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

Okay. On his worst day, Obama is 10 times the

Posted By: leader McCain ever was on his best day. -sm on 2008-09-15
In Reply to: What are you talking about?? - Kaydie

And his best days are 'way, 'way BEHIND him.


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

And Obama said McCain was right.... nine times....nm

Obama has said several times that he was a Christian...
but of course, that always came on the heels of being accused of being Muslim. He plays the religion card when it suits him.
Obama about to make a bad situation 10 times
nm
L.A. Times Suppresses Damaging Obama Videotape

How can y'all literally give this man a free pass?  Even the liberal Linda Bloodworth Thomason (she & husband are good friends of the Clintons)  shunned NBC for being so horrible to Gov. Palin.  This was in Hollywood, and those who were there didn't disagree with her.


L.A. Times Suppresses Damaging Obama Videotape



Breaking from Newsmax.com


Ruddy: Very Existence of GOP at Stake in This Election
Proof: Palin Hit By Blizzard of Negative Headlines


Go to newsmax.com if you have the guts.


Obama's group has tried to shut Stanley Kurtz up several times...
He was on WGN radio in August when Obama supporters were told to call in and voice their displeasure about Mr. Kurtz and his appearance. Mr. Kurtz has done extensive research regarding the Obama/Ayers/Wright association. The WGN host offered to have someone from the Obama campaign on to counterpoint Mr. Kurtz but they declined. You would think they would like to refute something they vehemently deny.
If they want to believe the worst, let them.
Toxic, just toxic.
bush the worst

Maybe not the worst in US history...
US Grant had lots of problems with the whole Teapot Dome scandal brought on by his best friends - great General, poor President. The list goes on and I'm sure one day Bush will be added to it, but I'm not sure he deserves the title of Worst.
ACK! My worst nightmare!
That was just mean, LOL.
Even the worst of ideas

and plans that don't and won't work can be presented eloquently and there certainly will be people dumb enough to believe that those ideas and plan will actually work.  This is all a bunch of fluff to get elected.  Obama does give hope....it is called FALSE HOPE! 


NOBAMA!!!!


This is washington at its worst
What an absolutely lying piece of garbage this guy is. The dems want to pass all their little pork projects at the tax payers expense. He certainly is not going to be paying any in taxes for this...WE ARE!!! I'm sick of crooked politicians getting up saying... the American people don't care. The American people want this or don't want that, when it's a blatant lie. News flash...he doesn't care about the American people. He should be among the top to be thrown out of DC. Talk about the ol BP rising today.
WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

VOTE FOR BUSH--As the worst!!!
338 OF 415 HISTORIANS SAY G.W.B.

IS THE FAILING AS A PRESIDENT- DO YOU AGREE?*

An overwhelming 338 of 415 historians polled by George Mason University
said Friday that George W. Bush is failing as a president. And fifty of
them rated Bush as the worst president ever, ranking him above (below?)
any other past president - even those you've never heard of who were
also really awful. Why do these misguided, obviously-socialist,
ivy-smoking and - of course -American-hating intellectuals feel that Bush isn't
doing his best?

Well, they look at the record ...

# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend
and foe alike in the process;
# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive
military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and
state;
# He has repeatedly misled, to use a kind word, the American people
on affairs domestic and foreign;
# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and
foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of
pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems,
corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. Perhaps it is too early to evaluate a president -
or is it?


The Worst President in History? sm

The Worst President in History?


One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush






George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.


Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a failure. Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's pursuit of disastrous policies. In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.


The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.


Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about the current crop of history professors than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.


Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.) Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.


The Republicans' worst nightmare --

Honest voting machines.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/ELECTRONIC_VOTING_LAWSUITSITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Iraq Progresses To Some Of Its Worst

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (IPS) - Despite all the claims of improvements, 2007 has been the worst year yet in Iraq.

One of the first big moves this year was the launch of a troop "surge" by the U.S. government in mid-February. The goal was to improve security in Baghdad and the western al-Anbar province, the two most violent areas. By June, an additional 28,000 troops had been deployed to Iraq, bringing the total number up to more than 160,000.

