Do you support or oppose Obamacare?
Some say that the most important hours of recent American history will begin to unfold today when three days of oral arguments are made on a legal challenge to prevent President’s Obama health care reform (often referred to as “Obamacare”) from ever happening.
The debate has a significant impact on a number of Americans, but what about teens? Are you passionate about the Obamacare debate? Or do you feel like it has no impact on your daily lifestyle?
ononokusu on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm
this is majorly unconstitutional. the founding fathers are rolling around in their graves right now
ITS_GO_TIME on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 2:33 am
I SUPPORT ANARCHY!
PsychicKid on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm
I oppose Obama care, my father is a doctor and I personally know first hand what it will do to our family as well as many others.
Spirit95_95 on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm
I support!!!!! I sure as h@ll need me some ObamaCare!
deuceiswild on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Personally I think its foolish to say that absolutely zero firms intentionally made bad investments to write them off and pay fewer taxes. I don’t think it’s as prevalent as liberals on MSNBC or the people from Inside Job would like you to believe but I refuse to believe that it never happened.
Anonymous on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm
SEC 802 b It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered CONSISTENT WITH THE SAFE AND SOUND OPERATION OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS.
It required banks to provide loans to people of middle and low income, it didnt require them to provide high risk loans. Low and middle income families are not necessarily high risk or any less capable of paying back loans that were given responsibly. Banks have always been about risk and they knew the risk they were taking when they gave large and complex loans when they knew the individuals were less likely to be able to pay them.
Again, the CRA did not mandate that banks provide high interest loans. Banks make money from risk, that is the way it has always worked and in this case it backfired…
Anonymous on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, CONSISTENT WITH SAFE AND SOUND OPERATIONS.”
Thats from here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_about.htm
and here: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/history.htm
The act meant that loans and mortgages were to be given to middle and lower income families, it didnt mandate that loans be given regardless of a household’s ability to pay. Low income does not necessarily mean high risk. Low and middle income families with consistent jobs are no less capable of handling a mortgage than higher income families. What are you going to argue next?? That low income families couldnt pay their mortgages during a period where the economy was booming? If banks give an ARM for a $300,000 house for a family that makes $30,000 a year then that is the full responsibility of the bank. Banks have always made money from risk, they took a big risk in giving excessively large loans with excessively complex mortgages and they lost. It had nothing to do with the CRA which had been around for 30 years before the collapse.
Stryker93 on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm
I oppose it 100%!!! IF someone dont want the damn healthcare that’s up to them. The government has no right to fine the person on their tax returns if they deny the care. I’m so hoping the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.
todd_snider on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm
“Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.” so, if a bank is “chartered” in an impoverished or highly-foreclosed “local community,” it has the “continuing and affirmative obligation” to meet the credit “needs” of said community, which would naturally be rather large considering said community’s impoverished status. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
And yeah, congratulations that you’re a whole 24 months older than me, I’m sure that makes you the next John Meynard Keynes.
todd_snider on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Also, if it didn’t mandate that banks give out subprime loans, can you explain to me what exactly the bill was trying to achieve, then?
Can’t wait to see your next response because that last one was quite possibly the most comical thing I’ve ever read and put a genuine smile on my face.