Results 101 to 107 of 107
Thread: Obama, savior of the common man?
-
05-01-13, 04:33 PM #101
Re: Obama, savior of the common man?
Fair enough. I mean, I know my word isn't going to change any opinions here. I'm certainly not here to defend Bush. If its really there like my brother says it is, then so be it. It'll either come out, or it won't. It's either a lie or it isn't. I honestly don't care. I just thought I throw it out there.
Hell, for all I know they are removing it and just not telling anyone. That's pure speculation, so don't hold me to it. Maybe if they feel they got it all they can come out and say it. Who knows. I'm just going by the word of someone I trust. You, or anyone else, doesn't have to.
-
05-01-13, 04:34 PM #102
Re: Obama, savior of the common man?
I'm not the one making any claim about the WMDs, and you got to admit believing that Iraq had WMDs because some guy I barely know on the internet said that he had a relative that saw them isn't reasonable. It is quite probable, and maybe even likely that they had them, but I can't make any judgments from your story.
Last edited by PvtPrivate; 05-01-13 at 04:37 PM.
-
05-01-13, 04:36 PM #103
Re: Obama, savior of the common man?
Your definitely in a grey area for what to do. You would need to know what type exactly of ordnance your dealing with first. Then you move to what kind of container. Then to is the container damaged and so on. Chemical and biological can go either way. Some times you have to move it before destroying it and sometimes your best destroying it where it is. Yellow cake gets moved all the time. It isnt as volatile as most people think. You have to remember we get yellow cake by running it through a pulverizer.
-
05-01-13, 04:40 PM #104
Re: Obama, savior of the common man?
-
-
- Join Date
- 11-27-06
- Location
- Denver
- Posts
- 11,452
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 13
-
05-01-13, 07:37 PM #107
Re: Obama, savior of the common man?
Republicans did not force lenders to increase high risk home loans. Democrats led by Barney Frank did. The lenders went along with it in order to avoid charges of racism, knowing they could sell the bad debt and make it someone else's problem. And so on, and so on. Then, Greenspan raised rates and property values started their fall. So you see the bill you keep touting wasn't the crux of the problem. Market deregulation and government guarantees against loss were in place for 30 years before this crisis.
As I said there has to be a balance.
The only thing I will say that I don't know for certain because you'd have to hear it from Frank and company personally to know for sure, but... My opinion is that Frank and the Democrats who dusted off the Community Reinvestment Act did it on purpose. They just could not have another era of prosperity brought about by the policies of conservative Republicans. They had to know it would damage the economy, though I don't think they knew just how bad it would be. I have to say, their plan has been WILDLY successful.
Other possible culprits include the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a Carter-era measure that was strengthened in 1995 and used to pressure banks and thrifts that enjoyed deposit insurance into lending in all neighborhoods where they accepted deposits, including low-income, weak-credit areas. Many analysts have also placed at least some blame on the Federal Housing Administration as well as the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through explicit or implicit federal backing, these agencies were able to bolster the secondary market for mortgages and allow applicants who otherwise would not have qualified to obtain mortgages.
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detai...#ixzz2S5eDzEpX
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks