Biden fucking up already

[turkeyneck]

They lose with DeSantis too imo.Swing states have shown they are not down with Rons policies

The January 6 riot was the fatal blow for GOP. The party is a tough sell to independents unless it can change its negative image and appeal to the liberal biased younger voters.

 

[easymon1]

 

[gwb-trading]

In what may be the most absurd government proposal in recent years, Biden wants responsible people with good credit ratings to subsidize the mortgages of the irresponsible by paying $40 more per month on a $400K mortgage.

Senate GOP slams ‘perverse’ Biden rule forcing people with good credit to subsidize high-risk mortgages
Republicans could be looking to mount a challenge to the rule
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...-good-credit-to-subsidize-high-risk-mortgages

Senate Republicans on Wednesday accused the Biden administration's Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) of playing politics with the U.S. housing market by forcing people with good credit to subsidize high-risk mortgages, and warned that doing so would put individual homebuyers and the entire market in danger.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., and a dozen other GOP senators issued this warning in a letter to FHFA Director Sandra Thompson that also demanded the details of how this policy decision was made, a possible sign that the legality of the move could be challenged.

"This announcement, scheduled to take effect May 1, 2023, will invert the common-sense risk financing structure at the GSEs in an effort to decrease mortgage rates for riskier individuals with low credit scores and forcibly raise rates for those with higher scores," they wrote, referring to the government-sponsored entities and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "This shortsighted and counterproductive policy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the necessity of accurately tailoring housing finance products to credit risk and establishes a perverse incentive that punishes hardworking Americans for their fiscal prudence."

"The housing market should not be exploited as a means to pander to targeted demographics that you have chosen, nor an instrument to secure political favoritism," they added.

Experts have said under the rule, people with credit scores in the neighborhood of 680 might pay another $40 more per month on a $400,000 loan to subsidize higher-risk mortgages. Marshall told Fox News Digital that it makes no sense to hit people harder who have been responsible.

"Just when you thought Joe Biden couldn’t be more out of touch with the hardships Americans are facing due to his failed economic agenda, skyrocketing interest rates, and record high Bidenflation, he doubled down, now penalizing responsible Americans with good credit scores," Marshall said. "This is illogical. The Biden administration must answer for why they are punishing Americans who have diligently met their financial obligations and earned higher credit scores."

It’s a policy change that has drawn criticism from Democrats as well. President Obama’s former Federal Housing Administration commissioner, David Stevens, told Fox News, "We can do better programs to help more minorities get into homeownership. This is not the way to do it."

The letter from Senate Republicans said FHFA has tried before to "social-engineer the U.S. housing market" by tweaking the rules that the GSEs must follow. They warned this latest attempt seems aimed at making high-risk borrowers more comfortable with homes that are out of their price range.

"The Equitable Housing Finance Plans developed by the GSEs under the direction of FHFA sought to create a class of housing subsidies based on the color of one’s skin, despite the clear unconstitutionality of this concept," they wrote. "Now, FHFA seems intent to go further and enshrine a system that willfully ignores the realities of creditworthiness in an effort to push Americans into homes they may be ill-suited to afford."

Senators added that the rule "brazenly contradicts" current financial principles that say individual financial responsibility should be rewarded, and that the cost of financial products should be tailored to each person as much as possible.

The senators asked the FHFA director whether any cost-benefit analysis has been done on how the rule change might affect the housing market, and whether it held a formal notice-and-comment period about the rule to allow for public input. That’s a sign that Republicans could be looking to mount a challenge to the rule – the Administrative Procedures Act requires a period of public comment before rules are finalized.

 

[CaptainObvious]

In what may be the most absurd government proposal in recent years, Biden wants responsible people with good credit ratings to subsidize the mortgages of the irresponsible by paying $40 more per month on a $400K mortgage.



