Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ms. Bachmann is a hypocrite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ms. Bachmann is a hypocrite

    Bachmann benefitted from federal home loan program
    By Kimberly Kindy, Published: July 26


    Like many members of Congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has been a fierce critic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blaming the government-backed loan programs for excesses that helped create the financial meltdown in 2008.

    And like millions of other home purchasers, Bachmann took out a home loan in 2008 that offered lower costs to the borrower through one of the federally subsidized programs, according to mortgage experts who reviewed her loan documents.

    Just a few weeks before Bachmann called for dismantling the programs during a House Financial Services Committee hearing, she and her husband signed for a $417,000 home loan to help finance their move to a 5,200-square-foot golf-course home, public records show. Experts who examined the loan documents for The Washington Post say that they are confident the loan was backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

    Seeing problems with the programs — especially the high costs to taxpayers — hasn’t stopped a concerned public or other members of Congress from taking advantage of the lower interest rates that come due to government backing.

    Bachmann has been the most outspoken critic of the loan programs and other government subsidies among Republican presidential candidates. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty also has called for dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Experts who reviewed his mortgage documents said that there was no way to tell whether his home loan from 1994 had government backing.

    Bachmann’s mortgage was part of a package of debt that she and her husband, Marcus, assumed to buy their home, public records show. They also have other loans, including a home equity line of credit, a business mortgage and another business loan for their Christian counseling clinics, bringing their liabilities to more than $1 million, according to the most recently available public records.

    The Bachmanns’ assets, according to her latest financial disclosure statement, range between $862,018 and $2 million.

    Their total income has not been disclosed, but Bachmann gets a $174,000 salary as a member of Congress. There is no evidence that they cannot support their current debt.

    In her public life, Bachmann has criticized government subsidies and said that federally backed home lending programs place an undue burden on taxpayers.

    She also is a leading critic of expanding the federal debt limit. “When managing your family budget, you don’t spend money you don’t have,” she said in a statement last year, “and our government should be no different.”

    The couple’s personal finances have come under scrutiny with disclosures that they and family members have accepted subsidies for both a family farm and for Bachmann & Associates counseling clinics.

    Bachmann’s campaign declined to comment on her loans. In an e-mailed statement, a Bachmann spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, said, “The Congresswoman’s personal financial disclosures will speak for themselves.”

    The experts said the Bachmanns bought a more expensive home using typical strategies during a time of easier credit. With their existing home still on the market, they assumed liability on the same day for the $417,000 mortgage and a $249,999 secured line of credit backed by the residence, records show.

    The $417,000 mortgage was the cap of what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would loan at the time in her region.

    “The overall borrowing harkens back to the days of easy credit. A lot of people leveraged themselves like this,” said Guy D. Cecala, CEO and publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance.

    The Post found Bachmann’s loans in Minnesota property records. Financial disclosures filed with the House list her business loans, but she is not required to divulge personal property debts. She and other presidential candidates have not yet filed required disclosure forms.

    Bachmann bought a home in the upscale Stillwater community on Aug. 29, 2008, as she campaigned for a second congressional term, financing $666,999 of the $760,000 home, records show.

    Three experts who examined the mortgage documents said it appears the Bachmanns put down about $93,001 or 12 percent. Experts said the down payment would have been fairly common in 2008; most lenders now require at least 20 percent.

    The couple’s previous home was on the market at the time and had two loans outstanding. When the house sold a few months later for $334,423, the Bachmanns paid off whatever remained on two prior equity loans for $100,000 and $200,000, records show.

    Their golf-course home was custom built with a panelled library, spa and wine cellar for former NFL player Ross Verba in 2005. Verba faced foreclosure after sinking more than $2 million into the property, court and mortgage records show. He originally listed the home for $1.75 million in 2007.

    “They [the Bachmanns] had to put a lot of work into it because all the landscaping had died,” said neighbor Nick Dragisich in a telephone interview.

