aren't republicans against big government?
Posted By: hang on a minute on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: I didn't vote for or against the Patriot Act and neither did you.... - sam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
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
That's a FACT, even though republicans aren't fond of FACTS.
x
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
Probably because there aren't
nearly as many of them. And I noticed the tally keeper yesterday was only tallying those posts she wanted to count. Sound like politics?
As for rabid, thanks for the enlightenment but the definition I prefer is 1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion <rabid editorials> <a rabid supporter>
CERTAINLY NOT:
2: affected with rabies
Well, though, I would hope none of the "rabid" Republicans (or Democrats) are "affected with rabies" but hey, maybe that's something to ponder. After all, rabies does affect the brain. LOL
aren't
YOU special . . .
They aren't done yet. This is just day 1 of
cutting the pork. Let's wait and see what they will do by Friday.
My calculator doesn't go that high for adding up the pork they want to cut, but I think it's more than 2%.
I will take a wait-and-see attitude with my finger on the "favorites" key to renounce them if they don't cut all the pork out.
no, they aren't.
I hate this discussion. Do you actually know any gay people? I doubt it or you would not think that way. Most people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are just trying to go about their business and live their own lives. There are always people making a big issue of something or another, whether gay or straight, and the gay population does not do so anymore than any other group. As is always the case, only those making an issue get the attention thus painting a whole population. If everyone would just keep their nose out of everyone else's business we would all be better off. Truly, another person's lifestyle is no one else's business unless it infringes on the rights of others.
Since we obviously aren't going to be able to have..(sm)
any meaningful conversation today, how about this? Keep in mind he was one of the main ones going after Clinton for having an affair. Hmmmm....
Top Republican resigns leadership post over affair
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republican US Senator John Ensign has resigned his Senate leadership post one day after admitting to an extra-marital affair, the chamber's top Republican said in a statement Wednesday.
"He's accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents. He offered, and I accepted, his resignation as chairman of the Policy Committee," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The post is the fourth-ranking leadership position among Senate Republicans.
Ensign, a rising star of the Republican Party regarded as a possible contender in the 2012 presidential election, admitted to the affair at a news conference Tuesday in his home state of Nevada.
Ensign, 51, a staunch conservative with a record of strong family-values stances, vowed to remain in office after describing the affair as "absolutely the worst thing I've ever done in my life."
What the Republicans Don't Want You to See.
Stephen Crockett posted this twice (at least) on the Conservative Board, in response to an old quote of his being used out of context and distorted by the usual suspects there. Each time he posted it, it was deleted from the board. It's certainly easy to understand why they don't want anyone to see this.
Please read quickly. They think they should control our board, as well as their own, so it probably won't last very long here, either. 
African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List
Published by Greg Palast June 16th, 2006 in Articles
Massacre of the Buffalo Soldiers
by Greg Palast
As reported for Democracy Now!
Palast, who first reported this story for BBC Television Newsnight (UK) and
Democracy Now! (USA), is author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed
Madhouse.
The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.
A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority
precincts. Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by
Republican operatives to a non-party website.
One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.
*******
For Greg Palast’’s discussion with broadcaster Amy Goodman on the Black soldier purge of 2004, go to
http://gregpalast.com/armedmadhouse/palastDN6-14-06.mp3
*******
Here’’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, Do not forward, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as undeliverable.
The lists of soldiers of undeliverable letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.
One target list was comprised exclusively of voters registered at the Jacksonville, Florida, Naval Air Station. Jacksonville is third largest naval installation in the US, best known as home of the Blue Angels fighting squandron.
[See this scrub sheet at http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=160156893&context=set-72157594155273706&size=o
Our team contacted the homes of several on the caging list, such as Randall Prausa, a serviceman, whose wife said he had been ordered overseas.
A soldier returning home in time to vote in November 2004 could also be challenged on the basis of the returned envelope. Soldiers challenged would be
required to vote by provisional ballot.
Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread
multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. The operation, of which the purge of Black soldiers was a small part, was the first mass challenge to voting America had seen in two decades.
The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican’’s national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP
Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, Caging.xls. Each of these contained several hundred
to a few thousand voters and their addresses.
A check of the demographics of the addresses on the caging lists, as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes.
Ion Sanco, the non-partisan elections supervisor of Leon County (Tallahassee) when shown the lists by this reporter said: The only thing I can think of - African American voters listed like this - these might be individuals that
will be challenged if they attempted to vote on Election Day.
