Does Congressman Eric Cantor Represent Your Interests?

Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (348-72, 12 Not Voting)

The House easily passed this bill that will give the Federal Housing Administration the authority to assist struggling homeowners in making their mortgage payments.

Rep. Eric Cantor voted NO

But, I guess Congressman Cantor and his wife (on the board of directors of Media General) haven't the problem of struggling to meet their house payments -- or identify with those in his district who are struggling.

“Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican famous on K Street for his annual fund-raising weekends in Beverly Hills and South Beach, has recently invited lobbyists to join him for some expensive cups of coffee. A $2,500 contribution from a lobbyist’s political action committee entitles the company’s lobbyist to join Mr. Cantor at a Starbucks near his Capitol Hill office four times this spring.” New York Times February 11, 2007

Comments

Anonymous said…
Bill while not the biggest supporter of Cantor I do not believe it is the place of the government to be invloved in this matter at all. We have completely flipped from being a nation that supports its government (Kennedy) to one where the government is looked upon to entirley support us. On balance the government should not be an instrument used to bail individuals out of their own descisions. We have become a society of little individual accountability or responsibility thanks to what in effect is the liberal view of government. This strikes me as yet agian another form of economic welfare.
"Those who turn to chance must abide by the results of chance"(Coolidge) When interests rates fall and individuals refinance does anyone reimburse financials the interest they lose? The individuals here are crying foul in the face of their own descision making and in the end all of America will have to pick up the tab.
The only area in which I believe the government should be addressing is thier part in demanding that the banks and mortgage companies be making these loans to people who should not have been given them in the first place. It was politicians who pushed that lower income people where being unfairly displaced from home ownership which created the sub-prime market to begin with and they are not taking any accountability for it at all.

"There is no dignity quite so impressive, and no independence so important, as living within your means"
Bill Garnett said…
To Anonymous:

I appreciate your comments. I agree with much of what you say. I do think that the blame for the housing crisis can be apportioned and, as you suggest, some of that blame lies at the feet of the government.

The mortgage crisis is a national problem that has consequences far beyond the unfortunate families who stand to be evicted. Such a family crisis and tragedy has ripples that flow through the community and the economy – and those ripples are seldom in the common good.

I do believe in individual responsibility, I do believe that actions have consequences, I do believe that the free market capital system is the best way of micro managing – but, at a higher level, there are times when government (the community of us all) has a moral responsibility to others, and especially in the cases where the common good of that broader community would be served.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous,

You wrote, "On balance the government should not be an instrument used to bail individuals out of their own descisions [sic]."

You then go on to say, "The only area in which I believe the government should be addressing is thier [sic] part in demanding that the banks and mortgage companies be making these loans to people who should not have been given them in the first place."

I say, the mortgage companies are making their own decision to lend the money to people who should not get the loans. Why should the government bail them out and regulate the process?

The beautiful thing about this is the fact that lower income families are not the ones getting ready to loose their homes. We are going to see the large houses in the Highlands and Woodland Pond go on the auction block because they got “suckered” into teaser rates and now the $600,000.00 house is at that low intro rate of 4%, it is going up to 10% and they don’t have the income to make a $6000.00 a month house payment. The payment for the Hummer and the Suburban and the Oil tanker to fuel them is also taking its toll on the upper middle class. Oh no, those people vote.

Let us go further since you are concerned with yet another form of economic welfare. Anyone who does not have health care coverage should not be able to obtain medical treatment. It does not matter if they served their country, if they worked their entire life, or if they did have health insurance and lost their job after they had an accident. They made the decision to go without healthcare. Who is going to reimburse the hospitals and drug companies their huge profits?

We must remember that not everyone in America grew up with the knowledge of how to manage money. Many in our nation only know poverty. You do not have to travel to third world countries to find children living in the streets. Visit downtown Richmond or Jeff Davis Highway in Chesterfield. Maybe it is their fault that their parents are not successful and cannot pass on the skills of good investment and higher education.

We are too busy playing worldwide police to care about our own people. The conservatives, falsely so called, are about big business and protecting the rich. They could care less about their fellow man as long as their pockets are full. They claim they are about less government, yet they want to create more laws to regulate our morals. They want to erode the Constitution and strip away the rights of the people. They need to eaves drop on your phone calls and computer usage and see what kind of books that you read because you are a threat to the National Security. That is their new mission and excuse for everything. National Security at all cost so we can be free. Free from self-expression, free from compassion for our fellow man, free from opposing views, etc.
Bill Garnett said…
To: “anonymous” commenting on the previous “anonymous” comment:

This reminds me of "Spy vs. Spy" in Mad Magazine. If Patrick Henry could risk being drawn and quartered for speaking his mind at St. John’s Church, as did every signer of our Declaration, why is it that with today's protection of free speech can't posters on a blog identify themselves and come out into the light of day? I appreciate your comments but fail to respect your courage.
Perry DeMay said…
Bill,

You mean you can’t recognize my philosophy and style of writing by now. I must be doing a poor job at running for office and spreading my frustration of our current political leadership or lack there of in Chesterfield.

I am Perry DeMay, Candidate for Sheriff of Chesterfield County. One thing that I am not lacking is courage. However, I must apologize to you for using the tag of anonymous. I did it to show the first commenter the frustration of having your views criticized by an anonymous writer. I have overstepped my boundaries and will never repeat the mistake again.

Mad Magazine was one of my favorite reading materials in the 70’s and I especially enjoyed the Spy V. Spy pages.

Sincerely,

Perry DeMay
AlterofFreedom said…
Perry Demay:
I believe the anonymous writer was referring to the in large part the push by memebers of Congress like Clinton, Schumer, Reid etc to put pressure on banks and finance companies to creat instruments of finance specifically for the lower middle class and poor. Fact is they were successful. There was a campaign regarding the discriminatory actions of lenders against those of lower incomes and they pushed to narrow the gaps. This has what led to the dilemma we are in now. These new instruments of finance were not around even ten years ago. I remember back when ARM's first came out and people were critical of them but this time around very few people were willing to go up against the political machines. Why? Because it fueled both camps. republicans were happy because it opened up new market for banks and finance and Democrats were happy because it was perceived to assistance the lower middle class and poor in particular get the American Dream.
His point is well taken. Congress deserves to own up to its involvement with the problem of getting involved in markets to begin with in the manner in which they did. Now they want to push to revise the credit reporting systems deemed as too strict keeping many out of financing. Trouble ahead all around when government sticks it head into these areas.

Popular posts from this blog

A Fun Test - Are You Liberal Or Conservative?

How Would Jesus Vote On the Virginia Marriage Amendment?

Scandal in Chesterfield's Sheriff's Race?