    Four months after they took out the mortgage, interest rates dropped, and the Bachmanns refinanced the $417,000 loan for another one of equal value.

    The mortgage documents do not disclose the interest rates or other terms. Bachmann campaign officials declined to provide details.

    Bachmann’s 2010 financial disclosures reveal a modest financial portfolio. Along with her congressional salary, she reported that their two counseling clinics make no profit aside from her husband’s annual salary, which is not disclosed.

    She reported bank account interest income between $2 and $400 and mutual fund investments that earned income between $2,002 and $9,700, which was reinvested.

    Bachmann’s portfolio contrasts sharply with other top White House contenders. Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist, listed assets valued between $190 million and $250 million on his 2008 presidential financial disclosures. Jon Huntsman, a former ambassador to China and Utah governor, is an heir to his family’s chemicals company.

    Pawlenty received $120,000 a year as governor, and his wife worked for years as a district court judge. His home is valued at $319,800 in county records.

    Mortgage records show that Pawlenty has paid off a number of home equity loans and has one for $45,000 outstanding. Pawlenty’s last state disclosure statement showed he has money market accounts and other securities, but state law does not require disclosure of the assets’ value. He listed no liabilities.


    Research editors Alice Crites and Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

  • #2
    That's way to long of an article. I will just take your word for it and assume all politicians are hypocrites.

    Comment


    • #3
      Fannie and Freddie, with the prodding of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and other liberals, caused the current Obama depression created by sub-prime lending to poor people, so everyone could own a home. This drove up housing prices as less homes were available (supply decreased causing demand to increase). Wall Street took advantage as did insurance companies, in swaps and leveraging. As poor people could not pay for the homes liberals put them in, mortgage defaults broke Wall Street, AIG and others, and taxpayers had to foot the bill. This created a recession that Obama's crazy overspending has become a depression.

      Bachmann refuses to raise the debt level until spending is first reduced - the best solution even though it will hurt for awhile. She has the best understanding of the depression and the way out of it.

      Taking advantage of government stupidity (handouts) is not hypocritical, it is smart. People should take such advantage even though they realize it is stupid of government to do what they do.

      Bachmann is not hypocritical and anyone who doesn't support her is part of the problem instead of the solution.
      Last edited by Art; 07-29-2011, 02:15 AM.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Art View Post
        Fannie and Freddie, with the prodding of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and other liberals, caused the current Obama depression created by sub-prime lending to poor people, so everyone could own a home. This drove up housing prices as less homes were available (supply decreased causing demand to increase). Wall Street took advantage as did insurance companies, in swaps and leveraging. As poor people could not pay for the homes liberals put them in, mortgage defaults broke Wall Street, AIG and others, and taxpayers had to foot the bill. This created a recession that Obama's crazy overspending has become a depression.

        Bachmann refuses to raise the debt level until spending is first reduced - the best solution even though it will hurt for awhile. She has the best understanding of the depression and the way out of it.

        Taking advantage of government stupidity (handouts) is not hypocritical, it is smart. People should take such advantage even though they realize it is stupid of government to do what they do.

        Bachmann is not hypocritical and anyone who doesn't support her is part of the problem instead of the solution.




        Art, don't confuse liberals with facts, they will never understand.
        NBA is a joke

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Art View Post
          Fannie and Freddie, with the prodding of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and other liberals, caused the current Obama depression created by sub-prime lending to poor people, so everyone could own a home. This drove up housing prices as less homes were available (supply decreased causing demand to increase). Wall Street took advantage as did insurance companies, in swaps and leveraging. As poor people could not pay for the homes liberals put them in, mortgage defaults broke Wall Street, AIG and others, and taxpayers had to foot the bill. This created a recession that Obama's crazy overspending has become a depression.

          Bachmann refuses to raise the debt level until spending is first reduced - the best solution even though it will hurt for awhile. She has the best understanding of the depression and the way out of it.

