Republican's Still Cheatting America
NotU
eat the cost with government money. Nice to be rich!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html?_r=1&src=mv
Neolibertarian
NotU <bogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the
well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties,
just as they would any sour investment.
"'The rich are different: they are more ruthless,' said Sam Khater,
CoreLogic’s senior economist.
He's read Fitzgerald, obviously.
And Marx.
No wonder he writes for the NYT.
The "rich" aren't different. Deconstructing Fitzgerald doesn't even
require any real effort. Fitzgerald was rich.
Besides, most of the people you know whom you consider to be "rich,"
would be astonished that you'd consider them rich.
"No, I'm certainly not rich. I do okay, sure; maybe I'm what you'd call
'affluent' or 'well off,' but I'm not /rich/."
I bet if you compared what you make and how you live to what David
Streitfeld (the author of the New York Times article you linked to)
makes, and how he lives--well, I'd bet you'd think he was "rich," too.
You see, "rich" is only relative. And my misfortune was that none of
mine have any money.
:-(
The fact remains, if you buy a million dollar property, and suddenly you
find it's only worth $700,000 and and the price is declining rapidly,
you're gonna have to find a way to get rid of it.
Fast.
If you bought it as an investment property, and you borrowed the capital
in the first place, you'll just walk away from it.
You don't live there, so what's the big deal?
Well, if you default on a million dollar loan, you're pretty much done
being an investor for the next 10 years...and beyond.
Which is why the market works.
Markets correct.
Stop trying to fool them--stop trying to pass laws against corrections;
stop manipulating the markets. You ain't smart enough.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Chas. Chan
> Seems it's best to dump a bad investment and let Fanny mae and Freddy mac
> eat the cost with government money. Nice to be rich!
Bankrupt "Exploiters"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/22/bankrupt_exploiters
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/23/bankrupt_exploiters_part_ii
Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown - Clinton Democrats
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=461199&Ntt=he+Real+Culprits+In+This+Meltdown+-+Clinton+Democrats
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history
gave birth to the mortgage crisis
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo
How "Smart Growth" Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1906.cfm
How U. S. Land Use Restrictions Exacerbated the International Finance
Crisis
http://www.demographia.com/db-overhang.pdf
Who is to blame?
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/09/who-is-to-blame.html
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
The Community Reinvestment Act funnels billions to left-wing
activists, while threatening to destabilize lower-middle-class
neighborhoods.
Winter 2000
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act,
a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one
of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate
Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast
extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions,
U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-
income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it
funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups,
intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the
financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government,
rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep
homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced
today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to
undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them
with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by
not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to
foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city
neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that
might make them better off.
The Act, which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, grew out of the complaint
that urban banks were "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, refusing
to lend to their residents while using their deposits to finance
suburban expansion. CRA decreed that banks have "an affirmative
obligation" to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they
are chartered, and that federal banking regulators should assess how
well they do that when considering their requests to merge or to open
branches. Implicit in the bill's rationale was a belief that CRA was
needed to counter racial discrimination in lending, an assumption that
later seemed to gain support from a widely publicized 1990 Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston finding that blacks and Hispanics suffered
higher mortgage-denial rates than whites, even at similar income
levels.
In addition, the Act's backers claimed, CRA would be profitable for
banks. They just needed a push from the law to learn how to identify
profitable inner-city lending opportunities. Going one step further,
the Treasury Department recently asserted that banks that do figure
out ways to reach inner-city borrowers might not be able to stop
competitors from using similar methods—and therefore would not
undertake such marketing in the first place without a push from
Washington.
None of these justifications holds up, however, because of the changes
that reshaped America's banking industry in the 1990s. Banking in the
1970s, when CRA was passed, was a highly regulated industry in which
small, local savings banks, rather than commercial banks, provided
most home mortgages. Regulation prohibited savings banks from
branching across state lines and sometimes even limited branching
within states, inhibiting competition, the most powerful defense
against discrimination. With such regulatory protection, savings banks
could make a comfortable profit without doing the hard work of finding
out which inner-city neighborhoods and borrowers were good risks and
which were not. Savings banks also had reason to worry that if they
charged inner-city borrowers a higher rate of interest to balance the
additional risk of such lending, they might jeopardize the protection
from competition they enjoyed. Thanks to these artificially created
conditions, some redlining of creditworthy borrowers doubtless
occurred.
The insular world of the savings banks collapsed in the early
nineties, however, the moment it was exposed to competition. Banking
today is a far more wide-open industry, with banks offering mortgages
through the Internet, where they compete hotly with aggressive online
mortgage companies. Standardized, computer-based scoring systems now
rate the creditworthiness of applicants, and the giant, government-
chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped create huge pools of
credit by purchasing mortgage loans and packaging large numbers of
them together into securities for sale to bond buyers. With such
intense competition for profits and so much money available to lend,
it's hard to imagine that banks couldn't instantly figure out how to
market to minorities or would resist such efforts for fear of
inspiring imitators. Nor has the race discrimination argument for CRA
held up. A September 1999 study by Freddie Mac, for instance,
confirmed what previous Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation studies had found: that African-Americans have
disproportionate levels of credit problems, which explains why they
have a harder time qualifying for mortgage money. As Freddie Mac
found, blacks with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 a year have on
average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas had it right when it said—in a
paper pointedly entitled "Red Lining or Red Herring?"—"the CRA may not
be needed in today's financial environment to ensure all segments of
our economy enjoy access to credit." True, some households—those with
a history of credit problems, for instance, or those buying homes in
neighborhoods where re-selling them might be difficult—may not qualify
for loans at all, and some may have to pay higher interest rates, in
reflection of higher risk. But higher rates in such situations are
balanced by lower house prices. This is not a conspiracy against the
poor; it's how markets measure risk and work to make credit available.
Nevertheless, until recently, the CRA didn't matter all that much.
During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory.
Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach
their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented
newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of
local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state
of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the
banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury
Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating
much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment
measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use
federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and
race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for
effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would
count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks
invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they
operate branches in those neighborhoods?
Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to
take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA
evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express
their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the
lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target
institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups
that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration
regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community
Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for
community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion
call to its members in a leaflet entitled "The New CRA Regulations:
How Community Groups Can Get Involved." "Timely comments," the NCRC
observed with a certain understatement, "can have a strong influence
on a bank's CRA rating."
The Clinton administration's get-tough regulatory regime mattered so
crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-
mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by
NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by
Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part,
on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or
delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending
institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with
community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to
intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have
been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital,
which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage
seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million
commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood
Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the
Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen
Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union
Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city.
Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts
Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage
money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
In addition to providing the nonprofits with mortgage money to
disburse, CRA allows those organizations to collect a fee from the
banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking
Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far
has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups
involved. To deal with such groups and to produce CRA compliance data
for regulators, banks routinely establish separate CRA departments. A
CRA consultant industry has sprung up to assist them. New financial-
services firms offer to help banks that think they have a CRA problem
make quick "investments" in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to get
into compliance.
The result of all this activity, argues the CEO of one midsize bank,
is that "banks are promising to make loans they would have made
anyway, with some extra aggressiveness on risky mortgages thrown in."
Many bankers—and even some CRA advocates—share his view. As one Fed
economist puts it, the assertion that CRA was needed to force banks to
see profitable lending opportunities is "like saying you need the
rooster to tell the sun to come up. It was going to happen anyway."
And indeed, a survey of the lending policies of Chicago-area mortgage
companies by a CRA-connected community group, the Woodstock Institute,
found "a tendency to lend in a wide variety of neighborhoods"—even
though the CRA doesn't apply to such lenders.
