Hey look, here is someone that doesn't know anything about voting "present" but assumes he does....
BTW, it is the same as a no vote, with line item complaints...... nothing more, nothing less...
McCain tucks tail and runs
- Thread starter tudizzle
- Start date
Hey look, here is someone that doesn't know anything about voting "present" but assumes he does....
BTW, it is the same as a no vote, with line item complaints...... nothing more, nothing less...
You might want to note the topic of discussion before you start calling people retards!!!!
I'm surely not pissed, just throwing my .02 on the TOPIC.
Also, if this had Dem. prints all over it it would be greatest day for the GOP. I haven't seen it plastered across every news publication. So I call BS.
I'm not casting stones on any party, just pointing something out.
For those who think Obama is just sitting on his hand preparing for the debates.
:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008195054_apfinancialmeltdown.html
The reason its not posted all over the news IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE TANK FOR THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!
Ask your self why WHY are there no congressional hearings on this????
The democrats are in control if they could pin this on the GOP there would have been hearings two weeks ago.
Barry has received the second highest amount of donations from freddy and fany he's wants to stay far away from this as possible and the media will help him out anyway they can.
You should read the entire thread before you comment on what I said. I just read that he was meeting in Washington with B and M to point out that he isn't just sitting on his hands like many believe when it comes to the $$ crisis. Just pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it. I guess that's why they call it news
Would he be there if Bush did not call him and ask him to get there??
.
Heres a blast from the past an old LA times article,
Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5
It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.
That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.
This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.
What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.
But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.
All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.
The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.
But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.
Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.
All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.
*
See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: http://www.latimes.com/brownstein
Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5
It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.
That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.
This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.
What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.
But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.
All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.
The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.
But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.
Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.
All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.
*
See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: http://www.latimes.com/brownstein
I don't know.
Like I said, in this day and age there is no reason not to use Technology to acomplish the same thing. No?
Like I said, in this day and age there is no reason not to use Technology to acomplish the same thing. No?
The FBI are currently investigating. It will take time. I hope the blame is given fairly and accuratly. It's both dude, hate ta tell ya. But do you believe that is possible in the this cliamate of the blame game???? Doubt it.
Doubt it.
I saw a video on History channel where McCain's aircraft was on the flight line on a carrier when the exhaust from a start cart cooked off a missile on another A4. It struck McCain's A4 and exploded. He didn't tuck tail and run then, why now? As for the media, look at all the scandal obout mis treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharaib and Gitmo but no reports on the living conditions of captured US soldiers. Oh that's right, they're all killed.
McCain's trying to display leadership.
Obama's trying to look like he's ready for a debate.
If you guys actually believe any of this crap, I'm sorry, but you are watching a carefully crafted play. McCain isn't scared to debate, and Barry isn't scared or stupid. Their playing the crowd. Their making hay. Both will do anything to make the big desk.
Obama's trying to look like he's ready for a debate.
If you guys actually believe any of this crap, I'm sorry, but you are watching a carefully crafted play. McCain isn't scared to debate, and Barry isn't scared or stupid. Their playing the crowd. Their making hay. Both will do anything to make the big desk.
YEP! Pres. Clinton got the ball rolling on this urging of high risk loans and it has been downhill ever since. Now we have this mess to clean up....thanks Bill!! And thanks for NAFTA and sending alot of our production jobs overseas, another blow to our economy and dollar value.
Hey look, here is someone that doesn't know anything about voting "present" but assumes he does....
BTW, it is the same as a no vote, with line item complaints...... nothing more, nothing less...
It's a 'Soft No'
WTF Grow some balls and vote YES or NO! Maybe we all should be glad he showed up to vote at all! I agree 100% with the last part.
Last edited:
Guys you know what I find seriously disturbing is the amount of partisian answers in the posts. When in the end when jobs are scarce and people are hurting, its going to be on both sides. The best thing that could come out of this crisis is for both party's to fail, for their complete lack of trust and refusal to do the job they were apointed to do. Which is to look out for the average american citizen. No one is doing that, if they were we would not have a usery system, which is not benificial to anyone but the top 1% of the world.
Every bill or law that is passed in our country is an abjact failure of the peoples right to self govern themselves. Which is basically what I think our constitution was for.
So if you take my 2nd point and apply it in a personal manner to an individuals responsibilty as a citizen. How do you think we are doing overall after a few hundred years. This makes me sad.
I actually think the US going bankrupt will be good for all our children, maybe not for us. But if you look ahead 50 years our kids will be much better off.