          Taking advantage of government stupidity (handouts) is not hypocritical, it is smart. People should take such advantage even though they realize it is stupid of government to do what they do.

          Bachmann is not hypocritical and anyone who doesn't support her is part of the problem instead of the solution.



          Are you blaming Obama for the financial crisis??????

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Art View Post
            Fannie and Freddie, with the prodding of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and other liberals, caused the current Obama depression created by sub-prime lending to poor people, so everyone could own a home. This drove up housing prices as less homes were available (supply decreased causing demand to increase). Wall Street took advantage as did insurance companies, in swaps and leveraging. As poor people could not pay for the homes liberals put them in, mortgage defaults broke Wall Street, AIG and others, and taxpayers had to foot the bill. This created a recession that Obama's crazy overspending has become a depression.

            Bachmann refuses to raise the debt level until spending is first reduced - the best solution even though it will hurt for awhile. She has the best understanding of the depression and the way out of it.

            Taking advantage of government stupidity (handouts) is not hypocritical, it is smart. People should take such advantage even though they realize it is stupid of government to do what they do.

            Bachmann is not hypocritical and anyone who doesn't support her is part of the problem instead of the solution.


            Originally posted by buddyluv1968 View Post
            Are you blaming Obama for the financial crisis??????
            I'm blaming liberals going back to Jimmy Carter for sub-prime lending that started the 2008 recession. GW Bush and John McCain were concerned with sub-prime lending in 2004 and 2005 and tried to control it but were blocked by liberals such as Dodd and Frank.

            I am blaming Obama for making the 2008 recession worse with his out of control spending. Obama alone, in a short period, has
            created more debt than all previous presidents combined (starting with George Washington). This debt is why we have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend today in running government.

            I am blaming Obama for unemployment and higher energy prices, and higher prices on everything. We are now in a depression and it is Obama's depression.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Art View Post
              I'm blaming liberals going back to Jimmy Carter for sub-prime lending that started the 2008 recession. GW Bush and John McCain were concerned with sub-prime lending in 2004 and 2005 and tried to control it but were blocked by liberals such as Dodd and Frank.

              I am blaming Obama for making the 2008 recession worse with his out of control spending. Obama alone, in a short period, has
              created more debt than all previous presidents combined (starting with George Washington). This debt is why we have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend today in running government.

              I am blaming Obama for unemployment and higher energy prices, and higher prices on everything. We are now in a depression and it is Obama's depression.

              Tell you what, let your wife run up a 20K bill with 25% interest tacked on in your name. She also buys two cars(wars) You divorce your wife and get a new wife. You cannot return or sell your cars it will probably take more than two years to clear up the debt. Art be truthful with your statements. I'm not an Obama fan and I do have criticism on the way he is handling the economy but I'm not going to lie on him!!!!!! You need to stop listening to Limbaugh and those other clowns on talk radio....



              PS: I'm really wasting my time discussing this with you because of the statement that you made about GW Bush was concerned about subprime. Hell man subprime been around since Reagan but it really got stupid with GW Bush after 9/11 with 100% loans with an 580 credit score. Osama Bin Larden accomplished what he wanted to us. This is Attack our economy....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by flarendep1 View Post


                Art, don't confuse liberals with facts, they will never understand.
                Hmm... Weapons of Mass distuction in Iraq, Climate Change... Son you have the nerve to say liberals don't have facts???

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by buddyluv1968 View Post
                  Tell you what, let your wife run up a 20K bill with 25% interest tacked on in your name. She also buys two cars(wars) You divorce your wife and get a new wife. You cannot return or sell your cars it will probably take more than two years to clear up the debt. Art be truthful with your statements. I'm not an Obama fan and I do have criticism on the way he is handling the economy but I'm not going to lie on him!!!!!! You need to stop listening to Limbaugh and those other clowns on talk radio....



