I wonder if this applies to....... sm
Posted By: Trailer Dweller on 2009-02-18
In Reply to: SbMT-sm - Long-Time MT-NY
folks who live in mobile homes. I bought my doublewide almost 13 years ago not anticipating that I would shortly be a divorced mom with a mortgage along with all the bills previously paid on both our incomes. I could afford the house at the time, but it is getting harder with each passing day and it doesn't take much of an emergency for me to have to miss making a mortgage payment. I play catchup all the time and with the rising cost of utilities and groceries, I'm barely treading water.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
this applies also to you...I do not care
if O received his Islamic teachings BEFORE or after he attended the CATHOLIC school hours!
Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
my post above applies also to your comment..
The flag outside the building shows enough patriotism, and I am sure that there are office policies.
Something interesting re Eliot Spitzer. It applies to now. sm
Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
I don't think dual citizenship applies to your kids -
Not being ugly, my daughter was born in Germany too, but I never heard that she had dual citizenship. She was born on a military base and that made her an American.
Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
|
