...the "Stimulus Package" is having an unintended (one would assume) effect-
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...igroup-report/
-or maybe this is part of the plan?
Printable View
...the "Stimulus Package" is having an unintended (one would assume) effect-
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...igroup-report/
-or maybe this is part of the plan?
Religion seems to be rising though.
And now he's saying he's going to cut the deficit in half by the end of this term. :glag:
Study India for details about religion vs economics.
"hope" does strange things, especially in casinos
Sorry i lack all knowledge of what the stimulus package actually does.
In third world countries, pushing in cash rarely helps,
Aiding small businesses which work, tends to help.
(Hearsay)
Silly person, you don't get it, do you?
Everything bad that happened during the Bush years was Clinton's fault.
Everything bad that's happening now is Obama's fault.
The past eight years must be remembered as a time of unicorns and rainbows because nothing bad can be attributed to Republicans/conservatives.
All we need are some tax cuts and everything will be fine.
While you apparently believe that the stock market is tethered to reality in any quantifiable way.
Fancy that.
Then falling from a hallucinatory high back to a more reality based level should be a good thing, right?
Reality + Wall St.= does not compute.
Somewhat, yes.
Like I remember when Bush banged on about having that huge bailout on TV and when it didn't happen immediately, we had a crash like no other in a long time.
Absent the plea for the bailout on national television, no stock tank.
It was one of the most irresponsible things I've ever seen by Bush.
Now with this, Wall Street wants more free money bailouts with little or no oversight....like the first one. Since it doesn't look like it's going to happen in that manner, stock went down.
Two tifferent tings.
One was give us what we want NOW and how we want it or we pull our money. The other is you are NOT giving us what we want how we want it so we are pulling our money.
I totally disagree.
It's tethered to reality in more ways than you know, both ways.
It could be the reality of some big investor buying a lot of one stock which in turn makes other buy like "there must be something good" and in turn makes the stock rise.
A new product or idea makes stock rise. Promising cancer drug - stock rise. Not approved by FDA - stock fall.
I used to take surplus time off work (no pay) just to trade stocks until my job took surplus time away. They said it made it look like less technicians were needed.:ermm: It was me and one other coworker (his wife died of cancer and he had a lot of life insurance money) who lived on 16th St NW DC (prestigious address).
Anyway, stock are tethered to some reality. It's just that you may not see it if not paying attention to specific markets and companies.
I dunno anything about back in the seventies, since I was a youngster. However, 16th and U St is still not "prestigious". Hell, that's two blocks away from the Reeves Center.
Try farther up northwest DC (probably past Military Rd) where there are no local businesses about.
That is prestigious. Hell it has Tudor style mansions.
OK, I dont claim to know the stock market however I do know that the finance and energy sectors collapsed and that had a knock on effect on everything else.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but..
The Credit Crunch has been ongoing for over a year, so no one can blame Obama for that.
The Banks have to build up their balance books, so aren't lending.. which is their fault for stupid loans in the first place.. Obama wasn't in the picture when this happened..
The US Governemnt dont set the price of Oil/Gas, so hows he get the blame for this too?
I'm confused..
I hates Government, but I can't blame people that have just came into power for the excesses of Private Companies for over a decade.
I CAN put some of the blame on our poxy leader, as he was in power whilst all the crap was going on (although at the Treasury, not as PM) and it should have been stopped AT THAT TIME. Indeed, it was his desire to follow the American model that fuelled the British problems to their present scope.
Does this mean I blame Bush? Yes, in part, however I'd go back further.. I'm pretty sure that the deregulation happened before Bush (I may be wrong), however his administration has to take some of the blame for not changing the system. And the shit hit the fan on his watch.
Actually, obongo can take some blame on this. He in his "counseling" position with Acorn "guided" them into forcing banks to give loans to people who had no rights to these loans under the Community Reinvestment Act. People who had no qualifications, no source of income other than welfare or whatnot had to be given loans in order to get more "diversity" into homeownership.
Then when these public leeches default, Acorn swoops in to be the hero by breaking into these houses and letting the defaulters squat in order to "guide" these people in how to commit "civil obedience".
You really are delusional.
Obama's connection to ACORN consisted of representing them in a legal matter 12 years ago.
If you have proof of deeper more sinister ties, bring 'em on.
