the whole mortgage thing upsets me...sm

• did Biden just really say this - cj
  • Precisely the problem with this plan. Great incentive to NOT - pay your mortgage because the..sm
  • There are tons of homes on the market. - Yeah but
  • Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well... - sam
  • the whole mortgage thing upsets me...sm - passing through
  • He's not talking about million dollar houses. - sm
    • They can reduce the interest to normal levels... - sam
    • yup, I do - cj

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh?  Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing...  The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.

I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.

Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well.  The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him.  If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.

If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?

Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons).  I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.

Did that happen?

I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.

	Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives	Tuesday, July 04, 2006
	Headlines
	Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
	Published on Monday, July 3, 2006 by Agence France Presse Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll   People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll. The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph. ...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.   The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world. As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975. A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little. US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader. More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests. US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country. A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys. We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying. With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism. But frankly, so do you (the British press). In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse ### Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
	FAIR USE NOTICE
	This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Common Dreams NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives © Copyrighted 1997-2006 www.commondreams.org

I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.

How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.

I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.

I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.

My point was that it is not only *this* administration.  Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change.  So Iraq was on the table then.  The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change.  They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of.  And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar.  It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it.  How do liberals manage that massive flip flop?  I remember Clinton's speech well.  It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.

My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.  Okay.  I get it.  3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war.  What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.

How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals.  I apologize.  I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore.  Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President. 

In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate.  Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury.  However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to.  I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible.  At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught.  Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him.  You will never hear me defend either of them.

I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.  I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them.  I personally did not start the use of those.   In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick).  As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like.  We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law.  No spin, hard fact.

Have a good day.

can come up with?  Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we.  Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.

In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word?  Who dictates words and which ones are bad?  Who decided that the F bomb was bad?  Who determined what words were considered swear words?  If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?