These GOP caging lists were obtained by the same BBC team that first exposed the wrongful purge of African-American felon voters in 2000 by then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Eliminating the voting rights of those voters —— 94,000 were targeted —— likely caused Al Gore’’s defeat in that race.
The Republican National Committee in Washington refused our several requests to respond to the BBC discovery. However, in Tallahassee, the Florida Bush
campaign’’s spokespeople offered several explanations for the list.
Joseph Agostini, speaking for the GOP, suggested the lists were of potential donors to the Bush campaign. Oddly, the supposed donor list included residents of the Sulzbacher Center a shelter for homeless families.
Another spokesperson for the Bush campaign, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, ultimately changed the official response, acknowledging that these were voters, we mailed to, where the letter came back - bad addresses.
The party has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having bad addresses subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad.
The apparent challenge campaign was not inexpensive. The GOP mailed the letters first class, at a total cost likely exceeding millions of dollars, so that the addresses would be returned to cage workers.
This is not a challenge list, insisted the Republican spokesmistress. However, she modified that assertion by adding, That’’s not what it’’s set up to be.
Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws mass challenges of voters where race is a factor in choosing the targeted group.
While the party insisted the lists were not created for the purpose to challenge Black voters, the GOP ultimately offered no other explanation for the mailings. However, Tucker Fletcher asserted Republicans could still employ the list to deny ballots to those they considered suspect voters. When asked if Republicans would use the list to block voters, Tucker Fletcher replied, Where it’’s stated in the law, yeah.
It is not possible at this time to determine how many on the potential blacklist were ultimately challenged and lost their vote. Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a
challenge.
__________________________________
For the full story of caging lists and voter purges of 2004, plus the documents, read Greg Palast’’s New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: Who’’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, Armed Madhouse: Who’’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘‘08, No Child’’s Behind Left and other
Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.
http://www.gregpalast.com/massacre-of-the-buffalo-soldiers
what about republicans?
As John Dean recently said I'm still a Goldwater conservative. Today, that places me left of center
What is says is that I and many others, Republicans,
Independents, Progressives, Green Party are sick of having these insane **wars that cannot be won** wars that have no **definition or reason** foisted upon us. You think that winning, whatever that is, is worth whatever it takes including more American and Iraqi lives. We did not leave Viet Nam because of the left and we sure as heck won't be leaving Iraq because of the left. The **American people** the majority (even on Fox news) are dissatisfied with Iraq, the lies and the incompetence. The same was true for Viet Nam. They would take the hill, then lose the hill, then take the hill, then lose the hill, never knowing what having the hill was all about but a whole slew of people would be dead at the end of it. Incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. That is what got us into both these wars. Some times you just have to suck it up and move on, cut your losses and get out. We, the liberals, did not start this nor is it our fault that it will end the way it will and it will end and it won't be pretty. We do not belong there. We cannot win anything. There are those who will hold on till the bitter end and even then will refuse to give up. Years after Viet Nam you guys are still fighting that war, er, conflict. When the state I grew up in, Indiana, is voting Democratic, you know the gig is up. Although Hoosiers vote for Democrats on a local basis, I cannot remember a time the state did not send all of its electoral votes to the Republican party and Indiana is usually the first state to be called for the Republican side, but not today. As much as you would like to malign the left and blame us if we do leave Iraq before you think it is time to, for the first time in a long time, you are in the minority. Middle class middle America, Indiana, is voting Democratic. That is huge. Many of them on exit polls cited the corruption in Congress as a second reason they were not voting Republican.
But the same can be said for many republicans.
To decide you will never vote democrat again based on the actions and words of a few radical examples on an internet message board for medical transcriptionists is hardly objective. I can think of extreme examples of republicans, too, but I do not judge all republicans based on those examples. There are plenty of republicans who support Bush just because he's republican. No difference.
Republicans
amen sister!
Sorry. IMO it is the republicans that are...sm
constantly comparing Palin to Obama and we wish you would stop, and so does he and has said so several times. I am willing to compare Obama to McCain and Palin to Biden, no problem. You call the dems extremists, look in the mirror.
what does that have to do with republicans? nm
nm
Well...what the Republicans DID NOT...
do for me was cripple the economy. THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS. What they did not do was raise my taxes. THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS. They are right now trying to keep Democrats from a huge wasteful expansion of welfare programs when we are in grave economic straits getting worse by the day...THANK YOU REPUBLICANS. And just for the record...I am a registered Independent.
