases 30-1) than what they had in assets IS WHAT LEAD to the Financial Crisis (once ppl started foreclosing).
So again from an objective point of view, without Fannie and Freddie ALL OF THIS would have still happened in its entirety! Where am I wrong?
Republicans controlled both chambers of the Congress. ....
But...the Republicans did NOT have enough of a majority to stop a Democrat filibuster! That was the problem. Dems. (Frank, Waters, Dodd and Schumer were probably the loudest 4 of them) blocked any attempt to straighten up FMae and FMac.
I'm not having any difficulty understanding anything, I'm having a good time at amusement your choice of words provide, as if they would help make your case better. How about we get to the point:
Is it a right of a person to own a property?
You don't need to worry about anything other than a Yesor a No.
Who is supposed to "allow" for a right?
It is NOT a CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed right! Big difference!
But...the Republicans did NOT have enough of a majority to stop a Democrat filibuster! That was the problem. Dems. (Frank, Waters, Dodd and Schumer were probably the loudest 4 of them) blocked any attempt to straighten up FMae and FMac.
When did the republicans bring up the bill that had the democrats block it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
