Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Oh it's so sweet you're concerned, you do have a heart!...nm

Posted By: typinlikemad on 2009-03-04
In Reply to: What you don'say. LOL. I think some of ,you - mar

x


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

Bless your heart.....I know you're trying
he said NONE of that stuff about any of his other opponents ability. 'nuf said.
Of course you're not, dear. Not too concerned about
rasberries
this is a really sweet one too
x
wow--that was sweet!
x
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.

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.
I would be calm sweet and caring too
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
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.
Success is sweet.. jealousy is ugly
he won! hahaha
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.
Take heart, MT ME -
...Maybe they will knock the comet into the earth on July 4th and we won't have to worry about SCOTUS anymore, LOL!

or hopefully not, heh...
Take heart, AG. sm
Not all Jews believe like this poster.  I was reading recently about a conference in Washington by conservative Jews, Ben Stein being among them, and a lot of others, including many Rabbis, who are distressed at the pro-abortion stance of some Jews, including the partial birth abortion stance.  Not all Jews believe the same, just as not all Christians do.    According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5): Whoever destroys one life is as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever preserves a life is as if he preserved the whole world.  This was quoted at the conference.  No one person speaks for all.  Thank God. 
ive got more heart than you ever will
you have no idea about my life so don't assume i haven't seen someone (MANY) with a lot less than me.

2 things i lack? you're one class act i can tell. again, you have no idea about my life so to make a personal attack is ridiculous, ruthless, and sad
Please take this old saying to heart - sm.
"If one person tells you you're dead, seek a second opinion.

If 50 people tell you you're dead, lie down."

Do you think maybe there's a reason the overwhelming majority of people on here think JTBB is a douche? So, when "ONE" (gee, I guess that would be YOU) person starts stroking her monkey and kissing her a$$, don't be surprised that the "MOB" calls you on it.
heart of darkness?
Heart of darkness?  Because I want all to have their share in life and not suffer?  Heart of darkness?  WOW.  I would call the super rich who give nothing back to society the heart of darkness.  And to me Kruschev saying that was a dark mark on America that he was questioning how we, the richest country on earth, can have homeless when, Russia doesnt.  Yes, I believe in socialism.  Capitalism never has survived, it has always destroyed itself and from the way the world and America is going, Capitalism isnt gonna be around too much longer..It cant.  It is an ideology for the few, the rich few, not for the working masses.  No other industrialized country has capitalism like we do.  they meet the basic needs for their citizens..Do you know what some super rich call the working class..**the unwashed masses**.  I have a quite well off friend and he actually calls them that.  I was shocked when he said it in front of me..So you go ahead and defend the capitalist fat cats who think of us as **unwashed masses**.  I will defend the people.
Crushes my heart, actually
Doesnt it just crush your heart to think there are people out there that no matter how bad the country is being run, no matter that thousand are dying for a lie, no matter that hundreds died because FEMA just couldnt do the job, that senior administration officials outed a CIA operative, which endangered the United States and all who worked undercover with this operative, that Cheney met with oil officials, no doubt to create an energy policy favorable to the oil industry, on and on and on and on..they still defend this administration when the FACTS are in and more are coming in day in and day out.  An upright person would see what is going on and even though they are die-hard republicans, they would realize it is time to bring this administration to task because it is THIS administration not the whole republican party..but no, instead of attacking and questioning this administration, they choose to attack us, *little people* on numerous political boards throughout the internet..
Yes I have a heart and a brain
which are 2 things you lack.  If you were raped by your father would you have the baby?  Take a walk (not a ride) through the homeless or less than privledged areas in your community.  Get a grip lady - deal with reality and stop turning away every time you see someone who has alot less than you.  It's not murder you jack a-hole!
and she has a beautiful heart
to go along with her beautiful self
murderous heart
sounds to me as if you have the heart of a true American -NOT.  How fitting for you to say such a thing on 9/11- typical democrat?   I hope not.  shame on you for wishing someone's death.
Well, bless your heart.
Don't you talk pretty, now? Did I mess in your post toasties?

Townhall meetings = can't prepare because you don't know what the questions will be. Obama will NEVER agree to that. If he has nothing to hide and he is prepared, why won't he do it?