Kool-aid....good grief. If it comes out of the Great O's mouth people just buy it, hook line and sinker. He doesn't have to explain anything. Hey, we are going to spend a trillion more dollars and help all those poor people, especially the ones who don't even PAY taxes. Bless their hearts. And WHO is paying for this...oh well, that would be you and me. What happened to the middle class tax cuts? Oh well, we can't do that...we are in a recession. But let's spend a trillion on even more programs. Why not??
Do you really not get ANY of that? Just asking.
Because the REPUBLICANS
Obama has tried to engage the Republicans, but as you can see by this board, there is no way they will ever cooperate. No matter what Obama does or says will never be good enough for them.
Just a microcosm of the real world. Republicans need to learn to get along and stop trying to set themselves up for office in 2012. Their posturing is hurting the American people.
Many Republicans were against the ...
bailouts. I sure was and am. Keep in mind that many Americans ARE Republicans. It is certainly not the goal of Republicans to see the country fail. My family and many other families are military families that are more than willing to fight for this country. Nobody laughs about this mess, guaranteed.
I think the republicans have been more ga-ga over...
putting more earmarks in bills coming across Congress. Did you see that over 40% of the earmarks in this omnibus bill are from republicans? I was so excited after almost every one of them voted no on the other bill because of earmarks, but I guess I shouldn't have expected that to last long. These are politicians we're talking about - one side is just as bad as the other.
Nope we aren't
you can believe that but it just ain't so...
You aren't serious, surely. SM
This is the man who told the biggest lie of all time, i.e., the lie that launched the Vietnam War. HIs presidency was filled with graft and collusion. You can't be serious!
We aren't going to be THAT lucky.
Ignorance is, for whatever reason, simply not knowing something.
Like not knowing how the Downing Street memos have made your leader out to be a liar.
Like not knowing the history of our relationship to Iraq so you can make a coherent judgment about what is going on there now, and why.
Like not knowing that Bush tax cuts and budget deficits are strangling and endangering the country even worse than Reagan had a chance to do.
You know, stuff like that. Now there is plain and simple ignorance, where people just aren't exposed to the facts and so just don't know about them. Then there is also totally willful ignorance where people have every opportunity to see and understand the facts but simply refuse to do so. That's real ignorance of the kind you were probably referring to.
Going under fast, aren't they.
Starting to sound a mite peeved:) Look, person - we KNOW some people support this screw-up of a profiteering war. Like you. What don't you get about that? WE KNOW.
Now, tell us YOU KNOW that just as many - to judge by the 300,000 versus the 300, ONE HUNDRED times as many DO NOT support this mess any longer.
Why do you seem to feel that people who agree with you are somehow PROOF that yours is the only way to think? What are you going to do about the REST of those who do not believe what you do? What are you going to do when soldiers are speaking 100,000 to 1 against the war? You better think about it, because it's shaping up that way.
But you're asking for it, aren't you?
How many other boards do you go on and play devil's advocate? Do you go on the Christianity board and give the atheist's point of view? Do you go in the smoker's sections and preach quitting? Do you go to bars and brag that you're a teetotaler? How popular do you expect to be when you go to where people are happily doing their thing and start messing with them? You're mainly here to make trouble, IMHO. So when some of it comes back on you, stop whining!
Aren't you the one who WANTS states
I don't mean for that to sound rude, just an honest question. I seem to remember you saying you wanted more power to go to individual states, so do you agree with the states having control in this case? I appreciate the information and will check it out. I already know my state's income eligibility requirements and will post them below if anyone is curious. I found them at mt.gov.
For Montana:
2007 CHIP Income Chart
Effective July 1, 2007
*Annual Adjusted Gross Income (before taxes) |
Household Size
(Children and Adults) |
Household Income |
Family of 2 |
$23,958 |
Family of 3 |
$30,048 |
Family of 4 |
$36,138 |
Family of 5 |
$42,228 |
Family of 6 |
$48,318 |
Family of 7 |
$54,408 |
Family of 8 |
$60,498 |
Some employment-related and child care deductions apply.
These guidelines are effective July 1, 2007.
Income guidelines may increase in 2008.
* If a child qualifies for Medicaid, health insurance will be provided by Medicaid. |
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
Well, since she didn't and you aren't....
what is the point of this post other than looking down your nose and making moral judgments?
Your aren't running for VP and won't be
McCain camp made such as issue about Obama's lack of foreign travel, boasting about how many times he had been overseas to visit the troops, and claiming that made him a more viable foreign policy candidate. He openly challenged Obama to make his trip overseas, gleefully hoping that Obama would end up looking like a rookie. Obama responded in kind, met with world leaders, garnered open support from Iraq's president and turned out 250,000 Berliners for his speech. Not too shabby for a rookie. So, if there was so much flap over Obama's not having been overseas and how that made him inexperienced, what does it say about his VP pick, who applied for a passport last year? McCain can't have it both ways. This issue is being raised to point out McCain double standards.