If you resesarch US and world history you will find the cause of most wars, depressions and poverty is the Central Banking system. The fed needs to fail. So we can be free as the consitution gurantees, its is a useless document if we are all indentured servants to the national debt.
My 2 cents.
Fynn
Every bill or law that is passed in our country is an abjact failure of the peoples right to self govern themselves. Which is basically what I think our constitution was for.
So if you take my 2nd point and apply it in a personal manner to an individuals responsibilty as a citizen. How do you think we are doing overall after a few hundred years. This makes me sad.
I actually think the US going bankrupt will be good for all our children, maybe not for us. But if you look ahead 50 years our kids will be much better off.
If you resesarch US and world history you will find the cause of most wars, depressions and poverty is the Central Banking system. The fed needs to fail. So we can be free as the consitution gurantees, its is a useless document if we are all indentured servants to the national debt.
My 2 cents.
Fynn
It's a 'Soft No'
J
JSCC
Well-known member
While I may agree with some of your points, most all wars were over land. Some people had it, and others wanted it.
JSCC,
I submit that to be true untill probably the intital start of organized taxation on the people. I think it was very easy for powerful merchant class to manipulate those in power just as they do today. Monarchs got themselves in debt and the only way to increase the tax base is to inlarge your country and therefore increasing tax revenue from the people. So I dont think we disagree on the basic point. More land equals more tax base to pay the debts caused by invading more far off lands. Its a perpetual circle unless you can do it with out borrowing in funds to conquer those lands.
Its no different now, we invaded IRAC and now we are running a larger debt every month then we would have if we hadn't invaded anyone.
Simple concept, where we get confused, is that we think we are doing stuff in the name of all kinds of things: crusades, religious freedom, national security interests, fear etc.
I say we do it because those in real power the Banks that date back to the 1600's are still manipulating the economy and therefore the people. Remember who needs freedom if your family is starving. You resort to revolutions out of desperation, this has played out over and over again in many western societys.
And in Several famous conflicts the Central Banks financed both sides, we the agreement of each party to pay the other debts if they win.
Do some research and you will find that Central Banks have manipulated the populations through wars, depressions and economic booms.
You have to conceed they have the power how else would they get stuff like fractional lending and compounded interest passed in Govt. all around the world. Any fool knows that what is best for the people is a basic fee for a loan. You borrow 100 dollars you pay me 10 dollars as a fee. But to invent compounded interest and fractional lending, where they can lend money they dont have is just wrong. If I open a company and get 100000 investment and then lend 1,000,000 against that 100,000 dollars I would go to jail for fraud. Becuase I didnt have the assets to gurantee my deposit holders there money if they wanted it back. (This is why Banks are failing) The deposit holders want there money.
I'll get off my soap box now.
Andrew Jackson killed the last Central Bank and it stayed dead for 77 years. Those were good years for all Americans.
Fynn
I submit that to be true untill probably the intital start of organized taxation on the people. I think it was very easy for powerful merchant class to manipulate those in power just as they do today. Monarchs got themselves in debt and the only way to increase the tax base is to inlarge your country and therefore increasing tax revenue from the people. So I dont think we disagree on the basic point. More land equals more tax base to pay the debts caused by invading more far off lands. Its a perpetual circle unless you can do it with out borrowing in funds to conquer those lands.
Its no different now, we invaded IRAC and now we are running a larger debt every month then we would have if we hadn't invaded anyone.
Simple concept, where we get confused, is that we think we are doing stuff in the name of all kinds of things: crusades, religious freedom, national security interests, fear etc.
I say we do it because those in real power the Banks that date back to the 1600's are still manipulating the economy and therefore the people. Remember who needs freedom if your family is starving. You resort to revolutions out of desperation, this has played out over and over again in many western societys.
And in Several famous conflicts the Central Banks financed both sides, we the agreement of each party to pay the other debts if they win.
Do some research and you will find that Central Banks have manipulated the populations through wars, depressions and economic booms.
You have to conceed they have the power how else would they get stuff like fractional lending and compounded interest passed in Govt. all around the world. Any fool knows that what is best for the people is a basic fee for a loan. You borrow 100 dollars you pay me 10 dollars as a fee. But to invent compounded interest and fractional lending, where they can lend money they dont have is just wrong. If I open a company and get 100000 investment and then lend 1,000,000 against that 100,000 dollars I would go to jail for fraud. Becuase I didnt have the assets to gurantee my deposit holders there money if they wanted it back. (This is why Banks are failing) The deposit holders want there money.