ACK! HEART ATTACK!
Did someone just apologize on this board?!?!??!


By golly I think we are gettin somewhere! Maybe we ain't all rurnt!

(South Georgia :-D )
Bless your heart! nm
xx
Government take God....either he's in your heart
$$
Thank you from the bottom of my heart ...sm
for posting this, though I feel that it falls on deaf ears. Sadly the bigots and racists are still in denial. I am old and white and it is hard to pull the wool over my eyes too. I voted today for Obama/Biden. The going will be rough for whoever wins, but I have hope with Obama and I have not had this much hope in a long time.
This is so heart-wrenching. I know there is nothing I can say (sm)
to change your feelings on this. I am sure in many ways you are a very good person.  But this is just so sad.  Because I know there are many who agree with you....and the babies cannot speak up for themselves.   But earlier you did say that the baby moving around inside a mother is alive, just doesn't have a soul, just like you feel your cat is alive but doesn't have a soul.  Which would make abortion killing a human being who is alive.  The law doesn't know when a person gets their soul and neither do you or I.  God forbid we should kill a child and be wrong.
here's a girl after my own heart. I have
done my share of camping in the winter inside the house, too. We will probably have a cold winter, we usually do after a hurricane. I had whiskey barrel planters outside that had filled with water and never got any plants put in them and they froze solid that winter; I am 20 miles off the coast. My girlfriend went "skating" on the stock pond that winter and broke through the ice. She says her feet have been cold ever since. Looks like I will be spot heating again this winter, just where I happen to be in sweats and sweaters and an electric blanket or small heater. My son is a train engineer and he tried to tell the boys at the coal plant what would happen, but they were dems and their daddies were dems, etc., and oh, the ripple effect that is coming.
be still my pounding heart
Obama's personal habits are really no one's business but his own.  He is honest about the difficulty of giving up an addictive habit especially during the most stressful part of his life so far.  Your gripe tells us way more about your values than it does about Obama's.  Camel, needle, stone.
Wow! What has this to do with 'grow a heart?'..sm
Do you want to tell me that I should be 'merciful' in judging Michelle?
This your sentence shows me that you do not find her beautiful.
I would not say that she is ugly, but beautiful she is certainly not.

MAYBE it was just the heart of a much better woman!!
nm
Please don't tell me what to be concerned about. SM
I don't think any of us need a lecture on Christian belief systems and the Bible.  We should ALL be concerned, interested and knowledgable about what is happening in Israel.  I seriously do not understand where you are coming from at all.  Your placating tone reminds me of a mother comforting a child who has just gotten a boo boo.  If you don't want to be concerned about Israel and what is happening, fine, don't join in the discussion, but to say that Americans, most especially Christian Americans, have no need to worry their little heads is not only bizarre, it is insulting. 
This is what I am concerned about sm
They will create another incident and we will get martial law. They gave themselves that power with the Patriot Act, and are just waiting for the incident to enact it. You are right, God bless us all. One never knows how a cornered animal will act - very scary.
You obviously are not concerned about...sm
your children, maybe you don't have any, or maybe you are a pedophile. Why don't you think this is not important?

I'm much more concerned
about Obama saying that he had visited 57 states in the US.  LOL!  Sorry pal.....there aren't that many states in the good ole US of A.  Personally, I think that is much worse considering that is our own country compared to a man who doesn't know who the prime minister is of another country.
You should be concerned

How is it that Obama just "happens" to have these neighbors:   Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, & Rev. Wright?


So are you saying that you don't think there's any involvement with these men in the last 10 years (or less)?  If so, you'll be in for a huge surprise as more info comes out.  Frankly, I'm amazed at how lethargic the public has been, just accepting anything the driveby media reports (more like FAILS to report)!