You aren't too bright, are you?
No message
Are you sure you aren't talking about
Barrack Obama.....uh....and....uh...his....uh....ability...uh....to pause.....uh....because that....uh....teleprompter....uh....isn't telling...uh....him what to....uh....say. You cut SP down for issues that can be said of Barry Obama. The biggest difference is that Obama is running for president. SP is running for VP.
And your precious ones aren't, am I right?
nm
Ah, duh.........those aren't the news ones yet!!
xx
Aren't you supposed to be
working right now for the worst Transcriptionist company in the world, MQ/Cbay? Get back to work and spare us your opinion.
Aren't you lucky? PA Not only do we have
both candidates run a commercial every break, but also local politicians bombarding the airways.
I live in a county that receives TV from 4 different legislative districts and it's absolutely sickening. 
If you aren't going to bother
to look for the information to back that up then why bother bringing it up?
And I appreciate the fact that you aren't
I am also voting for McCain for all the reasons already stated. I have to admit I was undecided at the very beginning. Obama is obviously very intelligent and an eloquent speaker, but it's the stuff that started coming out of his mouth that disturbed me, especially share the wealth. Also his past associations scare me. And I hope people are paying attention.
(I jokingly tell me kids to watch who they hang out with now in case they ever decide to run for office, but it's the truth...it can definitely come back to haunt you!)
I am shocking aren't I?? LOL s/m
Thank you for your voice of reason! That's what I've been trying to say. We need to make our voices heard. I for one think the Constitution has done just fine the way it is and I intend to keep making my voice heard. I daresay that the idjits in Washington, whoever reads them, groans when they see my email and I'm on a first name basis with both our Senator and Representative and I imagine they don't like me much since I never agree with what they do, 1 Republican, 1 Democrat!!!!!!
Those of us that aren't black could
never understand in a million years what this election to means to many black people. Just 40 years ago, they could not even vote. Obama never referred to himself as being akin to MLK -- that tag was put on him by others as a standard for the few black people in our society that have been held up as examples of what any human being can accomplish if given the opportunity. I ask you, if you or your ancestors (blacks, Jews, etc.) had been held in slavery for hundreds or thousand of years, being treated as non-humans, would you not consider it a victory to finally be recognized as an equal? Get over your self-righteous indignation and accept it for what it is -- a progressive step forward long overdue.
They aren't dems now, that is for sure nm
nm
Well, aren't you pleasant?!
NM
Well, looks like the automakers aren't
going to get their bailout. It's on Meet the Press. They say "let 'em file bankruptcy." Michigan Senator Levin is fighting for it. "GM now produces more models getting 30 mpg than any other car maker. Things have changed if only people would recognize it. No other country would allow their car industry to die."
They want top management to go. GM top manager says he will not resign.
Senator Shelby is totally against it. He thinks it's a waste of taxpayer money and just postponing the inevitable.
$200 billion in lost taxes according to Senator Levin.
A banrkupcy filing could cost the economy $175 billion in the FIRST year and bankrupcies could take years to unravel, according to a reporter in one of the newspapers (couldn't catch the name).
See Thomas Friedman article on Wednesday in the NY Times for more on not bailing them out.
They aren't going to set them free here.
They are going to be asking, "you want fries with that" the next time you cruise through the drive-thru. For crying out loud.
Yes, I think that they should close Gitmo and move the prisoners to U.S. soil. They are our prisoners after all. Then they should all get FAIR trials instead of rigged hearings. There is a federal penitentiary in my state. I would have no problem with them being relocated here.
I guess you are going to freak out when the prisoners found either not guilty or found innocent come here to live because they will not be allowed back in their native country or the country they were living in at the time of their capture. Maybe they will be asking if you want fries after all.
They aren't saying questioning
Obama because if things fail, they will still blame Bush. That is their plan. If they totally screw this country up worse than it already is, they will say that this was all unavoidable because of the stupid stuff Bush did. They will not take responsibility for anything. That is why we still have crooks like Nancy Pelosi in office and Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc. We have crooks like Geithner running the IRS now. Obama's own aunt is here illegally. There are different sets of rules for politicians obviously and even more so when it comes to dems and pubs. The dems ridicule Bush and turn around and so something ignorant and still blame it on Bush.
Why aren't you complaining that...
...we are spending 10 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH for a fake war in Iraq?