By autumn, there were over 175,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. This is the highest number of U.S. troops deployed yet, and while the U.S. government continues to talk of withdrawing some, the numbers on the ground appear to contradict these promises.

The Bush administration said the "surge" was also aimed at curbing sectarian killings, and to gain time for political reform for the government of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

During the surge, the number of Iraqis displaced from their homes quadrupled, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent. By the end of 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that there are over 2.3 million internally displaced persons within Iraq, and over 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled the country.

Iraq has a population around 25 million.

The non-governmental organisation Refugees International describes Iraq's refugee problem as "the world's fastest growing refugee crisis."

In October the Syrian government began requiring visas for Iraqis. Until then it was the only country to allow Iraqis in without visas. The new restrictions have led some Iraqis to return to Baghdad, but that number is well below 50,000.

A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.

Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.

One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.

The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that eight out of ten refugees are from Baghdad.

By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels. Similarly with jobs and oil exports. Unemployment, according to the Iraqi government, ranges between 60-70 percent.

An Oxfam International report released in July says 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to safe drinking water, and 43 percent live on less than a dollar a day. The report also states that eight million Iraqis are in need of emergency assistance.

"Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, healthcare, education, and employment," the report says. "Of the four million Iraqis who are dependent on food assistance, only 60 percent currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

Nearly 10 million people depend on the fragile rationing system. In December, the Iraqi government announced it would cut the number of items in the food ration from ten to five due to "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation." The inflation rate is officially said to be around 70 percent.

The cuts are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, and have led to warnings of social unrest if measures are not taken to address rising poverty and unemployment.

Iraq's children continue to suffer most. Child malnutrition rates have increased from 19 percent during the economic sanctions period prior to the invasion, to 28 percent today.

This year has also been one of the bloodiest of the entire occupation. The group Just Foreign Policy, "an independent and non-partisan mass membership organisation dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy," estimates the total number of Iraqis killed so far due to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation to be 1,139,602.

This year 894 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the entire occupation for the U.S. military, according to ICasualties.org.

To date, at least 3,896 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defence.

A part of the U.S. military's effort to reduce violence has been to pay former resistance fighters. Late in 2007, the U.S. military began paying monthly wages of 300 dollars to former militants, calling them now "concerned local citizens."

While this policy has cut violence in al-Anbar, it has also increased political divisions between the dominant Shia political party and the Sunnis – the majority of these "concerned citizens" being paid are Sunni Muslims. Prime Minister Maliki has said these "concerned local citizens" will never be part of the government's security apparatus, which is predominantly composed of members of various Shia militias.

Underscoring another failure of the so-called surge is the fact that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad remains more divided than ever, and hopes of reconciliation have vanished.

According to a recent ABC/BBC poll, 98 percent of Sunnis and 84 percent of Shias in Iraq want all U.S. forces out of the country. (END/2007)


Here's the stark truth about the war. 


Can someone explain to me please why in all communications about the war in Iraq, both for and against, they never speak of how many Al Qaeda are being eliminated during this continued fighting in Iraq?  Considering that this would be the ONLY plausible reason why we should continue with it, if we were actually making headway against Islamic extremism and the Al Qaeda network?  Furthermore, why in the last six months or so has the media started referring to the "insurgents" as Al Qaeda with no clarification whatsoever? 


This is very telling isn't it?  If we are not fighting the terrorists anymore, why is our military still putting their lives on the line?


I believe this is because they are no longer there, considering that there was a very small faction there to begin with.


Considering that the Bush administration is losing what is left of their reputation continuing this war against AL Qaeda in Iraq, is it so far fetched to see media manipulation in the fact that now all of a sudden the American media is sprouting headlines about Al Qaeda being the cause of Bhutto's death without any proof whatsoever but based on wishful thinking and supposition?  When in reality Musharraf has the most to gain from her death?  Especially if it is lauded that Al Qaeda is behind her death, this lends to solidity that Bush will not withdraw US funds from Pakistan if it is thought that Al Qaeda is behind Bhutto's death, perhaps Musharraf asking for MORE funds and getting them from the Bush administration to fight Al Qaeda (supposedly) in Pakistan.


