I would be calm sweet and caring too
Posted By: Can barely pay mortgage on 2008-09-05
In Reply to: Differences in Wives of the candidates... - Emily Ayn
if I had her money. Her outfit the other night was said to be worth over $300K. Minus the 3-carat diamond earrings, the outfit was only valued at around $30K. Laura Bush's outfit was estimated to be valued at less than $5K. Michelle Obama's was probably in that ballpark too.
Even if this stuff was donated by the designers, etc., I can't relate to any of these people. You will find me cruising the aisles of my local thrift shop looking for a bargain
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
thanks for caring so much
i greatly appreciate it. Nice talking to you!
I do believe she is sincere in caring about...
the people she is sworn to represent...and she has done a great job in Alaska. With her at least we have a CHANCE of not being sold down the river...the other ticket has a history of doing just that, in their ever increasing quest to shuffle gimmes to the so-called lower class to keep them their voting base. This whole mess was the Democrats, through fannie/freddie, pressuring banks to give those high risk subprime loans to people who could not afford them, people who had little credit or no credit...and where did that leave us in the middle class who had to qualify for loans the old-fashioned way and actually paid our mortgages while they let theirs default and here we are. With all that out there, you want to make fun of the VP candidate on the other ticket? Is that supposed to illustrate how astute you are? It is a valid question.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm
Truly caring about your country needs no apology....
))
To have a real caring president would be nice
Editorial
Waiting for a Leader
George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.
We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.
Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America will be a stronger place for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.
Unfortunately, many politicians stopped caring a looong
xx
"...he is a self-educated, caring, honest, and intelligent man"
.
this is a really sweet one too
x
wow--that was sweet!
x
Can't believe you used the words loving and caring in the middle of that post.
What, pray tell, is spewl? Making up words?
calm down.
You appear to be losing it.
sweet neocons
Love the Rolling Stones, always have, but I think the name of the song should have been..Lying sack of dirt, warmonger, murdering, chickenhawk neocons..but I guess since the Rolling Stones are a commercial band and have contracts with the NFL, they had to keep their song a bit low key..
No more venemous than you, sweet pea.
Sweet! Sadly, I think you are right. I need a better job. LOL nm
x
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.
Its hard to calm down
You know when Kerry ran against Bush I did not feel this way. When Gore ran it was a little different because he was still associated with the clintons and I didn't not want a Clinton 3rd term. I just can't understand how someone can say something so shameful and hurtful. I can't even imagine what Obama's wife is thinking. Probably one of her biggest fears, and then along comes her husband's oponent and says something like this? Just really gets the blood pressure going. Some of the media is trying to make excuses for her but there is just no excuse. I wouldn't think so harshly if she had come out right away and said in no way did she mean what came out of her mouth, but she waits til the end of the day and then tries to cover it up and doesn't even apologize. Despicable and sleezy!!!!!!
Calm - thanks - an excellent
addtion.
calm down and we need to get the facts...
Being that I do not trust McCain based on his erratic behavior, I am going to wait this out to see what happens. I would not simply just believe anything thrown out there right now by these 2 candidates, Mc and Palin, as they are too desperate to provoke violence and hate.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-110381
Judy, calm down already
The election is over. Get over it.
Yeah, like he wants everyone to know he is calm
nm
o.k., calm down, antidepressants are
not really addressing the problem, they 'mask' it only.
Believe me if you have a grief, it is better to work through your problem, so that you can get closure.
If you take antidpressants your problem stays in your subconscience, unandressed and suppressed, but during the night, when you dream then it brakes loose and causes nightmares and maybe insomnia, because you just have to confront your problem to solve it.
This is what my doctor told me who is very careful with prescription. He gave me multivitamins instead.
Im back, sweet peas
To those who have posted..where is gt?? I have been relaxing in Mexico..NOT BANNED..as Im sure many have wished or prayed..nope..IM HERE..Just took a few days off to enjoy my Mexican friends and shop at their so inexpensive shops..IM BACK.
sweet - more like sour and rotten LOL LOL LOL
x
His sweet little Kenyan grandmother was there....
and she said herself that she is so proud to have witnessed the birth IN KENYA of her grandson who will be the next POTUS. Can't deny that one.
I understand your point, but calm down!
I have not had a chance to read the latest news. If she is saying what you claim, then I agree that is bad. Still, I think you should relax a bit.
Nothing eery about the calm O supporters.
for the moment, especially for those of us whose jobs bit the dust since the primary season. It's not drill baby drill...it's jobs, baby jobs. I have no doubt Obama will do exactly what he said he would when the time is right.
The tentative compromise deal being reported as we speak will ultimately throw a much needed cold damper on all that fun you seem to be having over your mantra of the hour (phone calls jam Capitol Hill). Do you intend to continue to cackle this much while your fellow citizens are lining up to apply for unemployment and food stamps to stay afloat long enough until the pubs come to their senses and pass the compromise they are reporting on as we speak?
You need to take a pill and calm down, Auntie.
And.... Rush Limbaugh? Who listens to that windbag anymore? Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
Oh, but you meant control as in calm?
nm
Success is sweet.. jealousy is ugly
he won! hahaha
Oh it's so sweet you're concerned, you do have a heart!...nm
x
Do not fall for this hysteria... we all need calm heads
or we will all be in trouble, republican and democrats. This is becoming the perfect storm for socialism if we do not stop being led around by those trying to play on our emotions.
The Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly page sm
is a great idea. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin are at the top of my list for rabid vermin. There are some other great links there too, some funny.
Ummm...wonder how I blindly didn't see all that, Katie Couric was calm and her questions were str
I realize everyone has a blindspot, I certainly do, but when a woman wiggles and waggles on questions that Katie put to her and they were not spiteful, "tearing into her," and she can't answer them, I certainly would not be trying to get into the White House where I might become president and do more harm than good. I am sorry to say, but it is Americans like yourself who do not read the good with the bad who put Bush in the White House that sent me into a depression for weeks. If he could have appointed himself King or despot he would have. I guess you agree with jobs going overseas, not just ours but everyones? We may just not recover from this. Vote for McCain/Palin, it is your right, I just hope you are ready for the consequences. Do you just pass over everything that is said about this woman? She is sneaky. Bush is sneaky. You will never know what she is up to if she is put in the White House.
Anyone who watched the Katie Couric interview and can say it was vicious or slanted just did not watch it. Beat your gums all you want to but try to get informed.
|
