Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals want to help the poor, if they need it. And, the middle class has been disappearing for some time. It wans't liberals, who got us into this economic mess.
wrong
liberals want to KEEP you poor, KEEP you on the crumb line, so they can feed you a crumb and GET YOUR VOTE
and liberals didnt get us into this mess???
is not barney frank, pelosi, dodd, clinton are they not liberals???
there are TWO problems right now, that is causing 'wall street' to collapse............JOBS and HOUSING...and they go back to BEFORE bush
let this INFORM you, these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's
1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank
2003/4/5 republicans try to reighn in fanny and freddie...the liberal opposition leaders (barney frank and cris Dodd) say "there is nothing wrong with fanny/freddy..its a witch hunt"........boy does barney have egg on his face now
liberals aka progressives..aka fascists... are globalists
and obama has just CONTINUED the policies of clinton/bush
let this INFORM you, these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's
1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank
2003/4/5 republicans try to reighn in fanny and freddie...the liberal opposition leaders (barney frank and cris Dodd) say "there is nothing wrong with fanny/freddy..its a witch hunt"........boy does barney have egg on his face now
liberals aka progressives..aka fascists... are globalists
and obama has just CONTINUED the policies of clinton/bush
Compelling argument. I voted for both Clinton and Obama, tho, I tend to vote republican in state. Still, the above gives me pause. I wonder if there's a lefty rebuttal. To be fair, didn't Clinton have a majority republican house and senate for 6 out of his 8 years? Was NAFTA really his baby? I also vaguely recall Hillary speaking out against it moons ago.
? Was NAFTA really his baby? I also vaguely recall Hillary speaking out against it moons ago.
carter first started with the free trade stuff
bush1 negotiated the nafta deal
the democrat controlled congress of 1993 passed it, as clinton pushed for it
-------
THE FREE-TRADE ACCORD; PRESIDENT BEGINS A LOBBYING BLITZ FOR TRADE ACCORD
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: November 9, 1993
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8— President Clinton began an intensive face-to-face effort today to persuade lawmakers to throw their support behind the North American Free Trade Agreement as the White House added to his criticisms of labor unions who are the chief opponents of the accord.
Struggling to find the 218 votes he needs for the agreement's approval in the House of Representatives, Mr. Clinton met from morning until well into the night with pairs and small groups of Democratic members of Congress, nearly all of whom had not declared their position.
CLINTON NOW TURNS TO WIDENING TRADE ACROSS THE PACIFIC
By DAVID E. SANGER,
Published: November 19, 1993
SEATTLE, Nov. 18— Hoping to build on his triumph with the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton arrived here today vowing to open new markets in the Pacific. He immediately ran into obstacles from Asian officials who say the world's most booming economies are not yet ready for free-trade zones of their own.
I also vaguely recall Hillary speaking out against it moons ago
that's the funny thing...both hillary and obama talked crap against nafta during the election season of 08.....yet as a senator obama pushed and hillary backed OFTA...free trade with Oman...a saudi country....go figure
That's eye opening. I always thought it was more of joint thing, with him and the repub majority. Thanks for the info. I won't look forward to artwomyn's lack of response on this issue to the libs lol.
Quote:
that's the funny thing...both hillary and obama talked crap against nafta during the election season of 08.....yet as a senator obama pushed and hillary backed OFTA...free trade with Oman...a saudi country....go figure
I was recalling from before the primaries. I know it was mentioned in '08. I was in college when W was running and I ran across something back then, tho, I can't recall where. Either way, great information! Not that I support the repubs, to be clear, but I'm pretty turned off by both sides. I do tend to viscerally like Kucinich, tho.
More and more are becoming homeless, due to the downturn in the economy. And nobody in their right mind would defend the Republicans, unless they're wealthy. Because that's the only segment of the population, that the Republicans ever gave a damn about.
And don't get smug about homelessness. Because you could end up out on the street one day yourself!
I am a conservative who tends to vote Republican. I am by NO means wealthy. There goes that theory! Well, I guess that means I'm insane, by your logic.
I would venture a guess that most people who lose their jobs are not becoming homeless. I mean, look at all the unemployment checks they can get as well as other assorted welfare. Anyone who loses their job and doesn't take a temporary hand up so they can keep their home and eat while they diligently search for another job is out of THEIR mind.
I love how you and others like to throw the "well YOU could be homeless or on welfare one day yourself." Many of us have taken steps to prevent this from happening. I will NEVER be homeless or take a handout b/c I have planned and I have done the right thing in life plus I'm not afraid to go work at Walmart or at any minimum wage job if it means I can put food on the table and a roof over my head. I'm sorry if you don't have that same gumption.
We can't help those who refuse help. But for those who want it, then it should be provided. Reagan rolled back spending for social programs. So he didn't help the down-and-out, one bit!
I would love a little help paying my mortgage and car payments. How about a little grocery money? I want help, so you think it should be provided. Smart idea. Then everyone and their brother will have their hand out and this country will go to hell in a handbasket.
And PLEASE can you learn how to use commas? It's a little frustrating to read your posts and have to stop every few words, because you can't, use commas correctly. They don't, belong all over, the sentence. See, how annoying it can be, to have to pause, in your mind, every couple of words?
ETA: I'm sorry if that came off as rude, I don't mean it that way, but it would be really nice to not have to try to figure out what point you're trying to make when you're overusing commas.
Social programs were put in place, so that people wouldn't starve. Conservatives only care about people, insofar as how they can exploit them! And don't give me that hooey, about how the rich got that way, because they 'work 100+ hours a week'.