If loans that win banks good CRA ratings were going to be made anyway,
and if most of those loans are profitable, should CRA, even if
redundant, bother anyone? Yes: because the CRA funnels billions of
investment dollars through groups that understand protest and
political advocacy but not marketing or finance. This amateur delivery
system for investment capital already shows signs that it may be going
about its business unwisely. And a quiet change in CRA's mission—so
that it no longer directs credit only to specific places, as Congress
mandated, but also to low- and moderate-income home buyers, wherever
they buy their property—greatly extends the area where these groups
can cause damage.
There is no more important player in the CRA-inspired mortgage
industry than the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of
America. Chief executive Bruce Marks has set out to become the Wal-
Mart of home mortgages for lower-income households. Using churches and
radio advertising to reach borrowers, he has made NACA a brand name
nationwide, with offices in 21 states, and he plans to double that
number within a year. With "delegated underwriting authority" from the
banks, NACA itself—not the banks—determines whether a mortgage
applicant is qualified, and it closes sales right in its own offices.
It expects to close 5,000 mortgages next year, earning a $2,000
origination fee on each. Its annual budget exceeds $10 million.
Marks, a Scarsdale native, NYU MBA, and former Federal Reserve
employee, unabashedly calls himself a "bank terrorist"—his public
relations spokesman laughingly refers to him as "the shark, the
predator," and the NACA newspaper is named the Avenger. They're not
kidding: bankers so fear the tactically brilliant Marks for his
ability to disrupt annual meetings and even target bank executives'
homes that they often call him to make deals before they announce any
plans that will put them in CRA's crosshairs. A $3 billion loan
commitment by Nationsbank, for instance, well in advance of its
announced merger with Bank of America, "was a preventive strike," says
one NACA spokesman.
Marks is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote
an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must
attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—
the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending
agreements. If applicants do buy a home through NACA, they must pledge
to assist the organization in five "actions" annually—anything from
making phone calls to full-scale "mobilizations" against target banks,
"mau-mauing" them, as sixties' radicals used to call it. "NACA
believes in aggressive grassroots advocacy," says its Homebuyer's
Workbook.
The NACA policy agenda embraces the whole universe of financial
institutions. It advocates tough federal usury laws, restrictions on
the information that banks can provide to credit-rating services,
financial sanctions against banks with poor CRA ratings even if
they're not about to merge or branch, and the extension of CRA
requirements to insurance companies and other financial institutions.
But Marks's political agenda reaches far beyond finance. He wants, he
says, to do whatever he can to ensure that "working people have good
jobs at good wages." The home mortgage business is his tool for
political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter
registration application and states that "NACA's mission of
neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political
process. To participate you must register to vote." Marks plans to
install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of
calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress
NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter
registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so
far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers
might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies. During the
Reagan years, the Right used to talk of cutting off the flow of
federal funds to left-liberal groups, a goal called "defunding the
Left"; through the CRA, the Clinton administration has found a highly
effective way of doing exactly the opposite, funneling millions to
NACA or to outfits like ACORN, which advocates a nationalized health-
care system, "people before profits at the utilities," and a tax code
based "solely on the ability to pay."
Whatever his long-term political goals, Marks may well reshape urban
and suburban neighborhoods because of the terms on which NACA
qualifies prospective home buyers. While most CRA-supported borrowers
would doubtless find loans in today's competitive mortgage industry, a
small percentage would not, and NACA welcomes such buyers with open
arms. "Our job," says Marks, "is to push the envelope." Accordingly,
he gladly lends to people with less than $3,000 in savings, or with
checkered credit histories or significant debt. Many of his borrowers
are single-parent heads of household. Such borrowers are, Marks
believes, fundamentally oppressed and at permanent disadvantage, and
therefore society must adjust its rules for them. Hence, NACA's most
crucial policy decision: it requires no down payments whatsoever from
its borrowers. A down-payment requirement, based on concern as to
whether a borrower can make payments, is—when applied to low-income
minority buyers—"patronizing and almost racist," Marks says.
This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA
calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no
surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of
home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely
to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-
payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than
their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their
homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their
properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and
neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values
grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging
porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens,
because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.
A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should
qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the
reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices
necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance
from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly
mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of
the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who
have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better
neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income
borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods
will not remain better for long.
Because many of the activists' big-money deals with the banks are so
new, no one knows for sure exactly which neighborhoods the community
groups are flooding with CRA-related mortgages and what effect they
are having on those neighborhoods. But some suggestive early returns
are available from Massachusetts, where CRA-related advocacy has
flourished for more than a decade. A study for a consortium of banks
and community groups found that during the 1990s home purchases
financed by nonprofit lenders have overwhelmingly not been in the
inner-city areas where redlining had been suspected. Instead, 41
percent of all the loans went to the lower-middle-class neighborhoods
of Hyde Park, Roslindale, and Dorchester Center/Codman Square—Boston's
equivalent of New York's borough of Queens—and additional loans went
to borrowers moving to the suburbs. In other words, CRA lending
appears to be helping borrowers move out of inner-city neighborhoods
into better-off areas. Similarly, not-yet-published data from the
state-funded Massachusetts Housing Partnership show that many new
Dorchester Center, Roslindale, and Hyde Park home buyers came from
much poorer parts of the city, such as the Roxbury ghetto. Florence
Higgins, a home-ownership counsellor for the Massachusetts Affordable
Housing Alliance, confirms the trend, noting that many buyers she
counsels lived in subsidized rental apartments prior to buying their
homes.
This CRA-facilitated migration makes the mortgage terms of groups like
NACA particularly troubling. In a September 1999 story, the Wall
Street Journal reported, based on a review of court documents by
Boston real estate analyst John Anderson, that the Fleet Bank
initiated foreclosure proceedings against 4 percent of loans made for
Fleet by NACA in 1994 and 1995—a rate four times the industry average.
Overextended buyers don't always get much help from their nonprofit
intermediaries, either: Boston radio station WBUR reported in July
that home buyers in danger of losing their homes had trouble getting
their phone calls returned by the ACORN Housing group.
NACA frankly admits that it is willing to run these risks. It
emphasizes the virtues of the counselling programs it offers (like all
CRA groups) to prepare its typical buyer—"a hotel worker with an
income of $25K and probably some past credit problems," says a NACA
spokesman—and it operates what it calls a "neighborhood stabilization
fund" on which buyers who fall behind on payments can draw. But Bruce
Marks says that he would consider a low foreclosure rate to be a
problem. "If we had a foreclosure rate of 1 percent, that would just
prove we were skimming," he says. Accordingly, in mid-1999, 8.2
percent of the mortgages NACA had arranged with the Fleet Bank were
delinquent, compared with the national average of 1.9 percent.
"Considering our clientele," Marks asserts, "nine out of ten would
have to be considered a success."
The no-down-payment policy has sparked so sharp a division within the
CRA industry that the National Community Reinvestment Coalition has
expelled Bruce Marks and NACA from its ranks over it. The
precipitating incident: when James Johnson, then CEO of Fannie Mae,
made a speech to NCRC members on the importance of down payments to
keep mortgage-backed securities easily salable, NACA troops, in
keeping with the group's style of personalizing disputes, distributed
pictures of Johnson, captioned: "I make $6 million a year, and I can
afford a down payment. Why can't you?" Says Josh Silver, research
director of NCRC: "There is no quicker way to undermine CRA than
through bad loans." NCRC represents hundreds of smallish community
groups, many of which do insist on down payments—and many of which
make loans in the same neighborhoods as NACA and understand the risk
its philosophy poses. Still, whenever NACA opens a new branch office,
it will be difficult for the nonprofits already operating in that area
to avoid matching its come-one, come-all terms.
Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make
CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers
generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if
they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of
his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down
payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7
percent will end in foreclosure. "The problem with CRA," says an
executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that
banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA
rating." From the banks' point of view, CRA lending is simply a price
of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off.
The growth in very large banks—ones most likely to sign major CRA
agreements—also means that those advancing the funds for CRA loans are
less likely to have to worry about the effects of those loans going
bad: such loans will be a small portion of their lending portfolios.
Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: "The bulk of
these loans," notes a Federal Reserve economist, "have been made
during a period in which we have not experienced an economic
downturn." The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America's own
success stories make you wonder how much CRA-related carnage will
result when the economy cools. The group likes to promote, for
instance, the story of Renea Swain-Price, grateful for NACA's
negotiating on her behalf with Fleet Bank to prevent foreclosure when
she fell behind on a $1,400 monthly mortgage payment on her three-
family house in Dorchester. Yet NACA had no qualms about arranging the
$137,500 mortgage in the first place, notwithstanding the fact that
Swain-Price's husband was in prison, that she'd had previous credit
problems, and that the monthly mortgage payment constituted more than
half her monthly salary. The fact that NACA has arranged an agreement
to forestall foreclosure does not inspire confidence that she will
have the resources required to maintain her aging frame house: her new
monthly payment, in recognition of previously missed payments, is
$1,879.
Even if all the CRA-related loans marketed by nonprofits were to turn
out fine, the CRA system is still troubling. Like affirmative action,
it robs the creditworthy of the certain knowledge that they have
qualified by dint of their own effort for a first home mortgage, a
milestone in any family's life. At the same time, it sends the message
that this most important milestone has been provided through the
beneficence of government, devaluing individual accomplishment.
Perhaps the Clinton White House sees this as a costless way to use the
banking system to create a new crop of passionate Democratic
loyalists, convinced that CRA has delivered them from an uncaring
Mammon—when, in all likelihood, banks would have been eager to have
most of them as customers, regulation or no.
CRA also serves to enforce misguided views about how cities should
develop, or redevelop. Consider the "investment" criterion—the loans
to commercial borrowers rather than individual home buyers—that
constitutes 25 percent of the record on which banks are judged in
their compliance review. The Comptroller of the Currency's office
makes clear that it is not interested in just any sort of investment
in so-called underserved neighborhoods. Investment in a new apartment
building or shopping center might not count, if it would help change a
poor neighborhood into a more prosperous one, or if it is not directly
aimed at serving those of low income. Regulators want banks to invest
in housing developments built through nonprofit community development
corporations. Banks not only receive CRA credit for such "investment"—
which they can make anywhere in the country, not just in their backyard
—but they also receive corporate tax credits for it, through the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit. Banks have little incentive to make sure
such projects are well managed, since they get their tax credits and
CRA credits up front.
This investment policy misunderstands what is good for cities and for
the poor. Cities that are alive are cities in flux, with neighborhoods
rising and falling, as tastes and economies change. This ceaseless
flux is a process, as Jane Jacobs brilliantly described it in The
Economy of Cities, that fuels investment, creates jobs, and sparks
innovative adaptation of older buildings to new purposes. Those of
modest means benefit both from the new jobs and from being able to
rent or purchase homes in once-expensive neighborhoods that take on
new roles. The idea that it is necessary to flash-freeze certain
neighborhoods and set them aside for the poor threatens to disrupt
urban vitality and the renewal that comes from the individual plans
and efforts of a city's people.
But keeping these neighborhoods forever poor is the CRA vision. CRA
will help virtually any lower-income family that can come close to
affording a mortgage payment to purchase a home, often in a non-poor
neighborhood. Thanks to CRA-driven bank investment, poor neighborhoods
would then fill up with subsidized rental complexes, presumably for
those poor families who can't earn enough even to get a subsidized,
easy credit mortgage. The effects of all this could be to undermine
lower-middle-class neighborhoods by introducing families not prepared
for home ownership into them and to leave behind poor neighborhoods in
which low-income apartments, filled with the worst-off and least
competent, stand alone—hardly a recipe for renewal.
It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so
firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully
does it serve Democratic Party interests. When Senator Gramm attacked
the CRA for its role in funding advocacy groups and for the burden it
imposes on banks, the Clinton administration fought back furiously,
willing to let the crucial Financial Services Modernization Act, to
which Gramm had attached his CRA changes, die, unless Gramm dropped
demands that, for instance, CRA reviews become less frequent. In the
end, Gramm, despite his key position as the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (even the committee's
name reflects a CRA consciousness) and his willingness to hold repeal
of the Glass-Steagal Act hostage to CRA reform, could only manage to
require community groups to make public their agreements with banks,
disclosing the size of their loan commitments and fees.
A new president should push for outright abolition of the CRA. Failing
that, he could simply instruct the Treasury to roll back the
compliance criteria to their more relaxed, pre-Clintonian level. But
to make the case for repeal—and ensure that some future Democratic
president couldn't simply reimpose Clinton's rules—he might test the
basic premise of the Community Reinvestment Act: that the banking
industry serves the rich, not the poor. He could carry out a
controlled experiment requiring no CRA lending in six Federal Reserve
districts, while CRA remains in force in six others. A comparison of
lending records would show whether there is any real case for CRA. In
addition, CRA regulators should require nonprofit groups with large
CRA-related loan commitments to track and report foreclosure and
delinquency rates. For it is these that will reflect the true threat
that CRA poses, a threat to the health of cities.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Kevin Cunningham
> On Jul 10, 1:47 am, NotU <bogus4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Community Reinvestment Act funnels billions to left-wing
> activists, while threatening to destabilize lower-middle-class
> neighborhoods.
>
> Winter 2000
>
Cite the section in the Community Reinvestment Act that "....funnels
billions to left-wing activists.....".
Come filth ridden pig, come up with the section. Or is it that you
can't do it. You were told that this happened but you just don't know
how.
So why do we obey a law that doesn't exist? Interesting.......
While we are waiting for pig boui to come up with the appropriate
legal section we can all wonder at the repugs. They claim that there
is wording in the Community Reinvestment Act that makes banks give
money to evil doers, what they haven't done in the two years I've been
asking the same question is come up with the code section, heck, any
code section.
Maybe they just can't because there is no code section, it's all a
lie. They lied, they lose. Or perhaps its a question of timing.
They are too busy sucking off their boy friends, they just don't have
the time.
dxAce
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
Doesn't your pal Barney Frank suck off his boy friends, you stinking piece of
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist piece of shit?
Brian Wraith
> Come filth ridden pig
Let me guess, you are 5'3", a virgin, got picked on by bullies when you
were in school and no one ever listens to anything you say.
Stop all the name calling and just discuss things like an adult.
Neolibertarian
<chine.bleu-B0E33...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bone China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <c0bda$4c385461$18f55223$19...@allthenewsgroups.com>,
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact remains, if you buy a million dollar property, and suddenly you
> > find it's only worth $700,000 and and the price is declining rapidly,
> > you're gonna have to find a way to get rid of it.
> >
> > Fast.
>
> What about moral hazard and all that?
>
> http://www.lender411.com/mortgage-articles/431/Home-Abandonment-is-Not-the-Ans
> wer
> /
>
> Homeowners, upside down in their mortgages, are just saying "oh forget it"
> and
> walking away from their homes. Being upside down means owing more than the
> home
> is worth. It also apparently means that you can disregard any sense of
> responsibility you have to the people you took a loan out from.
Freedom means consequences.
A bank won't loan $1 million to you again. Next time you go begging for
a loan, you'll have to be 70%+ collateralized before they'll even give
you the time of day.
It's not a moral hazard, it a hazard of the conditions of this universe.
Everyone engages in risk in the free market. Some win, some lose.
It's the sine qua non of wealth.
>
> Maybe the rich really are different from the rest of us: they can't afford
> the
> morality they demand of rest of us.
The rich hate capitalism even more than you.
sillapond
> On Jul 10, 10:25 am, "Chas. Chan"<tianmei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 1:47 am, NotU<bogus4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> The Community Reinvestment Act funnels billions to left-wing
>> activists, while threatening to destabilize lower-middle-class
>> neighborhoods.
>>
>> Winter 2000
>>
>
> Cite the section in the Community Reinvestment Act that "....funnels
> billions to left-wing activists.....".
>
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a
once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of
the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate
Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion
scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have
committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and
has sprung up to assist them. New financial-services firms offer to help
Chief executive Bruce Marks has set out to become the Wal-Mart of home
no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather
monthly mortgage payment on her three-family house in Dorchester. Yet
dxAce
Paul Briskette wrote:
> And I bet your a fat twice divorced quasi disabled hamsexy guy living
> alone in a run down mobile home living off a welfare or SOCIAL security
> check and all your neighbors run when your outside cause your the town
> Crazy
Just why do you clown 'tard socialists run down Social Security? It's the one
benefit that has been paid for via payroll tax.
It ain't Welfare, 'tard boy.
Kevin Cunningham
Why? Isn't Larry Craig queer enough for you?
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years. My
sexuality isn't in doubt.
Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality? How about Foley and
Craig? Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
Look, hypocrite, you are happy to be in a party of closet queens, you
are happy to be in a party of tea bagger segregationists and you are
happy to be in a party of Mexican hating racist. So when you and your
repug buddies decide to just talk, I would be happy to have a
discussion with you.
But would you really be happy not to be a hypocrite? Would you admit
that the Bush years were an abysmal mistake? Would you admit that the
tea party is a classic political mistake?
Or are you just another repug?
Neolibertarian
<chine.bleu-0A7DF...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bone China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <cb257$4c389542$18f55223$20...@allthenewsgroups.com>,
> Like the complete collapse of the financial sector.
That only happens in a corporatist system.
I guess the nice thing in corporatism is you and I and our $trillions
(and, of course, our childens' $trillions) were there to cushion the
fall.
Not according to me--according to you it was a "nice thing."
You're the one who wants safety nets...to protect you from yourself.
sillapond
> I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years. My
> sexuality isn't in doubt.
>
No, just your sanity - and trust me YOU are an emotional wreck.
At your age I suspect it's a toxic mix of low testosterone, prostate
troubles, and concomitant impotence that has you raging at everything
here like a rabid Chihuahua.
What a sad, angry old fart you are.
You'd die of a heart attack if someone here called you on your sick
insults in person, child.
How can anyone live to your age and have acquired so very little
emotional maturity?
sillapond
We all know how much you hate gays - I suspect that your impotence and
sexual ambiguity plays into that.
m II
> Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality? How about Foley and
> Craig? Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
I must protest in the strongest terms. Mister Guckert/Gannon is merely a
business man. Why should his sexual orientation be challenged because of
a few anal encounters with/by Heads of state?
For all we know, he even restricted his Bush appointments to simple oral
stimulation of the Chief's shaft. He probably also performed janitorial
service at night, so had access to the White House at any time.
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/gannongate.html
I"m sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this, also:
mike
dxAce
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:18 am, Brian Wraith <brianwra...@newzealand.invalid>
> wrote:
> > On 7/10/2010 8:14 AM, Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > > Come filth ridden pig
> >
> > Let me guess, you are 5'3", a virgin, got picked on by bullies when you
> > were in school and no one ever listens to anything you say.
> >
> > Stop all the name calling and just discuss things like an adult.
>
> I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years. My
> sexuality isn't in doubt.
>
> Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality? How about Foley and
> Craig? Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
How about Barney, known queer?
The PHANTOM
> eat the cost with government money. Nice to be rich!
>
Did Obama's buddy Franklin Raines ever return the $90 million he
embezzled from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac ???
Joe from Kokomo
>
>> Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality? How about Foley
>> and Craig? Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
On 7/10/2010 7:10 PM, m II wrote:
> I must protest in the strongest terms. Mister Guckert/Gannon is
> merely a business man. Why should his sexual orientation be
> challenged because of a few anal encounters with/by Heads of state?
>
> For all we know, he even restricted his Bush appointments to simple
> oral stimulation of the Chief's shaft. He probably also performed
> janitorial service at night, so had access to the White House at any
> time.
>
> http://mindprod.com/ggloss/gannongate.html
>
> I"m sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this, also:
>
> http://snipurl.com/z8iyu
Hmmm....
A male homosexual prostitute that was a -fake- reporter being given a
free pass to the Bush White House. The American public certainly was
owed an explanation -- which they *NEVER* received.
While we are on the subject, if someone would have told me that G.W.
Bush had a fetish for bald male heads, I would have just written it off
as political sour grapes.
However, it is *clear* that G.W. Bush *does* have a fetish for bald male
heads. I never would a thunk it until the URLs posted above show
*numerous* public domain press pictures of Bush kissing, fondling and
otherwise man-handling a variety of bald heads.
I wonder how all the Bush lovers out there in net-land will try and spin
all those pictures...???
Heck of job, Georgie!
Kevin Cunningham
How about your pals Foley and Craig? Heck, you filth are about to
vote for a real repug favorite, Vitter, a whore humper. He's the
favorite in the Louisiana repug senate primary. So you scum will
elect a whore monger.
And that's the best you could come up with? Hey, you have Ensign
still running around. And you used to be the Party of Morality!
Kevin Cunningham
What I have is basic morality and courage. You lack both. For
instance I use my real name, I'm not a gutless coward afraid to use my
real name, I didn't have to make up a name to hide behind. Then there
is the fact that I have fought honorably against the scourge of war.
You haven't the guts, the basic courage, to go and fight in a war you
support.
Face, scum, you are a hypocrite at best.
m II
> What I have is basic morality and courage. You lack both. For
> instance I use my real name, I'm not a gutless coward afraid to use my
> real name, I didn't have to make up a name to hide behind. Then there
> is the fact that I have fought honorably against the scourge of war.
> You haven't the guts, the basic courage, to go and fight in a war you
> support.
>
> Face, scum, you are a hypocrite at best.
Not so fast, Super Hero.
Before the invasion of Afghanistan, I used my real name. I even used my
real email address. Once the newsgroup lunatics discovered they couldn't
get me to jump on the 'Let's Bomb Islamics' bandwagon, they started
sending me literature.
That literature was mainly in the form of pornographic filth, covering
everything from paedophilia to bestiality. To this day I can't see how
that was supposed to sway my opinion. It had the opposite effect.
Not ONE of your fellow travelers had the 'basic courage' to use THEIR
real names.
That whole needless Afghan/Iraq episode was started by deviants in the
pursuit of big money. The Taliban were in Texas two weeks before the
declaration of war, trying to get the Texans to match the Brazilian
offer on those two pipelines. Osama Bin Ladin also supported the
Brazilian's offer. The Texans didn't want to diminish their earnings and
TOLD the Taliban what would come down if they didn't sign.
Do your homework.
mike
sillapond
> On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, sillapond<i...@val.id> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2010 03:04 PM, Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years. My
>>> sexuality isn't in doubt.
>>
>> No, just your sanity - and trust me YOU are an emotional wreck.
>>
>> At your age I suspect it's a toxic mix of low testosterone, prostate
>> troubles, and concomitant impotence that has you raging at everything
>> here like a rabid Chihuahua.
>>
>> What a sad, angry old fart you are.
>>
>> You'd die of a heart attack if someone here called you on your sick
>> insults in person, child.
>>
>> How can anyone live to your age and have acquired so very little
>> emotional maturity?
>
> What I have is basic morality and courage.
It is to laugh, your amorality is the beacon of your posting here.
> You lack both.
Rage on, you impotent OLD coot.
> For instance I use my real name,
So you CLAIM, but then how we would we verify that, sans an address and
home phone number?
> I'm not a gutless coward afraid to use my
> real name,
No, you're a gutless coward who thinks using a name will render your
impotent name-calling and threats somehow morally palatable.
> I didn't have to make up a name to hide behind.
Yet you are hiding behind a name - one we have no real world address to
attach to nor telephone number.
Until you supply those your claims are summarily REJECTED as evidence of
nothing more than a made up identity.
> Then there
> is the fact that I have fought honorably against the scourge of war.
So you CLAIM...which, given your spittle-laden rants may or may not be
truth.
> You haven't the guts, the basic courage, to go and fight in a war you
> support.
You must despise the elderly, disabled, and EMTs and housewives who also
support our troops, if not every political decision made for them, am I
right rager?
> Face, scum, you are a hypocrite at best.
And you are an impotent old man whose life has degenerated into senile
dementia - this medium providing little more than a virtual whipping
post for your own irrelevance and rage.
You have made yourself into a risible charicature of the hateful
curmudgeon down the block who yells at the kids playing in the street
and curses the m,mailman for not bringing him more catalogs.
Truly, you are a pitiful laughing stock here.
sillapond
> Heck, you filth are about to
Understand, old man, everyone here now knows you are in your 60s,
suffering from senile dementia, sputtering rage against your own
impotence, and incapable of enjoying life in the slightest any more -
hence your billious fits of partisan rage here. All a displacment
activity allowing you to project your inability to control your own
life, waning libido, and growing prostate onto a convenient whipping
post - conservatives.
You exist as little more than a spittle-rimmed, tantrum-laden,
intolerant old curmudgeon, a veritable Walt Kowalski, minus the
benevolent instincts and bereft of the slightest means to defend
yourself against the debating acumen of even the most enfeebled
participants here.
What a sad old fool you are.
RHF
> Seems it's best to dump a bad investment and let Fanny mae and Freddy mac
> eat the cost with government money. Nice to be rich!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html?_r=1&s...
Michael J. Williams - Head of Fannie Mae
-a-so-called- Friend of Barack & Joe . . .
* The so-called 'independent' Fannie Mae Board
-majority-so-called- Big Money Friends of Barack & Joe . . .
The Obama Regime the most Corrupt, Politicized
and Polluted Federal Government in the 21st Century
The Obama [BP] Oil Spill of 2010...
Prez Obama makes PayOila the only action
Charles E. "Ed" Haldeman, Jr. - Head of Freddie Mac
-a-so-called- Friend of Barack & Joe . . .
* The so-called 'independent' Freddie Mac Board
-majority-so-called- Big Money Friends of Barack & Joe . . .
The Obama Regime the most Corrupt, Politicized
and Polluted Federal Government in the 21st Century
The Obama [BP] Oil Spill of 2010...
Prez Obama makes PayOila the only action
The US Congress' Millionaires Club has a
majority of Democrats and yes they are
-a-so-called- Friend of Barack & Joe . . .
The Obama Regime the most Corrupt, Politicized
and Polluted Federal Government in the 21st Century
The Obama [BP] Oil Spill of 2010...
Prez Obama makes PayOila the only action
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
.
RHF
> On Jul 10, 11:18 am, Brian Wraith <brianwra...@newzealand.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On 7/10/2010 8:14 AM, Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>
> > > Come filth ridden pig
>
> > Let me guess, you are 5'3", a virgin, got picked on by bullies when you
> > were in school and no one ever listens to anything you say.
>
> > Stop all the name calling and just discuss things like an adult.
>
> I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 40 years. My
> sexuality isn't in doubt.
>
- Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality?
- How about Foley and Craig?
- Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
OK so someone wants to bring up the name of
"Jeff Gannon" and the question of who is 'gay'
{or on the Down-Low} in Washington DC . . .
http://www.fuckyouobama.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/obama-gay.jpg
.
The Low Down on the "Down-Low" : Jeff Gannon
-versus- Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster
-wrt- Jeff Gannon (real name James Guckert)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
.
So it's the old guilt-by-ass-sociation Gay Charges
concerning Bush & Cheney; republicans et al.
- - - while Jeff Gannon said nothing...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_H_rVDlsennM/SdNbW7G_nOI/AAAAAAAAMgM/jD69ajYiFtc/s400/obama-gay.jpg
.
Well here are some actual 'real' allegations about
Question : Is Prez Obama On-the-Down-Low ?
-aka- The ObamaSexual© { Gay / Bisexual }
http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/gay-obama1.jpg
.
* Yes Larry Sinclair Is Talking . . .
about the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GquA1sObQq8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bPwH8_piaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8g5IqspsxI
.
and Frankie Schuster is Talking too . . .
about the Obama and the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIklJxXCHzY
.
Document after Document Says So . . .
about the Barack and the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvVEzb0edPE
.
Fact after Fact Says So . . .
about the 'You-Know-Who' and the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6cwJ5ZK64
.
Video after Video Says So . . .
about the Mister Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0DvHgMugY
.
Allegation after Allegation Says So . . .
about the That Certain Someone and the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-1SzPq37w
.
Allegation after Allegation Says It Just Might Be So . . .
Yes We Are Talking About the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bPwH8_piaA
.
The Truth is the Truth so it just may be . . .
True about the You-Know-Who and the Down-Low
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=redxWMNMS0U
.
Larry Sinclair Talks About The ObamaSexual©
at the National Press Club Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6w4Dl8QcY0
---but... Larry Sinclair Failed the Lie-Detector Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8Ys8iXTiU
--- Another Look Rense & Tarpley on Larry Sinclair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6sy61ASW6k&NR=1
.
Front Page News in The Globe {World}
and now you Know about Prez Obama
and the Down Low
http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obama_gay_sex_scandal_the_globe_20090225.jpg
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
? How Down-Low Can Your Prez-A-Duntz Go !
.
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
.
>
RHF
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> > What I have is basic morality and courage. You lack both. For
> > instance I use my real name, I'm not a gutless coward afraid to use my
> > real name, I didn't have to make up a name to hide behind. Then there
> > is the fact that I have fought honorably against the scourge of war.
> > You haven't the guts, the basic courage, to go and fight in a war you
> > support.
>
> > Face, scum, you are a hypocrite at best.
>
> Not so fast, Super Hero.
>
> Before the invasion of Afghanistan, I used my real name. I even used my
> real email address. Once the newsgroup lunatics discovered they couldn't
> get me to jump on the 'Let's Bomb Islamics' bandwagon, they started
> sending me literature.
>
> That literature was mainly in the form of pornographic filth, covering
> everything from paedophilia to bestiality. To this day I can't see how
> that was supposed to sway my opinion. It had the opposite effect.
>
> Not ONE of your fellow travelers had the 'basic courage' to use THEIR
> real names.
- That whole needless Afghan/Iraq episode was
- started by deviants in the pursuit of big money.
- The Taliban were in Texas two weeks before the
- declaration of war, trying to get the Texans to
- match the Brazilian offer on those two pipelines.
- Osama Bin Ladin also supported the Brazilian's
- offer. The Texans didn't want to diminish their
- earnings and TOLD the Taliban what would come
- down if they didn't sign.
-
- Do your homework.
-
- mike
Mike [M II] - I glad to see that Prez Obama has
'Changed' all that; and put an end to all - pbhn ~ RHF
.
Joe from Kokomo
> The Obama Regime the most Corrupt, Politicized and Polluted Federal
> Government in the 21st Century
The country was EXTREMELY divided (or as you would say, "politicized")
under G.W. Bush, more so than any President since Lincoln and the Civil War.
Corrupt? If you want to address "corrupt", why don't you start with
telling us why Gannon/Guckert, the homosexual male prostitute pretending
to be a reporter, had a free pass to the Bush White House. Just in case
you have a short (or no) memory, the Bush regime had *plenty* of
corruption to go around, eight year's worth compared to Obama's one year.
Pollution? Did your short (or non-existent) memory forget about Bush
wanting to pass legislation that would allow mountain tops to be
stripped bare? That he supported legislation weakening the EPA?
My, my...how (conveniently) forgetful of you.
> The Obama [BP] Oil Spill of 2010...
The "Obama" oil spill?
Really now...
Please explain why it is "Obama's oil spill". Did he give the North
Korean sub the coordinates to the well so they could blow it up?
Bwahahahaha...
Was he on the platform and told them to keep drilling, even though there
were indications of trouble?
Did the drilling rules change in the one year Obama was in Office?
Answer: No!
Were they drilling under the rules in place when Bush was in office?
Answer: Yes!
So, why wouldn't this then be "Bush's oil spill", hmmm?
Roy, you whine about "politicized" and yet when I look up the word in my
dictionary, they have -your- picture! :-)
RHF
- - Kevin Cunningham wrote:
- - Now do you want to discuss Limbaugh's sexuality?
- - How about Foley and Craig?
- - Or Junior Report Jeff Gannon?
-
- I must protest in the strongest terms.
- Mister Guckert/Gannon is merely a business man.
- Why should his sexual orientation be challenged
- because of a few anal encounters with/by Heads of state?
-
- For all we know, he even restricted his Bush
- appointments to simple oral stimulation of the
- Chief's shaft. He probably also performed janitorial
- service at night, so had access to the White
- House at any time.
-
- http://mindprod.moc/ggloss/gannongate.html
-
- I"m sure there is a perfectly good explanation
- for this, also:
-
- http://snipurl.moc/z8iyu
-
- mike
The Low Down on the "Down-Low" : Jeff Gannon
-versus- Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5b9c0f2d15109425
.
Front Page News in The Globe {Da World}
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/obamas-gay-nightmare-still-waiting-for.html
and now you Know the Low Down {and the
Down-Low} about Prez Obama
RHF
> In article <a4401045-8864-4f68-9dee-16056615c...@e29g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > OK so someone wants to bring up the name of
> > "Jeff Gannon" and the question of who is 'gay'
> > {or on the Down-Low} in Washington DC . . .
>
- hypocritically attacks what they themselves are.
So you are an equal denier . . .
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
So you are an equal denier . . .
RHF
> On 7/11/2010 2:30 PM, RHF wrote:
>
> > The Obama Regime the most Corrupt, Politicized and Polluted Federal
> > Government in the 21st Century
>
> The country was EXTREMELY divided (or as you would say, "politicized")
> under G.W. Bush, more so than any President since Lincoln and the Civil War.
And now we are Obama-Nized and Hyper Divided by
the Worshipers of Obama and those who Reject the
False God of those who worship The Obama . . .
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
.
> Corrupt? If you want to address "corrupt", why don't you start with
> telling us why Gannon/Guckert, the homosexual male prostitute pretending
> to be a reporter, had a free pass to the Bush White House. Just in case
> you have a short (or no) memory, the Bush regime had *plenty* of
> corruption to go around, eight year's worth compared to Obama's one year.
? Corrupt ? Prez Obama on the "Down-Low" :
Jeff Gannon who said nothing -versus-
Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster who are Telling It All !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5b9c0f2d15109425
Hey -Maybe they are all Lying . . . -or- then again
just maybe they are all telling the truth . . .
? I can consider that they may both be telling
the truth ? -while- you are groveling at the feet
to The Obama anointing them with oil and
and praising his name.
The Low Down on the "Down-Low" :
Jeff Gannon -versus- Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5b9c0f2d15109425
> Pollution? Did your short (or non-existent) memory forget about Bush
> wanting to pass legislation that would allow mountain tops to be
> stripped bare? That he supported legislation weakening the EPA?
-note- Prez Nixon 'created' the EPA . . .
Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the
Eco-System of the Entire Gulf of Mexico for the
$20B of pocket 'change' from BP . . .
-did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
Prez Obama the Biggest Environmental Criminal
of the 21st Century and the Obama Regime so
corrupt that they turn the whole Gulf of Mexico
into to an Environmental Waste Land . . .
for a little BP -chump-change-
> My, my...how (conveniently) forgetful of you.
My my... how (conveniently) you do not see
while you worship at the feet of Prez Obama.
> > The Obama [BP] Oil Spill of 2010...
>
> The "Obama" oil spill?
Yeah the Obama [BP} Oil Spill -aka- PayOila !
> Really now...
>
> Please explain why it is "Obama's oil spill". Did he give the North
> Korean sub the coordinates to the well so they could blow it up?
> Bwahahahaha...
Ah the Obama-Nistas bring up the mythical
"North Korean Sub" to deflect, confuse while
obliterate the truth PREZ OBAMA HAS DONE
nothing, Nothing. NOTHING !
TO STOP THE "BP" OIL SPILL IN THE GULF
TO CLEAN-UP THE "BP" TROXIC MESS IN THE GULF
-while- Taking 'BP's Hush Money . . .
-that-is-why- It Is Now The Obama [BP] Oil Spill !
-allowing a Media Black-Out by BP and using
the US Federal Government as BP Enforcers
to keep the Media and the Public from Telling
the Truth about the Toxic Situation in the Gulf.
>
> Was he on the platform and told them to keep drilling,
> even though there were indications of trouble?
Dang the Question is not what happen before the
BP Oil Spill - Hello Yes I Said "The BP Oil Spill" !
The reality {Bigger Question} is What Has Happen
After {Yes After} the BP Oil Spill and -wrt- Prez Obama
saying I'm In-Charge : and doing nothing Nothing. NOTHING !
* Prez Obama's Failure of Leadership
-saying- BP will handle it . . .
* Prez Obama's Doing Nothing
-and- letting BP control the whole mess . . .
* Prez Obama's Failure to Stop the Leaks
-while- BP fails time an time again . . .
* Prez Obama's Total Lack of Clean-Up Efforts
-and- blaming BP over and over again . .
* Prez Obama Extorting $20B {of Un-Marked Bills}
out of BP while the Oil is still Oozing out ot the Gulf . . .
- Did the drilling rules change in the one year
- Obama was in Office?
- Answer: No!
Yeah You are right Prez Obama Promised 'Change'
and Delivered Nothing -but- PayOila and Corruption.
- Were they drilling under the rules in place when
- Bush was in office?
- Answer: Yes!
Oh they would be the Rules that Pelosi and Reid
{the US Congress} passed into Law and oversaw.
- So, why wouldn't this then be "Bush's oil spill", hmmm?
D'Oh ! -cause- the Year is 20&10 and Prez Obama
has been the US President for more than one year.
hummm, Hummm. HUMMM ! -bug- ~ RHF
- Roy, you whine about "politicized"
- and yet when I look up the word in my
- dictionary, they have -your- picture! :-)
Dang WikiPedia shows Rahm Emanuals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel
"politicized" alter-ego {a dead fish} and
Rahm's hand up Prez Obama's Ass as
Soros' Puppet Master . . .
.
RHF
> dxAce wrote:
>
> > Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> >> The "Obama" oil spill?
>
> > Yep, cause all the inspectors were under the clown 'tards control.
>
> > Ya got the Office, ya control it.
>
> > Get over it, yer Wonder Boy owns it.
>
> It was not the inspectors' job to stop exchanging seawater for drilling
> mud when the well started to kick at 8:30 PM CDT on 20 April.
- I don't think Obama was consulted either.
Prez Obama was out playing Golf; Sightseeing in
Chicagoland and having a Paul McCartney Event
instead of minding the Gulf . . .
Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
.
Joe from Kokomo
> Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the Eco-System of the
> Entire Gulf of Mexico for the $20B of pocket 'change' from BP . . .
> -did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
What ever are you talking about? The $20B is in *escrow*...for the
citizens and businesses that were damaged. Obama doesn't get a nickel of it.
And what ever do you mean that Obama "allowed it"? Are you claiming he
WANTED the spill to happen? If you are saying that, what is his reason,
his motive? And even assuming your lunatic theory is true (and it
isn't), why ever would BP agree to go along with it? Why would they put
their entire corporation at risk of being taken over or going bankrupt???
> Prez Obama the Biggest Environmental Criminal of the 21st Century
> and the Obama Regime so corrupt that they turn the whole Gulf of
> Mexico into to an Environmental Waste Land . . . for a little BP
> -chump-change-
Roy...in all honesty, all I can say is "Huh?"
What in heaven's name are you even talking about?
Like with any "crime", there has to be a -motive-. What is in it for
Obama or BP to purposely wreck the Gulf of Mexico? I am 110% sure that
Obama would have preferred this NOT to have happened on his watch. I am
also 110% sure that BP would rather be MAKING money selling you the oil
that is leaking rather than SPENDING money to clean it up.
Please get back on your meds. They can do wonders for your paranoia.
RHF = (R)acist (H)appy (F)ool ???
dave
> Ah the Obama-Nistas bring up the mythical
> "North Korean Sub" to deflect, confuse while
> obliterate the truth PREZ OBAMA HAS DONE
> nothing, Nothing. NOTHING !
> TO STOP THE "BP" OIL SPILL IN THE GULF
> TO CLEAN-UP THE "BP" TROXIC MESS IN THE GULF
> -while- Taking 'BP's Hush Money . . .
> -that-is-why- It Is Now The Obama [BP] Oil Spill !
> -allowing a Media Black-Out by BP and using
> the US Federal Government as BP Enforcers
> to keep the Media and the Public from Telling
> the Truth about the Toxic Situation in the Gulf.
That says more about Fascism than it does about Obama. About the only
thing he can do is nationalize them. Otherwise they will ignore him
(and you, I might add).
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 7/12/2010 5:49 AM, RHF wrote:
>
>> Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the Eco-System of the
>> Entire Gulf of Mexico for the $20B of pocket 'change' from BP . . .
>> -did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
>
> What ever are you talking about? The $20B is in *escrow*...for the
> citizens and businesses that were damaged. Obama doesn't get a nickel of
> it.
>
.....And our $787Billion for TARP is where? Has it been paid back or is
Obama and company trying to use it for thing it's not been legally set
to be used for.
Obama is looking for Slush funds to get Democrats(Socialists) elected in
the fall.
Joe from Kokomo
>>
>>> Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the Eco-System of the
>>> Entire Gulf of Mexico for the $20B of pocket 'change' from BP . .
>>> . -did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
>> On 7/12/2010 7:37 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>> What ever are you talking about? The $20B is in *escrow*...for the
>> citizens and businesses that were damaged. Obama doesn't get a
>> nickel of it.
On 7/12/2010 11:57 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> .....And our $787Billion for TARP is where?
...and the TARP fund has just what to do with RHF's contention that the
Gulf mess was caused on purpose??? (the original point, in case you've
forgotten already)
> Obama is looking for Slush funds to get Democrats(Socialists)
> elected in the fall.
Well, Democrats (socialist or otherwise) DO try to get Democrats elected
in the fall -- AND Republicans try and get Republicans elected in the
fall. So, your point is...??? (and by the way, the BP $20B is NOT a
"slush fund" anyway; it is an ESCROW account for the citizens/businesses
that were damaged).
Maybe RHF will share his paranoia meds with you.
Bwahahahahaha...
Joe from Kokomo
> .....And our $787Billion for TARP is where?
From Wikipedia:
> The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP or
> RCP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets
> and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial
> sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on
> October 3, 2008.
So, before you wet your pants too much about TARP, I hope you realize
that it was a gift from George W. Bush to all his Big Business buddies.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Where's the cash?
In Obama's pocket?
Joe from Kokomo
On 7/12/2010 1:41 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Where's the cash?
> In Obama's pocket?
Hopefully in *YOUR* pocket (see the last paragraph)...and please, from
now on, try and do your own homework.
> Definition: The Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) was created
> in October 2008 as part of the $700 billion Bank Bailout bill. TARP
> originally gave banks the right to submit a bid price to sell their
> toxic mortgage-backed securities to the Treasury Dept. as part of a
> reverse auction. Banks would offer to sell each MBS package, and
> TARP administrators would select the lowest price offered. However,
> Treasury could wind up paying too much, and banks were afraid they
> wouldn't get enough, so the plan was shelved.
>
> Instead, Treasury used $105 billion of TARP funds to buy preferred
> stock in eight banks: Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, J.P.
> Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Citigroup,
> Wells Fargo, and State Street. The Capital Repurchase Program
> required banks to give the government a 5% dividend that would
> increase to 9%, encouraging banks to buy the government out. The
> government would make a profit, as bank share prices should be
> higher later.
>
> TARP funds were used to buy preferred stock in, or loans to:
>
> * AIG ($40 billion). * Community banks ($92 billion). * Big 3 auto
> companies ($24.8 billion). * Citigroup and Bank of America ($45
> billion).
>
> An additional $20 billion of TARP was loaned to the Federal Reserve
> TALF program. Only half of the $700 billion TARP bill was approved
> by Congress in 2008. The rest is unused. (Source: Treasury Dept.)
>
> President Obama wants to tax banks to repay taxpayers for $120-$141
> billion it is estimated they will lose from TARP. Obama plans to
> levy the tax over 10 years on the banks' riskiest activities, such
> as trading, and not on their retail operations, which would get
> passed on as higher prices to customers.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Banks look at tax as a cost of doing business and add that cost into
their fees.... So "We The Taxpayers" will be paying more Fees/tax to
pay ourselves back.
I have owned and run businesses and made payroll, your consumer cost of
a product is directly affected by the cost of doing business, taxes are
a cost of doing business.
Again I ask, where is our cash?
dave
> On 7/12/2010 1:24 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>> On 7/12/2010 11:57 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> .....And our $787Billion for TARP is where?
>>
>> From Wikipedia:
>>
>>> The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP or
>>> RCP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets
>>> and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial
>>> sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on
>>> October 3, 2008.
>>
>> So, before you wet your pants too much about TARP, I hope you realize
>> that it was a gift from George W. Bush to all his Big Business buddies.
>
>
> Where's the cash?
>
Beerman
I feel since the republicans have a problem with corporations paying for
their mistakes, we should levy a tax on the republican population to pay
their portion that they feel would be fair!
I could only imagine more people then now would flee the Party of Stupid
GOP!
RHF
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/2010 7:37 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > On 7/12/2010 5:49 AM, RHF wrote:
>
> >> Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the Eco-System of the
> >> Entire Gulf of Mexico for the $20B of pocket 'change' from BP . . .
> >> -did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
>
> > What ever are you talking about? The $20B is in *escrow*...for the
> > citizens and businesses that were damaged. Obama doesn't get a nickel of
> > it.
>
is
- Obama and company trying to use it for thing it's not been legally
set
- to be used for.
-
- Obama is looking for Slush funds to get
- Democrats(Socialists) elected in the fall.
and $20B of BP's PayOila Money is going
to be used to do just that . . .
WHY hasn't the US Congress taken action
to put Controls and Reporting on the BP $20B ?
remember watergate - follow the money . . . ~ RHF
.