Manipulation at its highest level.


She or McCain is the worst thing that
could happen to this country.  If she or McCain gets in the WH, we are done, gonzo, and the middle class' problems will be magnified.  Get ready people.  There is something in the air with the Clintons.  Scary stuff, and not at all democratic society we knew before 9/11/01.  Obama took all of them by surprise, that the people are in some way rebelling from the present way things are done in Wash. Now they don't know what to do about him.  Scary.for Obama too.
This is not just distraction politics at its worst.
Hurricane country does not need to be getting its instructions in sound bytes between hours of distractions. The time to start preparations is NOW, not the day before the hurricane.
Thank you - Intolerance is the worst religion of all
x
Why do you always expect the worst? You call sm
yourself an independant and I have not seen anything to convince me that is true. You spew such venom toward anything that the democrats do and keep repeating false information that you have heard somewhere, probably FOX news, I could be wrong, without ever investigating to any depth yourself to see if it is 100% true or not. Spin doctors spin in both parties, I think you need to recognize this and think and investigate for yourself if you truly consider yourself an independent.
Racist Propaganda at its Worst! (nm)
:{
The big "O" aleady the worst and he hasn't been....
there a year yet. The next would be Jimmy Carter. Read up on the economy under HIM. Obama doesn't give two hoots about what "we" want. He is pushing through his personal agenda at lightning speed and the worst of it is he really believes this will work...kinda like Caesar fiddling while Rome burned around him. Well, they say ignorance is bliss and he must be one deliriously happy camper right about now.
Pelosi is the worst speaker ever. A divider. The
nm
This post is an example of the worst kind of damage
This kind of ignorant, self-righteous, utterly uninformed, breathtakingly bigoted and hate-filled pronouncement, void of any depth or evidence of intellectual capacity, is exactly the kind of divisive belief system and world view W created with his "you are either for us or against us" war on terror. Islam is a monotheist religion, just as Christianity is. The kind of politicized Christianity you have expressed is of the sort that was the driving force behind the Crusades...bloody terrorism in its very worst manifestation. Politicized religion in any form has NOTHING to do with God and the brand that you are promoting here is every bit as much of a terrorist act as a suicide bombing. Moslems pray to the same God that Christians pray to and no amount of hateful bigotry you try spread will change that fundamental truth. As long as you hold this kind of hate in your heart, you will always be a very isolated, fringe element of our society. If you are truly a person of faith, pray to God to to fogive you for this blasphemy, to enlighten you and to purge you of the ignorance and hate you harbor.
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.

Oh my gosh - the Clinton years were the worst
I have never seen such horrible horrible times as the Clinton years. It was awful, awful, awful. DH and I both worked full time. We both had excellent salaries but we could never get ahead. We didn't live life in the rich lane - a 1 bedroom apartment (no washer dryer) in a hole-in-the-wall complex. A Ford Taurus (so not a fancy car). I don't own any diamonds or furs and my clothes were bought at the local Walmart, Sears or stores like that. No children, no college education to pay off and we had absolutely nothing. Clinton's tax increases raised our taxes so high that we were paying out 38% in taxes and even then at the end of the year we always owed an extra $2000. Everyone kept telling us to buy a house and get all these great "benees". In SF? Right! We couldn't afford to go out to eat never mind buy a house and when we did try to apply for a loan we were turned down. On top of that my family and friends back east were losing their jobs (thank you NAFTA). Family freinds were losing their homes because they lost their jobs and they were starting to live in their cars. My dad took in a couple he knew because they were living in a campground and winter came and it got too cold to stay in their tent. It wasn't until Clinton got out of office that our taxes went down, we were able to save some money, get a better place to live, and go out to eat with family and start to enjoy life a little more. The economy may be bad now, but we're in better shape than we were when Clinton's were in. Now we're terrified we're going to be back into the same exact sitaution. We're certainly not in great shape here, so anything worse would put us in a bad situation but luckily we rent so can move if we have to. But the economy needs a lof of work. We have no health insurance (unless you want to call having a policy that you have to pay 10K/year first before the insurance company will pitch in), DH is out of work and we just take one day at a time. All I know is most everyone I know (family, friends, and acquantances of my family) say they may have thought Clinton to be a good looking guy, but they have been better off financially since he left office.
The one, single thing that took the worst toll on US
nm
This confirms our worst suspicions. Certain pubs factions
What plantet do you come from? I am so sure he could have just vaporized without "announcing" his destination and the reason for his absence. See post directly above for a more plausible explanation. Your mean comments do you speak well for our concept of family values, diminish your party's credibility on that subject by leaps and bounds and make you look very small.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
Immelt rated "one of the worst" CEO's and booed yesterday
X
You, my dear are the worst offender, it is apparent from your posts all you read are the tabloids.
Nm
LA times
Everyone knows the L.A. Times is a liberal rag.
How many times?
Really is irrelevant. This woman is being used as a shill for a Marxist/Leninist organization called ANSWER, which has anything but America's interests at heart.
100 times????????