Many of the rich inherited their wealth. Or at least got a huge sum of money, to get started in business. Wealth begets wealth! And the rich are no more morally superior, than the poor. Many folks became wealthy, by exploiting the poor, and by lying, cheating, and stealing!
You act like if someone is wealthy, then they are automatically are superior human beings. But that's typical of you conservatives' warped philosophy-the rich deserve their wealth, and the poor deserve their poverty. What utter nonsense!
Actually, that's what YOU seem to think. I don't think someone is superior to me just b/c they have money, likewise, I don't believe someone is inferior to me just b/c they don't have money.
People truly do work 100+ hours per week. When I met my husband, he was working from 9am to 5am 6 or 7 days a week with about a 2 hour break after lunch time. I'm not kidding. Don't tell me people don't do what they have to do so they can have a nice retirement and not have to bust their butts all day when they're 70 just to pay the bills. People who start businesses get paid last and they work the most hours. These people take a risk and hope that it will make them successful. In some cases, it pans out, so their 100+-hour weeks give them a nice nest egg so they can retire early and enjoy life for once.
And what's wrong with people who inherit money? If their parents earned it, in part so their children could have a nice life, who are you to tell them they don't deserve it? And why would you think these people don't care about the poor? Rich people donate LOTS of money to charity. Most "trust fund babies" even put themselves to work down the road. Not to say Paris Hilton is someone to be idolized, but she does work and make her own money, as does her sister. Donald Trump's kids work, even though his fortune alone could have them all eating caviar for the next century. The point is you don't know how these people live their lives, you just assume that b/c they have money, that automatically means they think they're better and will not help the poor. This is absolutely not true.
I have no idea why you would think "many" folks became rich by "exploiting the poor," "lying, cheating and stealing." Please provide a link showing proof of this. Oh, wait, it's not true, so there is no link.
The rich do deserve their wealth. They earned it, fair and square. The poor do deserve to be poor if they refuse to work and earn their own way. If they do work and earn their own way, they will no longer be poor. It's quite simple.
And what's wrong with people who inherit money? If their parents earned it, in part so their children could have a nice life, who are you to tell them they don't deserve it? And why would you think these people don't care about the poor? Rich people donate LOTS of money to charity. Most "trust fund babies" even put themselves to work down the road. Not to say Paris Hilton is someone to be idolized, but she does work and make her own money, as does her sister. Donald Trump's kids work, even though his fortune alone could have them all eating caviar for the next century. The point is you don't know how these people live their lives, you just assume that b/c they have money, that automatically means they think they're better and will not help the poor. This is absolutely not true.
I have no idea why you would think "many" folks became rich by "exploiting the poor," "lying, cheating and stealing." Please provide a link showing proof of this. Oh, wait, it's not true, so there is no link.
The rich do deserve their wealth. They earned it, fair and square. The poor do deserve to be poor if they refuse to work and earn their own way. If they do work and earn their own way, they will no longer be poor. It's quite simple.
Actually, Paris Hilton has been brought up a couple of times in this thread and I've meant to add this about her ...
Her grandfather, Barron Hilton, is where the serious cash lies - he's worth upwards of $2 Billion. Originally, Paris stood to inherit about $100 million upon his death ... until he decided a few years back to change his will and donate 97% of his fortune to charity.
Yeah, imagine that. A billionaire giving the bulk of his fortune away to charity.
So anyway, back to Paris. Instead of $100 million, she now stands to receive only a couple of million. Yeah, still some major bucks and I'm sure her parents (Kathy in particular) won't be passing their wealth to charity so she'll eventually inherit a portion of their estate ... eventually.
Here's the thing ... no one is dead yet. She hasn't inherited a dime and yet, by some accounts earns $30 million a year. Paris has turned "Paris Hilton" into a brand through hard work. She's not as stupid as she looks. And that baby voice you hear ... totally fake.
Those landlords are few and far between. For every slumlord there are probably 1000 good property owners who have a lot of time & cash invested in the property and want to keep it in good condition.
Depends on where you live and what delusions they have in their minds about business. Some are in the landlord business for all the wrong reasons- it's a pretense for another agenda the way malevolence would ingratiate itself into clergyman or Eagle scout position.
Rental contracts do get abused by a certain ilk of landlords as well as tenants and I believe that sleaze is equally matched in headcount. The thousand good egg landlords also have a thousand good egg tenants, otherwise the courts would have a 50yr backlog. I hope agents never get sloppy about taking that landlord side of screening seriously just because money is concentrated on one side. I'm thinking your agency really wouldn't want this mans commission... Dog perv collared after breaking into tenant's apartment, sexually abusing 2-year-old pup Snowball
Y'all can decide for yourself what to do with this character. I don't imagine myself being calm enough to dial a phone until this 2 legged animal's genitals were kicked hard and frequently enough that he lost consciousness. I'm not prone to vengeance but a permanent loss of reputation and jail time would actually be worth it to me.
Here's an example of blatantly sloppy screening interfering with contracts... Feds Go After Local Landlord Who Hired Child Sex Abuser « Westside Independent
Sentencing delayed for Corona rapist | Local News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California This shouldn't be a job hazard for agents but you can't keep your head in the sand just because it might spook customers off. The families of Vivian Martin, Andrew VonStein, and Sarah Walker have my deepest condolences. Knowing self defense isn't optional. Security is a 2 way street & there's no need for legislation. I'm trained and was less fearful of house shopping alone with a male agent than other women might have been. I think it would reassure customers during their personal data collection process to know that employees have been screened. I opted to follow my agent in my own car even if it made his life a little more difficult. Best business practice protects all parties equally (owner, employees, & customers).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There goes that theory! Well, I guess that means I'm insane, by your logic. 