Furthermore, if every single one of the poor people you refer to (who, by the way, actually have a better repayment history than the mortgage industry average) DID default on their loans, it would have barely made a blip in our economy.
It was the financial industry's repackaging of mortgages/loans into ever more exotic instruments- all predicated on faulty data and projections- that lead to this mess.
I can see your point though...much easier to blame some poor folks- who are after all, known to be lazy and shiftless- than the financial fatcats who were happy to make the initial offers and rake in windfall profits.
Boy, they sure got blindsided, didn't they?
No way to see this coming when you have access to all the data, make the rules and manage the playing field.
Poor guys.
Obama: "I’ve been fighting alongside Acorn on issues you care about my entire career…" (Steven Malanga, "Organizer In Chief," [New York] City Journal, Summer 2008)
"In 1992, Acorn Hired Mr. Obama To Run A Voter Registration Effort. He Later Became A Trainer For The Group, As Well As Its Lawyer In Election Law Cases." (John Fund, Op-Ed, "Obama's Liberal Shock Troops," The Wall Street Journal, 7/12/08)
I guess their little voter fraud issues were no connection also.
Wow, he really is the Antichrist after all.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...cusations.html
Quote:
Obama: Burying ACORNs
The ad says that "Obama's ties to ACORN run long and deep" – that he "taught classes" for the group, paid a "front" $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president. That last one's true – ACORN's political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement. It's also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer "motor voter" registration at DMV offices. Obama has said that this is his only association with ACORN, but that's not the case – he has had other, though less direct, interactions with the organization.
When Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants.
The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI's services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election.
In addition, after law school, Obama may have had contact with ACORN when he directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote in 1992. According to Sanford Newman, who was the program’s national director at the time, ACORN may have been one of dozens of organizations that participated in registration drives that year with Project Vote personnel like Obama. But Project Vote didn’t begin contracting exclusively with ACORN until after Obama worked for the group in 1992. “Working for Project Vote at the time was by no means working for ACORN," Newman told us. ACORN had no influence on Project Vote policy and no representation on its board.As for "teaching classes" for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot "initially considered Obama a competitor" when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that "she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that "we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year" between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.–by Jess Henig, with Ronald Lampard
Neither ACORN's Chicago office nor CSI has been accused of voter registration irregularities.
Update, Oct. 21: We originally said that Project Vote works closely with ACORN, implying that Obama would have had contact with the group when he directed a voter registration drive for Project Vote in 1992. We have since learned that Project Vote and ACORN may or may not have worked together in Chicago that year. The group didn’t contract with ACORN exclusively back then. We have corrected the story to reflect this.
What's funny is that it's not just the poor that these financial fatcats were shoveling this shit to.
When I was trying to refinance, I did have the sense to know that I didn't want an interest only-loan although initially, it looked great. However, it didn't stop me from getting a constant barrage of phone calls to refi and in two cases, even after telling them they could come to the house to discuss a refi (as long as there was no interest -only talk), after getting in they always moved toward their interest-only packages where, in both cases, I caught the reps in lies.
I do understand how people were duped because they were lied to. Nowadays you need a damned lawyer to close on a house and loan.
However, I also know folks, mostly middle-class like myself, that bought homes running $600,000 to $800,000 they didn't belong in.
One fella depended on overtime to make mortgage payments trying to have his showcase home. Overtime dries up, you dry up.
These are the people that make me sick and I think they knew what they were doing trying to be all uppity.
It ain't all black and white like HeavyracistALot makes it seem.
Hell I'm trying "move up" in a bigger and better house now because I can get an acre for dirt cheap. However, the sticker is that I'd most likely have to sell my current home and even though I didn't overpay (much) for it like most people....I doubt I'd get what I paid for it.
[QUOTE=Busyman;3148975]Do you know how to google? Do you know what the Community Reinvestment Act is?Quote:
What happened to the housing shit you were just shoveling
Don't worry about it, you will just do what your people are good at and say facts are racist.
[QUOTE=clocker;3149436]No, not saying it is. But it plays a big role. If the banks didn't have to make all these loans to uncreditworthy people they could have put this money to better use. If you had the option of loaning your money to someone who has shown through past performance that they take care of their debts or someone for the sake of "diversity" who would you choose?