Why aren't you complaining that Bush gave his "hungover" buddies on Wall Street a few hundred billion to play with, without any accountability whatsoever (and Wall Street is still whining for more)?
Aren't you sweet.
Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?
Conservatives blame the housing crisis on a 1977 law that helps-low income people get mortgages. It's a useful story for them, but it isn't true.
Robert Gordon | April 7, 2008 | web only
The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.
The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."
Last week, a more careful expression of the idea hit The Washington Post, in an article on former Sen. Phil Gramm's influence over John McCain. While two progressive economists were quoted criticizing Gramm's insistent opposition to government regulation, the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan offered an opposing perspective. Litan suggested that the 1990s enhancement of CRA, which was achieved over Gramm's fierce opposition, may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that."
This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.
The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)
The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.
But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business."
It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.
And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.
A little touchy, aren't we?
I never said anything about Christianity. All I did was provide the definition of a cult. However, if the shoe fits, wear it!
Hypocritical, aren't you? Because you would
nm
Touchy, aren't we.....LOL (sm)
I do plenty of reading, thank you very much. However, at this point scientific reports supporting or not supporting the idea of global warming are a dime a dozen. And why is that? Exactly why do we not have as you would say one definitive voice either giving validity to or negating claims of the human footprint? Perhaps this topic hasn't had the funding lately (I'd say for about the last 8 years) that it deserves? And why is that? Because there's still money to be made in oil.
The one thing you can't deny is the fact that the earth's temperature is rising. We can dispute the impact that humans have had on the rate of this warming, but that doesn't change the fact that it is warming. Assuming you have done your share of reading as well, you should know that the polar ice caps are at this moment melting and sea levels are rising. Yes, they've been doing this for a long time, but now the effect is exponential. Hmmm....wonder what happened there...
So, regardless of how global warming came about (which is the true argument), why wouldn't we want to try to do something about it?
Tell me, what do you think will happen when the ice caps are gone? (And yes, they are definitely melting....look it up.) What do you think will happen when the CO2 buildup gets to the point of suffocation? (Yep, that's been documented as well.) Or maybe that's just not important to you. Maybe God will just appear and it will all go away? Or maybe you pray to a different god....perhaps the one that lives in your wallet?
The society that does not explore progressive thinking is the society that is oblivious to the dangers ahead.
So why aren't you protesting...(sm)
cap and trade instead of taxes? It sounds to me like you're a little confused. BTW, Obama has already recognized potential problems with cap and trade and has stated they will do something to offset those costs.
You are really sucked into that lie aren't you?
xx
A little sensitive, aren't you?
How is pointing out other things that are noted in the bible suddenly taking a dig at Christianity? You have no idea of my belief system, but apparently when you don't have a good response to a valid point, the debate tactic of choice is to cast aspersions upon the character of the other debater.
For the record, the aunt I mentioned was my father's brother's wife. Per the bible, my father should have married her.
Again, I ask, why should you be determined the arbitrer of normal? 100 years ago, the idea of women having any function outside the home was abnormal, a belief in part supported by the bible. 40 years ago, the mixing of races was viewed as abnormal, a belief supported in part by the bible.
Does 'natural' define normal? Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Monogamy is seen much less in the 'natural order' of things...does that therefore make the notion of a lifetime union of 2 people abnormal? What does that do the whole concept of marriage?
'Normal' is an individual concept, and for almost everything that is defined is normal, there is a range that is still normal. Normal body temperature is 98.6, but there is a range around that which is still considered normal. Normal age for starting 1st grade is 6, but there is still a range around that which is still considered normal.
And frankly, I believe nestled somewhere in the bible which you seem to believe you should be ruled by, it says 'judge not lest you be judged', so slinging petty digs/insults, seems to be violating one of the tenets you claim to hold so dear.
You really are clueless aren't you?
There is a word for rising up against your government and our founding fathers made sure the CITIZENS of this country, who OWN their government, had in place a constitution which actually ALLOWED us to rise up and speak AGAINST our government if EVER we felt our government was out of control.
That's why the 'right to bear arms' was put in there or did you overlook that too?
You are so diluded in your thinking that you actually BELIEVE no one is supposed to speak out against their government. Do you know WHY our founding fathers wanted to make sure Americans had firearms? To stand up and resist a tyranical government when it is out of control.
You better be glad somebody cares enough for your backside that they still understand what your rights are, cause you SURE DON'T!
You have no problem with anyone speaking against our government; you have a problem with someone speaking against THIS president, cause he is black and you can't stand it! If you do nothing else, be honest about that at least.... it's so obvious!
|