Senate GOP slams ‘perverse’ Biden rule forcing people with good credit to subsidize high-risk mortgages

Republicans could be looking to mount a challenge to the rule

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...-good-credit-to-subsidize-high-risk-mortgages



Senate Republicans on Wednesday accused the Biden administration's Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) of playing politics with the U.S. housing market by forcing people with good credit to subsidize high-risk mortgages, and warned that doing so would put individual homebuyers and the entire market in danger.



Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., and a dozen other GOP senators issued this warning in a letter to FHFA Director Sandra Thompson that also demanded the details of how this policy decision was made, a possible sign that the legality of the move could be challenged.



"This announcement, scheduled to take effect May 1, 2023, will invert the common-sense risk financing structure at the GSEs in an effort to decrease mortgage rates for riskier individuals with low credit scores and forcibly raise rates for those with higher scores," they wrote, referring to the government-sponsored entities and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "This shortsighted and counterproductive policy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the necessity of accurately tailoring housing finance products to credit risk and establishes a perverse incentive that punishes hardworking Americans for their fiscal prudence."



"The housing market should not be exploited as a means to pander to targeted demographics that you have chosen, nor an instrument to secure political favoritism," they added.



Experts have said under the rule, people with credit scores in the neighborhood of 680 might pay another $40 more per month on a $400,000 loan to subsidize higher-risk mortgages. Marshall told Fox News Digital that it makes no sense to hit people harder who have been responsible.



"Just when you thought Joe Biden couldn’t be more out of touch with the hardships Americans are facing due to his failed economic agenda, skyrocketing interest rates, and record high Bidenflation, he doubled down, now penalizing responsible Americans with good credit scores," Marshall said. "This is illogical. The Biden administration must answer for why they are punishing Americans who have diligently met their financial obligations and earned higher credit scores."



It’s a policy change that has drawn criticism from Democrats as well. President Obama’s former Federal Housing Administration commissioner, David Stevens, told Fox News, "We can do better programs to help more minorities get into homeownership. This is not the way to do it."



The letter from Senate Republicans said FHFA has tried before to "social-engineer the U.S. housing market" by tweaking the rules that the GSEs must follow. They warned this latest attempt seems aimed at making high-risk borrowers more comfortable with homes that are out of their price range.



"The Equitable Housing Finance Plans developed by the GSEs under the direction of FHFA sought to create a class of housing subsidies based on the color of one’s skin, despite the clear unconstitutionality of this concept," they wrote. "Now, FHFA seems intent to go further and enshrine a system that willfully ignores the realities of creditworthiness in an effort to push Americans into homes they may be ill-suited to afford."



Senators added that the rule "brazenly contradicts" current financial principles that say individual financial responsibility should be rewarded, and that the cost of financial products should be tailored to each person as much as possible.



The senators asked the FHFA director whether any cost-benefit analysis has been done on how the rule change might affect the housing market, and whether it held a formal notice-and-comment period about the rule to allow for public input. That’s a sign that Republicans could be looking to mount a challenge to the rule – the Administrative Procedures Act requires a period of public comment before rules are finalized.

Apparently learned nothing from the NINJA loans which fueled the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[easymon1]

 

[elderado]

 

[Cuddles]

View attachment 275751


(CNN)The Biden administration defended the use of a controversial Trump-era policy that's resulted in the expulsion of more than 1 million migrants at the US-Mexico border during a court hearing Wednesday, arguing that it was necessary to avoid the transmission of Covid-19 in border facilities.

The public health authority, known as Title 42, was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, despite suspicions among officials that it was politically motivated. It allows authorities to swiftly remove migrants encountered at the US southern border, effectively barring those seeking asylum from doing so and marking a departure from previous protocol.
"Under the Title 42 order, those non-citizens can be rapidly screened, and then quickly expelled, substantially reducing the risk of transmission," Justice Department attorney Sharon Swingle told a three-judge panel.

The use of the authority has fielded fierce criticism by immigrant advocates, attorneys and health experts, who argue it has no health basis and puts migrants in harm's way. The United Nations refugee agency has also pushed back on the authority.

