Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Jackie S · 12-13-2014, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boardman

Not exactly. The law Reagan signed had provisions to secure the border. The Democratic controlled congress in the subsequent term defunded the border security provision after the damage of amnesty was done. It wasn't until 1998 that some funding was restored.

I was just being simplistic to make a point. To the point, what ever they did, present circumstances proves it to be a failure.

WTF · 12-13-2014, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

To be completely accurate Ronald Reagan piggybacked on a congressional bill to give amnesty to illegals AND the congress promised to close the border. When called up on to do their part the democrats in congress suddenly got amnesia. Just like when they got Bush 41 to raise taxes (breaking his pledge) and they promised to cut spending two dollars for every dollar raised in taxes. They forgot their promise after Bush signed off.

Boy that Ronnie sure was naive according to you Reagan apologists! What happened to "Trust but verify"!

Reagan gave you Tea nuts a reach around before you called yourselves Tea'bumkins.

.

lustylad · 12-13-2014, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

Boy that Ronnie sure was naive according to you Reagan apologists! What happened to "Trust but verify"!

Well, Ronnie didn't trust our foreign adversaries, but he thought his fellow Americans (even if they were Democrats) should have enough integrity left to honor what used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" sealed with a handshake...

Contrast this with our current Disaster-in-Chief who is eager to capitulate, er I mean compromise, with our foreign adversaries in Tehran and elsewhere, but won't trust or compromise with his fellow Americans...

Go figure!

.

Yssup Rider · 12-13-2014, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Well, Ronnie didn't trust our foreign adversaries, but he thought his fellow Americans (even if they were Democrats) should have enough integrity left to honor what used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" sealed with a handshake...

Contrast this with our current Disaster-in-Chief who is eager to capitulate, er I mean compromise, with our foreign adversaries in Tehran and elsewhere, but won't trust or compromise with his fellow Americans...

Go figure!

.

For a change, you're only spouting hate talk Junior. Why not back up your claims with some real examples, not what you hear on Fox in the lunchroom at the steel mill.

No wonder you have NO place in ANY conversation here. You simply are insignificant.

Gotta suck to be the understudy for the DOTY.

WTF · 12-13-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Well, Ronnie didn't trust our foreign adversaries, but he thought his fellow Americans (even if they were Democrats) should have enough integrity left to honor what used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" sealed with a handshake...

Read Reagan's July 30, 1981 statement on immigration/refugees to better understand his real position, not your blame shifting stance of today. Reagan was from California. ..a state with a long history of welcoming labor.

.

So olé Ronnie wasn't the masterful politician you make him out to be. You do realize that that far leaning left organization, The Chamber of Commerce is/was for a more lenient immigration policy. ..

I'm still having trouble grasping you admitting that Ronnie was a shitty domestic politician. ..

My thought on the matter is that he, the Dem's and the Chamber of Commerce got exactly what they wanted. But it sure is fun watching you boys twist yourself in knots defending "Iran/Contra Ronnie".
.

lustylad · 12-13-2014, 11:27 AM

It's ok assup. You can stop pouting now. Jesus still loves you....

LexusLover · 12-13-2014, 12:02 PM

This thread is about ... government subsidized mortgage lending practices? Right?

lustylad · 12-13-2014, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm still having trouble grasping you admitting that Ronnie was a shitty domestic politician....

Oh, so you consider it a weakness or fault that Ronnie actually expected the Democrats of yesterday to do what they promised? And you think it is a triumph and speaks well for said Democrats that they grubered and lied and failed to do what they said they would do? Ok fagboy, we see how you think.

And you wonder why today's Democrats can't get an immigration bill passed? Could it have something to do with the fact that Odumbo has demonstrated he can only be trusted to enforce those parts of a law he agrees with?

I B Hankering · 12-13-2014, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This thread is about ... taxpayer subsidized mortgage lending practices? Right?

FTFY.

WTF · 12-13-2014, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh, so you consider it a weakness or fault that Ronnie expected the Democrats of yesterday to do what they promised?

I think you are naive if you think Ronnie got snooker'd.

Google "Reagan July 30 1981immigration" and see what he had to say about immigration/refugees. Ronnie was from California too I might. You are a fool if you think Ronnie got anything but what he wanted on this bill.

WTF · 12-13-2014, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This thread is about ... government subsidized mortgage lending practices? Right?

What party reintroduced this into the spending bill? What party's majority members voted for this bill? And Lastly Obama was for it even with this bullshit added on. So I do think it a group effort by bankers to fuck the common man...

I B Hankering · 12-13-2014, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

What party reintroduced this into the spending bill? What party's majority members voted for this bill? And Lastly Obama was for it even with this bullshit added on. So I do think it a group effort by bankers to fuck the common man...

Read the NPR article cited in the OP. Fannie Mae, under Odumbo appointee Mel Watt, is making this move unilaterally: w/o Congress.

LexusLover · 12-13-2014, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FTFY.

Well..............we don't know that yet.

If there is nothing to pay, the taxpayers will get a pass.

My use of the term "subsidized" had more to do with mandated structuring of loans than passing out money to buy a house. It's one thing to pass out money to pay for health insurance, yet another to help someone wreck a house before it goes back on the market as "Other Real Estate" on the auction block.

That experiment Post-Katrina didn't work out so well for the real estate market.

lustylad · 12-13-2014, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

So I do think it a group effort by bankers to fuck the common man...

You are retarded beyond belief. Bankers are out there trying to help otherwise creditworthy first-time homebuyers make the downpayment and you say they are trying to "fuck the common man"!

Do you even know how colossally stupid you are? Who the fuck is the "common man" if not the poor schlub working his butt off to get into his first home? You live in some inverted Looking Glass world where down is up, virtue is vice, and helping someone is fucking them!

And you claim to be a homebuilder? Oh wait, I almost forgot. You only sell $3 million McMansions to the 1% for cash! Fuck the common man, right?

LexusLover · 12-13-2014, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

What party .... What party's ......And Lastly Obama

So I do think it a group effort by bankers to fuck the common man...

Would that be called "The Bankers' Party"?

From the article in the OP:

"A federal directive will go into effect Saturday making it easier for some Americans to come up with a down payment to buy a house."

Why? Did anyone ask ..... WHY?