You have every right to be concerned.
The frenzy that has come about through all of this is like regressing us back to the 50s, and there are a lot of crazies out there that might be thinking about vigilante-style retribution -- on either side depending on who wins.  I believe we might be in for some trying times.  Be safe.
As far as I'm concerned
it's all in the definition of "brother" and "sister."  My brothers and sisters are those I see in need, not necessarily my biological brothers and sisters.  I haven't heard Obama (or McCain for that matter) describe who they consider their  "brothers" and "sisters."
I am not the only one concerned
Who is worried, scared and fearful for our country.  I feel sorry for you who does not see the light. 
This is something we truly need to be concerned about

The snowball is on a downhill course and picking up speed, probably irreversible at this point.


 http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html


Exactly!, As far as I am concerned,
most of the celebrity opinions I have heard have been a display of ignorance more than anything to me. Doesn't impress me a bit, never have any depth to them. And Olbermann really found a winner with this one!!
I would be more concerned if it were
a conservative judge retiring.  He'll just add in a liberal to replace a liberal.  No need to get worked up just yet.
Is anyone else here concerned about

the control the unions are getting.  I know unions contribute to democrats, but the very idea of the Obama administration allowing the unions to have so much during Chrysler's bankruptcy....which isn't the way it should be at all.  Obama has literally blown off everyone to make the unions have more control and make money.  Now in CA we have the White House telling CA that they cannot cut union wages or they will lose their stimulus money.  I just don't see how this doesn't concern people on here.  Our government is out of control.  I don't know that I agree with Obama wanting unemployment to go up.  However, I have to wonder if Obama really cares about what he is doing here.  Cap and trade will cut more jobs.  Going green will create jobs initially but they won't sustain them.  All of these construction jobs and infrastructure jobs he will create aren't sustainable.  What happens when the job is done?  People are out of work again.


Our government is out of control, unions are gaining more and more control.......I just don't like the way this is heading.


As far as you are concerned is the sm
magic word but you are so very wrong. You will one day wake up in he!! and you will remember the words you had spoken and you will remember them throughout eternity.

The things I could have done??? I can do anything I please and the things that are not pleasing to God are not things I would enjoy doing.

I have not wasted my life and even IF you were right, which you are not, I would rather live a Christian life than not any day of the week.

I am not miserable I am very happy. I know what awaits me someday but for you.........well I fear for you and I also pity you because you really do not know what you are saying. I hope you figure it out before it's too late.

Obviously, I am done with this conversation. It has turned into an argument by one of Satan's own.
As far as you are concerned is the sm
magic word but you are so very wrong. You will one day wake up in he!! and you will remember the words you had spoken and you will remember them throughout eternity.

The things I could have done??? I can do anything I please and the things that are not pleasing to God are not things I would enjoy doing.

I have not wasted my life and even IF you were right, which you are not, I would rather live a Christian life than not any day of the week.

I am not miserable I am very happy. I know what awaits me someday but for you.........well I fear for you and I also pity you because you really do not know what you are saying. I hope you figure it out before it's too late.

Obviously, I am done with this conversation. It has turned into an argument by one of Satan's own.
I am more concerned about how

other countries are laughing at us, how our government is spending us into the ground without batting an eyelash about it, how we are more concerned about the treatment of terrorists than we are the potential danger we could put our troops in by showing these memos, etc., how terrorist think we are weak and they continue to hate us no matter whether we torture them or not. 


Call me names all you like, but I do believe that Bush and Cheney did what they did to try to obtain information to save American lives.  This isn't like T-ball where everyone gets a trophy in the end and there are no winners or losers.  This is war.....get a clue! 


A socialist's heart revealed. sm
No socialist society has ever flourished. You must know that.  Kruschev.  My God. I can't believe you said that.  Well, I am but a passing visitor and I just saw into the heart of darkness.  Woweee.
Dick at the Heart of Darkness
Dick at the Heart of Darkness
    By Maureen Dowd
    The New York Times

    Wednesday 26 October 2005

    After W. was elected, he sometimes gave visitors a tour of the love alcove off the Oval Office where Bill trysted with Monica - the notorious spot where his predecessor had dishonored the White House.

    At least it was only a little pantry - and a little panting.

    If W. wants to show people now where the White House has been dishonored in far more astounding and deadly ways, he'll have to haul them around every nook and cranny of his vice president's office, then go across the river for a walk of shame through the Rummy empire at the Pentagon.