I'll get off my soap box now.
Andrew Jackson killed the last Central Bank and it stayed dead for 77 years. Those were good years for all Americans.
Fynn
Interesting post and point of view... Can you recommend some books on the subject? I would agree that it seems or societal memory is very short, like a decade or so.... we tend to forget the reasons / motives of those further back in history...
Thanks
Last edited:
Ruffy,
There is a video that I watched on the Moneychangers, Usery Laws and Private Central Banks.
http://www.hiddentruthtv.com/Video110.html
It is 31/2 hours long and very fact based but slow. Took me 3 days to get through all of it.
Basically I then applied the info I got out of it to how I thought things would have went down in other countries and revolutions through out history.
Then I searched the gold standards. Fractional Banking and Usery laws from the middle ages.
I think I am on base, out of pure common sense logic.
1. Our Banking laws do not benifit the depositors.
2. Our tax code does not benifit our citizens how they could if you simply made a flat tax. The savings would be huge in administration and moral of the people would go through the roof, if it was set up simply.
3. The constitution has been hacked to little bits and all the warning's of History have been ignored to help Govt. controll the indentured servants life.
4. A human is not a free man if before he is born his country has levied against him a trillion dollars in debt, and the laws are in place to make you pay you portion or else. Its actually closer to slavery then the surf system of the middle ages.
5. When was the last time you felt your Govt or any Corp. was working in the interest of you or your family. You may say the Military is there to serve us and help us and I would counter by saying they are generally used to instill fear just like catapults and large standing armys did for hundreds of years. They are enforcers of those in power and we are not in power.
6. Nothing our Govt. does is simple and effective. Why? Because there is money to be made and stole in confusion.
7. The 2 party system we have in this country prevents any real contender from outside of the powers that be to stand a chance. It is set up that way and DNC GOP are private companies. So cant really be fair can it, to many private interest at work to elect someone with no strings attached.
I dont want to come like a conspieracy wack job. But these failed Private Corp Bailouts have confirmed corruption to the core.
I own a small buisness and I do not think I should get any more of a break then anyone else......that is the true american way. Plus I believe I can take care of myself and do not need all the govt. services that i am forced to pay for. When you are forced to do someting you are not free. We should be able to opt. out of anything we want. Should be simploe form, problem is to many would opt out of unnecassary programs and those making money of the programs will not allow it.
The american worker is a mule. When he used to be king of his castle. Remember that saying. Gone.
Fynn
There is a video that I watched on the Moneychangers, Usery Laws and Private Central Banks.
http://www.hiddentruthtv.com/Video110.html
It is 31/2 hours long and very fact based but slow. Took me 3 days to get through all of it.
Basically I then applied the info I got out of it to how I thought things would have went down in other countries and revolutions through out history.
Then I searched the gold standards. Fractional Banking and Usery laws from the middle ages.
I think I am on base, out of pure common sense logic.
1. Our Banking laws do not benifit the depositors.
2. Our tax code does not benifit our citizens how they could if you simply made a flat tax. The savings would be huge in administration and moral of the people would go through the roof, if it was set up simply.
3. The constitution has been hacked to little bits and all the warning's of History have been ignored to help Govt. controll the indentured servants life.
4. A human is not a free man if before he is born his country has levied against him a trillion dollars in debt, and the laws are in place to make you pay you portion or else. Its actually closer to slavery then the surf system of the middle ages.
5. When was the last time you felt your Govt or any Corp. was working in the interest of you or your family. You may say the Military is there to serve us and help us and I would counter by saying they are generally used to instill fear just like catapults and large standing armys did for hundreds of years. They are enforcers of those in power and we are not in power.
6. Nothing our Govt. does is simple and effective. Why? Because there is money to be made and stole in confusion.
7. The 2 party system we have in this country prevents any real contender from outside of the powers that be to stand a chance. It is set up that way and DNC GOP are private companies. So cant really be fair can it, to many private interest at work to elect someone with no strings attached.
I dont want to come like a conspieracy wack job. But these failed Private Corp Bailouts have confirmed corruption to the core.
I own a small buisness and I do not think I should get any more of a break then anyone else......that is the true american way. Plus I believe I can take care of myself and do not need all the govt. services that i am forced to pay for. When you are forced to do someting you are not free. We should be able to opt. out of anything we want. Should be simploe form, problem is to many would opt out of unnecassary programs and those making money of the programs will not allow it.
The american worker is a mule. When he used to be king of his castle. Remember that saying. Gone.
Fynn
Similar threads