                  PS: I'm really wasting my time discussing this with you because of the statement that you made about GW Bush was concerned about subprime. Hell man subprime been around since Reagan but it really got stupid with GW Bush after 9/11 with 100% loans with an 580 credit score. Osama Bin Laden accomplished what he wanted to us. This is Attack our economy....
                  Bush was much too progressive (Marxist and socialistic) but he did try to do something about regulating sub-prime lending, about 6 years ago, as did John McCain, but such efforts were blocked by liberals and by Wall Street (see the movie "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon to see the liberal connection to Wall Street).

                  Sub-prime really got started with Carter but was much accelerated by liberals starting with Clinton. Attributing sub-prime lending to Reagan, in any way, is simply ludicrous.

                  You don't want to discuss this with me because you have no argument against my assertions - there is no such argument.

                  As far as the mideast wars, we should never go to war unless we first open with a nuclear attack to spare our soldier's lives. If we are unwilling to do this then we don't need to go to war.

                  One nuclear bomb used against the Taliban and:

                  1. the Taliban would have been finished,
                  2. Saddam would have buckled to allow unfettered weapons inspections,
                  3. Iran and N. korea would have quickly given up their nuclear bomb programs,
                  4. the Palestinians would have made peace with Israel.

                  Instead we just stand by and continued slaughter results, both on our side and the enemy's side.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Art View Post
                    Bush was much too progressive (Marxist and socialistic) but he did try to do something about regulating sub-prime lending, about 6 years ago, as did John McCain, but such efforts were blocked by liberals and by Wall Street (see the movie "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon to see the liberal connection to Wall Street).

                    Sub-prime really got started with Carter but was much accelerated by liberals starting with Clinton. Attributing sub-prime lending to Reagan, in any way, is simply ludicrous.

                    You don't want to discuss this with me because you have no argument against my assertions - there is no such argument.

                    As far as the mideast wars, we should never go to war unless we first open with a nuclear attack to spare our soldier's lives. If we are unwilling to do this then we don't need to go to war.

                    One nuclear bomb used against the Taliban and:

                    1. the Taliban would have been finished,
                    2. Saddam would have buckled to allow unfettered weapons inspections,
                    3. Iran and N. korea would have quickly given up their nuclear bomb programs,
                    4. the Palestinians would have made peace with Israel.

                    Instead we just stand by and continued slaughter results, both on our side and the enemy's side.

                    As I said earlier I'm wasting my time discussing this with you. Using the nuclear bomb on a rock???? That is all Afghanistan is. Your four points above is so flawed. Trust me if it was that simple do you think someone else would have probably thought about this already.
                    Last edited by buddyluv1968; 07-30-2011, 05:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by buddyluv1968 View Post
                      As I said earlier I'm wasting my time discussing this with you. Using the nuclear bomb on a rock???? That is all Afghanistan is. Your four points above is so flawed. Trust me if it was that simple do you think someone else would have probably thought about this already.
                      We should not sacrifice one of our soldiers lives in the middle east when one nuclear bomb could solve all of our problems there. Afghanistan is a rock but a nuclear bomb there, to wipe out the Taliban, is an example of our willingness to destroy our enemies. The message we would send is face nuclear destruction unless:

                      1. To Afghanistan - get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
                      2. To Iraq's Saddam Hussein - let UN weapons inspectors have complete and unhindered access to inspect for WMD.
                      3. To the Palestinians - make peace with Israel and give up any claim to territories lost in wars that Arabs started against Israel.
                      4. To Iran - stop supporting terrorism and stop developing WMD.
                      5. To any country harboring Al Qaeda - get rid of terrorists in your midst.


                      We actually should use neutron bombs since the nuclear fall out is much less and buildings and other structures are left intact. These were banned by an old treaty but we likely still have some or could quickly build more. Any treaty that results in the harm to our country is thereby null and void.