Wednesday's court proceedings stemmed from a lawsuit filed last January, when the American Civil Liberties Union and others challenged the Trump-era border policy on behalf of migrant families. The ACLU had also challenged subjecting unaccompanied children to the policy, though they are now exempt.

"We are back in court because the Biden administration has chosen to continue this brutal policy against families, despite the absence of any support from public health officials," said the ACLU's Lee Gelernt, lead attorney in the litigation.

The judges appeared skeptical at times about the basis of the order, particularly the premise that it guards against transmission in congregate settings, or specifically in the case of the US-Mexico border, border facilities. Judge Sri Srinivasan, for example, noted that unaccompanied minors, who are exempt from the order, are not subject to it and pass through those same facilities.

Judge Robert Wilkins, meanwhile, said he'd "be inclined to be very sympathetic" to the US government, but underscored the unprecedented nature of the order.

"I'd be inclined to be very sympathetic to your position, but we have Supreme Court authority that says that when you know an agency is taking you know, unprecedented, you know, action or for exercising some unprecedented power that we were to look askance at that," he said.

Plaintiffs in the case had been in negotiations with the government for several months, and as part of the litigation, the ACLU referred some families to be admitted to the US.

Those negotiations fell apart, though, when the Biden administration decided to keep the public health order in place, angering immigrant advocates who argue it should be ditched.

At the time, a senior Homeland Security official, who's since departed the administration, painted a dire picture in a court filing of what would occur if the public health order were lifted, citing a migrant surge at the US-Mexico border that had overwhelmed facilities.

"These encounter rates have strained DHS operations and caused border facilities to be filled beyond their normal operating capacity, impacting the ability to employ social distancing in these congregate settings. At the same time, DHS is also experiencing significantly increased rates of noncitizens testing positive for COVID19," the August declaration read, arguing that the risk had increased because of the highly transmissible Delta variant of the coronavirus.

A month later, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from expelling migrant families with children under the public health order, but an appeals court stayed the ruling.

The administration continues to rely on the authority. And when asked about it, the White House has referred to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which, according to a spokesperson, deems it necessary given the Delta and Omicron variants.

But Judge Justin Walker contended that despite the evolving state of the pandemic, there are more precautionary measures that can be taken. "This isn't March 2020. We have widespread available effective vaccines. We also have a whole host of testing that wasn't as widely available and or treatments as well," Walker said.

Gelernt leaned into a similar argument, saying that the government has not done enough to equip border facilities to take in migrants instead of expel them.

Swingle argued that the government is trying to get back on track, but can't rely on vaccines to prevent transmission of Covid-19.

"Vaccines are more available, but vaccinating somebody upon encounter does nothing to reduce the risk that that person may spread Covid in a congregate setting, in the days after a vaccination when the vaccine has not yet become effective," Swingle said.

Concerns remain among immigration attorneys, advocates and public health experts about the expulsion of migrants to Mexico and other countries.

"Today we heard the same unconvincing arguments from the Biden administration that we've been hearing for the last year about this xenophobic and baseless policy, arguments that have already been rejected in federal court. Title 42 unjustly and unnecessarily inflicts harm on families seeking asylum at our border, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that this policy ends once and for all," said Diana Kearney, senior legal adviser with Oxfam America, in a statement.
In a recently released report, Human Rights First found nearly 9,000 reports of kidnappings and other violent attacks against people who had been expelled to Mexico or blocked from seeking protection in the US.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Regardless of the point he is trying to make, he's just so not funny.

 

[easymon1]

he's just so not funny

 

[Cuddles]

Then:
This development continues a pattern of gross abuse of asylum seekers by the Trump administration — one that President-elect Joe Biden has promised to reverse. His campaign committed to reasserting “America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees,” including by raising the annual cap on refugee admissions, ending Trump’s Muslim ban and putting in place a 100-day pause on deportations.

Now:

Link to commitment above: