President Barack Hussein Obama

[CTM]

[QUOTE=Piper;2843383]Let's see, is it a corporation that my 401k is invested in? In which case you are taking money from me to give to someone else.
[B]
It is sad how uniformed people are[/B].[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about?

Does your 401k invest in oil companies?

[Piper]

[QUOTE=CTM;2843384]What are you talking about?

Does your 401k invest in oil companies?[/QUOTE]

Oh, they are only going to tax [B]oil [/B]companies?!

Please wake up.

[BrooklynBound]

[QUOTE=Piper;2843383]Let's see, is it a corporation that my 401k is invested in? In which case you are taking money from me to give to someone else.

It is sad how uniformed people are.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Corps don't pay taxes, people do. When you apply taxes on such a macro scale, it will be easier to pass on taxes in the form of high prices or lower payroll.

[CTM]

[QUOTE=Piper;2843394]Oh, they are only going to tax [B]oil [/B]companies?!

Please wake up.[/QUOTE]
Actually what I was talking about is what Palin does in Alaska leading her to be the most popular governer in the Union...

Just last year she raised taxes on the oil companies and doled out an extra $1200 brining the total to around $3200 for citizens who do not pay state sales or income tax.

I assume you don't support this activity, as I don't?

[Piper]

[QUOTE=CTM;2843423]Actually what I was talking about is what Palin does in Alaska leading her to be the most popular governer in the Union...

Just last year she raised taxes on the oil companies and doled out an extra $1200 brining the total to around $3200 for citizens who do not pay state sales or income tax.

I assume you don't support this activity, as I don't?[/QUOTE]

No I don't. I thought you were referring to Obama's proposal to raise all corporate taxes, which of course is bad for anyone with a 401k or mutual fund investments.

[CTM]

[QUOTE=Piper;2843450]No I don't. I thought you were referring to Obama's proposal to raise all corporate taxes, which of course is bad for anyone with a 401k or mutual fund investments.[/QUOTE]

No, I agree with you there, just trying to make a point. I prefer we deal in truths and criticize based on reality as opposed to fantasy..

There seems to be a lot of people who believe Obama is going to introduce socialism to this country as if it's not already here in some forms..

I'm really holding out hope that the economy is so bad that Obama is forced to recognize he can't do what he wants socially...

[glenn212]

[QUOTE=TKasper01;2843359]Spoken like someone who knows nothing of the cause. You are the perfect example of a idiot voter going with the souind bits due to being to lazy to actually look into the facts.[/QUOTE]

Oh..I know the facts..Banks handing out billions of loans to people
who should have never received them to make money and the people
who bet on this little shell game..deregulations and policies set up by the Bush Administration led to the Economic Collapse..We all know that..What happened was plain reckless and President elect Barack Obama brought this up on the floor of the senate a few years back..I'm not that lazy.

[Piper]

[QUOTE=glenn212;2843477]Oh..I know the facts..Banks handing out billions of loans to people
who should have never received them to make money and the people
who bet on this little shell game..deregulations and policies set up by the Bush Administration led to the Economic Collapse..We all know that..What happened was plain reckless and President elect Barack Obama brought this up on the floor of the senate a few years back..I'm not that lazy.[/QUOTE]

He brought it up and then in typical fashion took no further action on it and just went along to get along.
Another 'present' vote, if you will.

[Jetfan_Johnny]

[QUOTE=glenn212;2843477]Oh..I know the facts..Banks handing out billions of loans to people
who should have never received them to make money and the people
who bet on this little shell game..deregulations and policies set up by the Bush Administration led to the Economic Collapse..We all know that..What happened was plain reckless and President elect Barack Obama brought this up on the floor of the senate a few years back..I'm not that lazy.[/QUOTE]

Actually the problem begins a lot further back:

Article from NY Times Sept. 30, 1999



[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt[/url]


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 just a notch 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.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

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. In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

[jetsfan110]

[QUOTE=Piper;2843383]"Let's see, is it a corporation that my 401k is invested in? In which case you are taking money from me to give to someone else."

[B]It is sad how uniformed people are[/B].[/QUOTE]


Thank You! took the words right out of my mouth. Everybody is out to get the big bad corporations, when the corporations put so much effing money into the system now as it is, without them we wouldnt survive one day! Its all relative people. It is amazing how uninformed people are in this country, and just regurgitate what cnn or msnbc or hussein obama says.

[CTM]

[QUOTE=jetsfan110;2843740]Thank You! took the words right out of my mouth. Everybody is out to get the big bad corporations, when the corporations put so much effing money into the system now as it is, without them we wouldnt survive one day! Its all relative people. It is amazing how uninformed people are in this country, and just regurgitate what cnn or msnbc or hussein obama says.[/QUOTE]
So you voted Libertarian then?

[jetsfan110]

Nope, straight-lined conservative republican.

[SMC]

Republican Senator Jacob K. Javits (yep, that Javits) from New York predicted in [I]Esquire[/I] magazine in [B]1958[/B] that the US would elect its first black president in 2000. He wrote:

[QUOTE]What manner of man will this be, this possible Negro Presidential candidate of 2000? Undoubtedly, he will be well-educated. He will be well-traveled and have a keen grasp of his country's role in the world and its relationships. He will be a dedicated internationalist with working comprehension of the intricacies of foreign aid, technical assistance and reciprocal trade. … Assuredly, though, despite his other characteristics, he will have developed the fortitude to withstand the vicious smear attacks that came his way as he fought to the top in government and politics … those in the vanguard may expect to be the targets for scurrilous attacks, as the hate mongers, in the last ditch efforts, spew their verbal and written poison. [/QUOTE]

It's uncanny how precient Javits was. Mind you, this was written only a year after school de-segregation.

[CTM]

[QUOTE=jetsfan110;2843771]Nope, straight-lined conservative republican.[/QUOTE]
So you voted for McCain/Palin then?

The same McCain who said in 2000 that the Rich should pay more taxes, just like Obama is now?

The same Palin that runs a state with no income or sales tax and distributes checks of up to $3200 a year from oil profits to the citizens, also been on record stating sharing the wealth:

[quote=Palin]"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."[/quote]

Maybe you are also amongst the uninformed that you vilified in your last 2 posts..

[BrooklynBound]

[QUOTE=SMC;2843779]Republican Senator Jacob K. Javits (yep, that Javits) from New York predicted in [I]Esquire[/I] magazine in [B]1958[/B] that the US would elect its first black president in 2000. He wrote:



It's uncanny how precient Javits was. Mind you, this was written only a year after school de-segregation.[/QUOTE]

Probably picked 2000 because it sounds futuristic.

"In the year 2000.... in the year 2000..."

[Jetfan_Johnny]

"He will be well-traveled and have a keen grasp of his country's role in the world and its relationships. He will be a dedicated internationalist with working comprehension of the intricacies of foreign aid, technical assistance and reciprocal trade"


It is a shame Obama isn't any of that

[jetsfan110]

[QUOTE=CTM;2843792]So you voted for McCain/Palin then?

The same McCain who said in 2000 that the Rich should pay more taxes, just like Obama is now?

The same Palin that runs a state with no income or sales tax and distributes checks of up to $3200 a year from oil profits to the citizens, also been on record stating sharing the wealth:



Maybe you are also amongst the uninformed that you vilified in your last 2 posts..[/QUOTE]

Listen, I am not a McCain homer, I think both options were terrible. McCain should really be considered a democrat IMO, (when McCain looks conservative compared to obama...you know there has to be a problem) It was the best option open for me and I took it. The only thing I agree with McCain on is his foreign policies and the fact that he has served his country admirably.

[JTHM is HERE]

i guess being brown in America is now the worst thing to be, like myself who is mixed and only half spanish but everyone thinks im mexican and so that means i get treated just as bad as one. Also i have friends who are mixed as well, one is czech and japanese, one is japanese and german but since their skin is brown well you get the idea. So and no America wont look past a persons name since well my last name is spanish since my father is the spanish one. So maybe things can change, but it skins the blacks and the whites will diss the brownies lol. Tell me im wrong, just like that lady in the ralphs carmel mtn i only speak english and she presses the spanish button lol but i digress im still waiting for cnn's brown in america special lol. also i know i have numerous mistakes in this post it's just my listlessness that prevents me from utilizing correct grammar.

[RutgersJetFan]

[QUOTE=SMC;2843779]Republican Senator Jacob K. Javits (yep, that Javits) from New York predicted in [I]Esquire[/I] magazine in [B]1958[/B] that the US would elect its first black president in 2000. He wrote:



It's uncanny how precient Javits was. Mind you, this was written only a year after school de-segregation.[/QUOTE]

He also predicted what years black senators and justices would be elected and appointed, and he was damn close when it came to calling just how many on the congress side.

[brady's a catcher]

[QUOTE=JTHM is HERE;2843823]i guess being brown in America is now the worst thing to be, like myself who is mixed and only half spanish but everyone thinks im mexican and so that means i get treated just as bad as one. Also i have friends who are mixed as well, one is czech and japanese, one is japanese and german but since their skin is brown well you get the idea. So and no America wont look past a persons name since well my last name is spanish since my father is the spanish one. So maybe things can change, but it skins the blacks and the whites will diss the brownies lol. Tell me im wrong, just like that lady in the ralphs carmel mtn i only speak english and she presses the spanish button lol but i digress im still waiting for cnn's brown in america special lol. also i know i have numerous mistakes in this post it's just my listlessness that prevents me from utilizing correct grammar.[/QUOTE]



Ease up on the meth, son.