                      Now you say my argument is flawed but fail to point out how and why? Why not call me names, and demean me, instead - the liberal way of argument?
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Art View Post
                        We should not sacrifice one of our soldiers lives in the middle east when one nuclear bomb could solve all of our problems there. Afghanistan is a rock but a nuclear bomb there, to wipe out the Taliban, is an example of our willingness to destroy our enemies. The message we would send is face nuclear destruction unless:

                        1. To Afghanistan - get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
                        2. To Iraq's Saddam Hussein - let UN weapons inspectors have complete and unhindered access to inspect for WMD.
                        3. To the Palestinians - make peace with Israel and give up any claim to territories lost in wars that Arabs started against Israel.
                        4. To Iran - stop supporting terrorism and stop developing WMD.
                        5. To any country harboring Al Qaeda - get rid of terrorists in your midst.


                        We actually should use neutron bombs since the nuclear fall out is much less and buildings and other structures are left intact. These were banned by an old treaty but we likely still have some or could quickly build more. Any treaty that results in the harm to our country is thereby null and void.

                        Now you say my argument is flawed but fail to point out how and why? Why not call me names, and demean me, instead - the liberal way of argument?
                        Fellas I've been gone for awhile. Been occupied with work due to the changes from the Dodd Frank act. Reason why I said this is that I'm frustrated with the direction this country has been going that past 11 years. The right gets us in a sensless war and the left is messing with my money.

                        With that said, Art!!!! Bin Lardin was found in Pakistan. If we bomb them don't you think that Pakistan will return the favor and use the bomb on us? I'm sorry for saying this is that some of you forget that the war on Terror is not a conventional war like WWI or WWII where you use the bomb like what we did in Japan. And the nation surrendered. It is broken up in cells all across the world. Son you need to know your history. Learn more about Vietnam, also read the book "One day in September" by Simon Reeve about how Israel retailiated the murders of their 1972 Olympic team. I bet you one thing Obama read the book and Bush didn't. I'm not trying to preach but you have to know your past for you do not make the same mistakes in the future
                        Last edited by buddyluv1968; 07-31-2011, 04:48 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by buddyluv1968 View Post
                          ...Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. If we bomb them don't you think that Pakistan will return the favor and use the bomb on us? I'm sorry for saying this is that some of you forget that the war on Terror is not a conventional war like WWI or WWII where you use the bomb like what we did in Japan. And the nation surrendered.
                          If we bomb Afghanistan who will bomb us? You suggest Pakistan will. That is ludicrous - bye bye Pakistan if they attacked us in any way.

                          Don't believe this? Our State Department told Pakistan, after 9/11, to either help us against terrorists or we will bomb them into the stone age. They complied immediately. If we had said we will nuke them, after having nuked Afghanistan, they would have killed bin Laden many years ago and would not have warned Al Qaeda of imminent drone assassination attempts, the way they have been doing.

                          Our first response to the North Viet Nam invasion should have been to nuke Hanoi. If we are unwilling to do this, then we should stay away from fighting instead of letting many thousands of our youth die in sacrifice.

                          Nuclear attack should be our first move in any war. Instead we send our youth to their death.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by buddyluv1968 View Post
                            Hmm... Weapons of Mass distuction in Iraq, Climate Change... Son you have the nerve to say liberals don't have facts???
                            You might have at least been able to pose an argument and then you trashed the very tiny amount of credibility you had when you said "climate change"...LIbs and facts simply cannot coexist...and your post confirms that...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Where is the outrage at the idea of using neutron bombs (little fallout residue and kills people leaving buildings intact) to fight a war without troops on the ground?

                              The objections to this are emotional and not logical.

                              The logic of war dictates that is better to kill a billion of those who are not our allies if this saves one of the lives of our own or of our ally.

                              Saudi Arabia (origin of most 9/11 attackers) and Afghanistan (al Qaeda home) should have been wiped out without any loss of our soldiers' lives. Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinians would have yielded to our demands without one shot being fired. Any future terrorism would result in a neutron bomb attack on the nations from which the terrorists came - a clear message for each country to root out terrorism from within its borders.

                              Peace in the mideast and no USA lives lost
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X