    The shocking thing about the trellis of revelations showing Dick Cheney, the self-styled Mr. Strong America, as the central figure in dark conspiracies to juice up a case for war and demonize those who tried to tell the public the truth is how un-shocking it all is.

    It's exactly what we thought was going on, but we never thought we'd actually hear the lurid details: Cheney and Rummy, the two old compadres from the Nixon and Ford days, in a cabal running the country and the world into the ground, driven by their poisonous obsession with Iraq, while Junior is out of the loop, playing in the gym or on his mountain bike.

    Mr. Cheney has been so well protected by his Praetorian guard all these years that it's been hard for the public to see his dastardly deeds and petty schemes. But now, because of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and candid talk from Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Wilkerson, he's been flushed out as the heart of darkness: all sulfurous strands lead back to the man W. aptly nicknamed Vice.

    According to a Times story yesterday, Scooter Libby first learned about Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. wife from his boss, Mr. Cheney, not from reporters, as he'd originally suggested. And Mr. Cheney learned it from George Tenet, according to Mr. Libby's notes.

    The Bush hawks presented themselves as protectors and exporters of American values. But they were so feverish about projecting the alternate reality they had constructed to link Saddam and Al Qaeda - and fulfilling their idée fixe about invading Iraq - they perverted American values.

    Whether or not it turns out to be illegal, outing a C.I.A. agent - undercover or not - simply to undermine her husband's story is Rove-ishly sleazy. This no-leak administration was perfectly willing to leak to hurt anyone who got in its way.

    Vice also pressed for a loophole so the C.I.A. could do torture-light on prisoners in U.S. custody, but John McCain rebuffed His Tortureness. Senator McCain has sponsored a measure to bar the cruel treatment of prisoners because he knows that this is not who we are. (Remember the days when the only torture was listening to politicians reciting their best TV lines at dinner parties?)

    Colonel Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for Colin Powell, broke the code and denounced Vice's vortex, calling his own involvement in Mr. Powell's U.N. speech, infected with bogus Cheney and Scooter malarkey, the lowest point in his life.

    He followed that with a blast of blunt talk in a speech and an op-ed piece in The Los Angeles Times, saying that foreign policy had been hijacked by a secretive, little-known cabal that hated dissent. He said the cabal was headed by Mr. Cheney, a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces, and Donald Rumsfeld, a secretary of defense presiding over the death by a thousand cuts of our overstretched armed forces.

    I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less, Colonel Wilkerson wrote. More often than not, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

    Brent Scowcroft, Bush Senior's close friend, let out a shriek this week to Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker, revealing his estrangement from W. and his old protégé Condi. He disdained Paul Wolfowitz as a naïve utopian and said he didn't know his old friend Dick Cheney anymore. Vice's alliance with the neocons, who were determined to finish in Iraq what Mr. Scowcroft and Poppy had declared finished, led him to lead the nation into a morass. Troop deaths are now around 2,000, a gruesome milestone.

    The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful, Mr. Scowcroft said. If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse.

    W. should take the Medal of Freedom away from Mr. Tenet and give medals to Colonel Wilkerson and Mr. Scowcroft


Let's get to the heart of what I originally posted...
CBS, the same network that trotted her back out on Sunday, filed a brief with the US District Court stating emphatically that she was not covert at the time of the incident, therefore the reporters in question should not have to reveal their sources. CBS, like the good liberal mouthpiece it is, was trying to defend the first amendment...freedom of speech and the right of reporters to keep their sources anonymous...you know, to PROTECT whistle-blowers. Any other time, you would be FOR that.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy...CBS filed a brief stating they did not believe she was covert. And then they bring her on their network, supporting her statement that she was.

You cannot have it both ways.
Both of those are facts.

And, logically speaking...if a person goes to the CIA every day, sits at a desk in the CIA offices, gets a check from the CIA, chances are that person works for the CIA. And since when do covert operatives get a desk job and walk in and out of Langley every day? Surely common sense should win out here. While she was covert at one time, she was not at the time of the incident.

There is much more common sense evidence on the side of that than on the side that she was still covert.

What about Richard Armitage? Is he a liar too?