Our Changing Globe

Archive for the ‘unsecured loans’ Category

The Obama Plan to Redistribute Housing | Libertarian Party

www.lp.org10/29/11

First Obama tried to redistribute wealth before he was President, by leading the charge to force banks to make loans to lower income Americans who could not afford to own homes (through the Community Reinvestment Act). …

Applying Obama's “redistribution of wealth” to school grades …

usamericanfreedom.com11/19/11

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan”. …

Obama and the liberals could perhaps have achieved both growth and redistribution, but they chose only the latter, and they will pay heavily for their error on Tuesday!

Will Obama change direction after the elections?

No He won’t!

During his election campaign Obama said:

“What people really want is fairness”.

“They want people paying their fair share of taxes”.

“They want that money allocated fairly”.

Redistribution Of Wealth

People thought it sounded good and they voted for him, but they didn’t know that he would immediately attempt redistribution of wealth, and he went for it full throttle in spite of the recession.

What the vast majority of Americans believe in however is economic growth, and they understand full well that the threat of having more and more money taken away as you get richer and richer is simply a demotivator.

The result, motivation went down, small businesses stopped hiring and unemployment went up and stayed up; and in some states it’s still getting worse.

Then Came ObamaCare

With motivation down, the Obama administration then committed another horrendous error of judgment – they rammed ObamaCare down a mostly unwilling nation’s throat.

Obamcare essentially subsidizes health insurance for low and middle-income groups and attempts to recover the cost by taxing high-earners even more, which in turn lowers motivation and causes people to hunker down instead of trying to grow their businesses.

And what makes it even worse is that low and moderate-income workers now feel no need to earn money because they can now maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.

Obama’s Response?

Seeing popularity wane both for him personally and for his policies Obama set out a stand and tried to sell the public his unwanted wares.

Expanding health care coverage was somehow going to somehow drive down costs.

Handouts to state and local governments became a stimulus package.

Climate change legislation became a “green jobs” bill, and so on.

When the voters didn’t buy his arguments his response was to tell them that, “They are confused and not thinking clearly” and that one statement will cost him dearly.

You don’t tell people that you want to vote for you that they are basically stupid if they don’t understand you, do you?

Harry Reid just said something equally stupid and it might cost him re-election in Nevada, “He saved the world economy!”.

Doesn’t he know that Oblamer is the One?!

Could Obama Have Played It Differently And Maybe Won?

Yes, he could have!

Obama could have embraced at least two policies that would have enhanced both equity and economic performance simultaneously, and some of them might well have bridged the ideological divide.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Loan guarantees should not have been provided for Fannie and Freddie because they shifted risk from participants in real estate transactions to taxpayers, and the caused capital to flow into the industry under very favorable terms.

Creating the guarantees allowed mortgage lenders, realtors, homebuilders, developers, securities traders and others to reap enormous gains during the boom, only to later dump their losses on taxpayers during the ensuing bust.

Cutting off all federal support for Fannie and Freddie would have sent a completely different message.

It would not only have greatly enhanced equity, but would also have helped steer investment away from ever more conspicuous McMansions and into productive endeavors like building newer, more-efficient factories, all of which would have stimulated economic growth.

* “McMansion” is an originally pejorative term used to describe a large house, particularly in the United States, that is constructed using modern labor-saving techniques and materials

The Tax Code

Another area that was ripe for reform would have been the loophole-ridden tax code.

Today, the proliferation of carve-outs means that only around 40% of personal income is taxed!

The loopholes should have been removed as much as was possible and the tax base broadened, after which the Obama administration could have slashed rates, enhanced equity, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy.

Instead, the administration did exactly the opposite; it added even more loopholes and promised to raise rates!

Right now we have a situation where similarly situated families often face vastly different tax burdens depending on their ability to game the system, and it also means that investment is steered away from companies that are adept at building better products, to those with the knack for lobbying.

Will Obama Move The Goal Posts?

Obama was a member of the New Party (communist) just 13 years ago, and he was no teen.

Michelle is a Black separatist of the worst kind as her Princeton thesis shows.

Obama is on record as saying that he’d rather be a great one term President than an ineffectual two termer, so we can sadly expect him and Michelle to continue to try and force their socialist/communist on America!

The U.S. House of Representatives passed by a vote of 357-70 today, a so-called ‘credit-card bill of rights’ bill, following the adding of a provision that will require banks to apply consumers’ payments to balances with the highest interest rates first.

Uncollected credit card debt rose to 8.82% in February, and that’s the highest amount registered by Moody’s Investors Service Inc. since it began keeping records twenty years ago.

The legislation will also require credit-card companies to give forty-five days notice before increasing rates, and require statements to be mailed at least twenty-one days before the payment due date, and the provision will take effect ninety days after the measure is signed into law.

The House bill imposes broader restrictions than those enacted by the Federal Reserve in December, leading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say, “Very soon this will be the law of the land, and consumers will benefit. The House action today will give the legislation momentum heading into the Senate, and with a Democratic president who will sign final legislation there is little doubt it will get support needed in both chambers”.

The senior Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus, voiced concern however saying, “Too many restrictions will lead lenders, such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., to pull back on credit in the midst of a severe economic decline. Credit cards play a crucial role in the life of ordinary Americans. Any legislation affecting credit-card practices is going to have a profound effect. There are a great number of people whose rates will go up”.

Edward Yinglingm, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Bankers Association said in a statement, “It is vitally important to maintain access to credit at this difficult economic time. This is especially true for credit cards, which serve as a driver of economic activity and are relied on by consumers and small businesses as way to bridge short-term financial gaps”.