Okay, so when caught lying just spin an even bigger lie.


This is really getting out of hand on this board.  All you CONS do is lie.  This is crazy.


Okay, so please cite the 100 times I have accused someone of lying.  This is your chance to squash us libs once and for all.  I am waiting.


Maybe 300 times? nm

How many times have you said ANYthing?

How many times have you used that
just curious
How many times do I have to say this? sm
NO ONE, NOT ANYONE, EVEN A MOTHER OR A FATHER, can renounce a child's American citizenship, ONLY the child at the age of majority, 21, can choose to revoke it. PERIOD! Get it? NO ONE! This is per my brother who is an immigration attorney.
How many times have we seen

reporting that there is nothing to report...over...and over...and over, and repeating the information they DO have over, and over, and over?  Going to the suspect's neighborhood, place of worship, high school, etc. trying to interview the ex-wife, parents, other people he knew, speculating like crazy just to fill air time and keep a big story alive?  Or investigating the victim of the crime, going to his neighborhood, interview family, etc.,  to make the victim seem either a saint or a stinker? 


The press never takes no for an answer.  Denied hard facts from court or cops, they generally just make pests of themselves messing around in the suspect's personal life to find nuggets to report, then blather on and on.  But they apparently do not consider this a big story.  That they are not following their usual pattern in itself is a big story.


And many, many times...
physical abuse and murder happen without even a trace of slander. Go figure. ;-)
LA Times Article

Great article in opinion section of LA Times (you can get it online).  Dated 06/24/2005, "Hustling on K Street" by Jonathan Chait, concerning Bush paying back the lobbyists and big business.


Reps. John Conyers and Maxine Waters are trying to get a meeting going in Congress tomorrow with Republicans joining in this time to debate and discuss the Downing Street Memos.  Dont know if it will be covered on C-Span, sure hope so.


Laughter for trying times.




Ain't that the truth!!! ~MJ

 

 


 

You accused someone several times of something they did not do. sm
And yet you harp on.  Have you no shame?
I probably have used third person at times....

Why is it so important to you? 


And if you cannot see the obvious differences in writing, well, you appear to be quite ignorant or unobservant or else you are not telling the truth.  But that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine!!!


Yes, PK, too many lies too many times

How many times are you going to say the same thing?!
Geesh! Get over it! You already said, "attacking an innocent..." like a million times! Wow! Move on to the next story already!
No, that would be you......several times today and beyond...nm
z
I don't dismiss. How many times have I said...
that all of us should vote for who we feel is best for the country? How is that dismissing? Yes, I am conservative, have always been conservative. I have not changed...the parties have changed. That is why I am now independent..independent of any party. That is how I view being an independent. You have to register as SOMETHING to vote in national elections...and independent most closely defines me at this point, not republican or democrat.
From Asia Times
  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html
Fannie Mae/NY Times
Check out the date on this. Of course, this came as no surprise to me. It's surprising to ever find an objective article from the NY Times, but sometimes they surprise us.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.