May 18, 2008

Latest HP Hero: Senator Jim Bunning, who wants to rename the housing bailout bill the "Bailout of Irresponsible Lenders and Borrowers Act of 2008”

Finally, some sanity from DC. If the GOP wants to re-invent itself after the Bush Debacle (while returning to their fiscal-responsibility roots), they need to make the biggest stink possible while fighting the Democrats' housing gambler bailout bills.

Jim Bunning, you sir, along with Ron Paul, can stay (for now).

Contact Bunning to show your support here

Bunning Campaigns Against ‘Bailouts’ in Housing Bill

The Senate Banking Committee plans to vote on legislation Thursday that would create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure up to $300 billion in refinanced mortgages. Lawmakers plan to file up to 70 amendments during the committee vote, with 31 of those coming from Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Ken.).

According to a summary of all the amendments, Sen. Bunning wants:

“to stop the bailout of the rich”
“to prevent the bailout of illegal aliens”
“to prevent the bailout of homeowners who used their homes as a credit card”
“to stop the bailout of sex offenders”
“to stop the bailout of drug offenders”

Another of Sen. Bunning’s amendments would change the name of the bill from “The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008” to the “Bailout of Irresponsible Lenders and Borrowers Act of 2008."


Casey Serin said...

We need a mortgage bailout to protect victims like me. The heartless loan officers victimized me eight times, for God's sake. They forced me at gunpoint to falsify information on my applications, what could I do?!?! ;-)

Anonymous said...

How is this for revenge of the bankers

Lenders are now asking for 5-7 recent com parables in the high end market.

The problem is that the 7MM home I want so get has had no recent sales in the area.

Even with a 2MM reduction they still told me no loan.

The bank says the place I want to get is worth 1MM

WTF ?????

I am going to offer the seller 1MM although he paid 5MM for it in 2002 and put another 2MM into it and first listed it on the market at 13MM

I wonder if after my offer the seller will take it and his other way overpriced homes off the market.

Anonymous said...

I miss the republicans, I hope they come back

Anonymous said...

The Republicans must take the public position that home prices on average must contract to sustainable values, which means no more than 3x incomes on an average basis. Yes, some homes will sell for more, and some for less. The easiest and soundest way to accomplish this is to push for a Federal Law that bars any mortgage written with less than 20% down or greater than 36% DTI. Exempting FHA/VA from the down payment limits (but not DTI caps) is appropriate if both of those programs are limited to homes that sell for no more than 75% of the average price. This fulfills the FHA and VA program mandates to provide affordable housing to the lower tier purchaser while not allowing them to be abused by speculators and the more-wealthy.

The Federal Reserve must be pressured to stop the fraud perpetuated by their programs in the banking system. The House and Senate both have the ability to issue subpoenas and force hearings, and you must exercise that power liberally until all of the bad paper is forced out into the open and the losses are taken. Put these bankers under oath and find out exactly what paper is in the TAF, the TSLF and in Bear Stearns and how it has been valued – in public hearings.
The 80% of Americans who did not participate in or benefit from the fraud form the voting block that can win this election - if they can be coalesced.

Anonymous said...

Great, now being rich is officially a crime. BTW, shouldn't there be a ban against drunk drivers, pornographers, smokers, gays, and all the rest of people with "undesirable" behavior patterns? Tongue firmly in cheek. Stalinist state here we come: you get free medicine, free food and free housing from the government, unless you object to Stalin (or Castro), in which case you are robbed blind and then shot. Nanny state, with exceptions used as behavior modification tools.

Unknown said...

This is the best thing I've seen come from the republican party for a while. But don't be fooled, the republicans aren't that different from the democrats when it comes to using government to force its version of morality down people's throats. Ever increasing punishments for drug users, government enforced prayer, loyalty oaths to the government, sneak and peak searches, domestic Surveillance, endlessly jacking around of our tax code, its nonsensical persecution of gays, and on and on.

Anonymous said...

Would I be giving away my age if I said I used to watch Bunning on the black and white tv.....when he was a Philly(end of career) v the Cubs!
Guys....he was a HELL of a pitcher!!!
He was tough as coffin nails.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I miss the republicans, I hope they come back

Post of the year, so far!

Anonymous said...

Being rich is not a crime, but generally the rich are criminals....

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Being rich is not a crime, but generally the rich are criminals....

May 18, 2008 3:57 PM
Well said.

Anonymous said...

Bunning was the man - Father's Day 1964 (yes I's 55) while a Phillie against the Mets - he pitched a perfect game. Wow 44 years ago.

Anonymous said...

How far do we have to go back in time to find a Republican administration that demonstrated "its fiscal-responsibility roots"? The years I've lived thru with Republicans showing what they're gonna do once they get in power has been the Reagan administration (we'll name that 8 years of unprecedented exploding deficits, unemployment rates and highest interest rates ever), then the 1st Bush administration (Who lost reelection because trickle down economics didn't work out so well for him either and "Read my Lips, No New Taxes" oops, that bit him in the butt a little too!). And without George W., we wouldn't even be having this conversation on this blog.

So Keith, how far do we have to go back in this fine political party to find its roots of fiscal-responsibility? Don't you think that fiscal-responsibility is a bit of a high-minded misnomer. I would love the fiscal-responsibility gang to be specific about exactly what they mean instead of always blurting out this very general idealistic term. I think each Republican has their own definition of what "fiscal responsibility" means depending on their own prejudices, likes and dislikes, status in life, ethics and I could go on and on. When I have asked friends what they mean by this "Phrase", no one has exactly the same definition. Until the party achieves a consensus definition of what the term means, then it just some meaningless political rhetoric that doesn't stick with voters anymore.

I dare the staunchest Republican to stand up and define what "Fiscal Responsibility" means to the party and then tell in the most specific language what that would mean to each American and the short and long-term impact it would have on their lives. Ron Paul is the closest I have ever heard, and he said that in its true form it would have to be gradually implemented and that it would profoundly the military presence around the world more than any other sector. I don't hink the "true form" of "Fiscal Reposibility" would be adopted by the "Republican Party". I think the Republicans need to regroup and redifine what fiscal responsibility means in specific terms and referring to it in sweeping generalities.

(Self-Disclosure: I am a liberal leaning Independent that votes on issues. I have voted Republican a couple of times but only on the Congressional level.)

Anonymous said...

generally the rich are criminals????

Anonymous said...

"Being rich is not a crime, but generally the rich are criminals...."

That's probably the case in a socialist society where getting rich is illegal . . . but in a society that has any prentense of be free-market place? If criminality, instead of good old fashioned value creation for consumers, is the only way to riches, something is very wrong with the legal code.

Anonymous said...

Quick, somebody build a third party around this guy!

Preferably something confusingly similar so that the semi-literate won't know the difference (Repudlican Party?)

Anonymous said...

HP mentioned at US News & World Report blog

Anonymous said...

All bureaucracies have the same two goals:
1) To survive
2) To expand
Government is a bureaucracy.

This in itself is all you need to know about all the political parties. Sure, they'll expand in different ways and for different stated reasons, but expand they will.

Anonymous said...

Impossible. I have been told by HP and the other KOOK sites that all Republicans are evil. What gives?

And who cares about anything now? Just wait until Jan 20, 2009 when Obama takes the oath. Then on Jan 21, 2009 every single problem ever will be gone. Wars will end. Hunger will vanish. Cancer will be cured. Dogs will like cats.

Anonymous said...

Or how about renaming it : "More Welfare For the Greedy and Selfish Baby Boomers And The Continued Rip Off of the Gen Xers And Yers"