RHF
> >> On 7/12/2010 5:49 AM, RHF wrote:
>
> >>> Versus Prez Obama allowing BP to Strip Bare the Eco-System of the
> >>> Entire Gulf of Mexico for the $20B of pocket 'change' from BP . .
> >>> . -did- Prez Obama give you some-change ? ? ?
> >> On 7/12/2010 7:37 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
> >> What ever are you talking about? The $20B is in *escrow*...for the
> >> citizens and businesses that were damaged. Obama doesn't get a
> >> nickel of it.
>
> On 7/12/2010 11:57 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> > .....And our $787Billion for TARP is where?
>
> ...and the TARP fund has just what to do with RHF's contention that the
> Gulf mess was caused on purpose??? (the original point, in case you've
> forgotten already)
>
> > Obama is looking for Slush funds to get Democrats(Socialists)
> > elected in the fall.
>
> Well, Democrats (socialist or otherwise) DO try to get Democrats elected
> in the fall -- AND Republicans try and get Republicans elected in the
> fall. So, your point is...???
- (and by the way, the BP $20B is NOT a
- "slush fund" anyway; it is an ESCROW account
- for the citizens/businesses that were damaged).
Ah yes a so-called 'escrow' account that is in
the Total Control of the Obama White House.
* No US Government Federal Laws Control It
* No Federal Rules or Regulations Govern It
* No Independent Administrator Managing It
Again WHY hasn't the US Congress taken action
{Passed a Law} to put Congressional Oversight
[OMB Controls and CBO Reporting] on the BP $20B ?
-cause- It's an Obama White House Political
Pay-Off Slush Fund ! -aka- Obama PayOila !
sort of like al gore's ss-lock-box ~ RHF
RHF
- - Where's the cash?
- Dubai
Dave - 'Dubai' ! or not 'Dubai' !
that ain't a question ;-) ~ RHF
.
RHF
> In article <965e76f1-b13d-4e09-ac1f-c12c6294b...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 6:37 pm, Bone China Blue <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a4401045-8864-4f68-9dee-16056615c...@e29g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > OK so someone wants to bring up the name of
> > > > "Jeff Gannon" and the question of who is 'gay'
> > > > {or on the Down-Low} in Washington DC . . .
>
> > - I really don't care. I only care if a person
> > - hypocritically attacks what they themselves are.
- - So you are an equal denier . . .
- I deny you are right.
while . . . I do not deny that you are wrong ;-} ~ RHF
The Low Down on the "Down-Low" : Jeff Gannon
-versus- Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5b9c0f2d15109425
.
-wrt- Jeff Gannon & Larry Sinclair & Frankie Schuster
You may believe them all . . .
You may disbelieve them all . . .
You may believe one over the other . . .
After all you have to believe in something . . .
Joe from Kokomo
> Again I ask, where is our cash?
Where is our cash?
Easy answer...
...it's in the pockets of the greedy Wall Street bastards. Guaranteed!
And I will leave it up to you to figure out if the Wall Street crooks
are Democrats or Republicans. ;-)
Beam Me Up Scotty
Why does/did Obama continue to give out our cash and lose a few billion
on the side with Democrats/Unions.....
RHF
- - On 7/12/2010 4:19 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
- - Again I ask, where is our cash?
- Where is our cash?
-
- Easy answer...
-
- ...it's in the pockets of the greedy Wall Street bastards.
Guaranteed!
-
- And I will leave it up to you to figure out if the
- Wall Street crooks are Democrats or Republicans.
- ;-)
Just a bunch of Green Weenies
http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/05/green_weenie.jpg
.
RHF
> On Jul 11, 3:14 pm, dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
>
> > dxAce wrote:
>
> > > Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > >> The "Obama" oil spill?
>
> > > Yep, cause all the inspectors were under the clown 'tards control.
>
> > > Ya got the Office, ya control it.
>
> > > Get over it, yer Wonder Boy owns it.
>
> > It was not the inspectors' job to stop exchanging seawater for drilling
> > mud when the well started to kick at 8:30 PM CDT on 20 April.
>
> - I don't thinkObamawas consulted either.
>
- Chicagoland and having a Paul McCartney Event
- instead of minding the Gulf . . .
-
- Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
- .
-news- FLOTUS Vacation -news-
[ First Lady of the United States ]
First Lady Michelle Obama takes Lavish Vacation
in Spain as America's Royal Queen Bee -buzz-
Material girl Michelle Obama is a Modern-day
Queen Marie Antoinette on a Glitzy and Luxury
Spanish Vacation
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_material_girl_michelle_obama_is_a_modernday_marie_antoinette_on_a_glitzy_spanish.html#ixzz0vka65lxZ
The US Un-Employment Rate is ~10% and
Michelle Obama goes overseas and spends
American Tax Dollars on Foreign Vacations ?
How Out-of-Touch can Michelle Obama get
with the reality of the common Hard Working
American Tax Payers who have to support
her Lavish Lifestyle ? -and- Prez Obama and
his White House Staff let her do this ? ? ?
First Lady Michelle Obama is spending the next
few days in a Five-Star * * * * * Hotel on the chic
Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her
"closest friends."
* Millionaires' Playground
* Room Rate per Night a Staggering $2,500.
* Flying in Air Force Two
* Plus Transporting and Housing the estimated
70 Secret Service Agents
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/06/michelle-obamas-lavish-spain-vacation-sparking-criticism/
Hey - Misses First Lady Michelle Obama
Ain't America's 50 Beautiful United States
Wonderful Enough For You ? ? ?
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/jay-leno-jokes-re-michelle-obama-vacation/
-O^O- Michelle Obama Watch .Com -O^O-
http://www.michelleobamawatch.com/
Meanwhile Prez Obama was out playing Golf; Fun
Raising in Chicagoland and playing Basketball.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/09/2010-08-09_after_birthday_in_chicago_for_bam_vacation_in_spain_for_gals_its____first_family.html
Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
.
© Obama-U-Nism© There Is No Deception
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e39e54fe4774d794
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
-for- all those unbelievers : the truth will set you free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
.
.
Joe from Kokomo
> First Lady Michelle Obama takes Lavish Vacation in Spain as
> America's Royal Queen Bee -buzz-
So, any First Lady that takes a vacation is a "Royal Queen Bee"? Odd,
but I don't remember you saying that about "Dime Bag" Laura Bush when
*she* took vacations.
> Material girl Michelle Obama is a Modern-day Queen Marie Antoinette
> on a Glitzy and Luxury Spanish Vacation
Odd that I don't remember you saying anything when "Dime Bag" Laura Bush
and her girls took that "Glitzy and Luxury" African vacation in 2007.
And I will bet -they- didn't stay at the Motel 6.
> The US Un-Employment Rate is ~10% and Michelle Obama goes overseas
> and spends American Tax Dollars on Foreign Vacations ?
Do you mean that 10% unemployment caused by George W. Bush's Great
Depression? The one that occurred in 4Q 2007 on W's watch? The one that
he did nothing to stop since him taking office in 2000? That Depression?
Along with various other mental issues, it appears that you are also
suffering from a very short memory.
Get kelp! :-)
sillapond
> Do you mean that 10% unemployment caused by George W. Bush's Great
> Depression?
Did HE author credit default swaps and derivatives?
No.
dave
GWB's friends most certainly did engineer the collapse. Even Greenspan
said the "invisible hand" was bullshit.
Joe from Kokomo
>> Do you mean that 10% unemployment caused by George W. Bush's Great
>> Depression?
On 8/10/2010 4:29 PM, sillapond wrote:
> Did HE author credit default swaps and derivatives?
>
> No.
1) Did it happen on HIS (W's) watch?
Yes.
2) Even if some blame it (the Depression) on Clinton legislation in
1999, W had SEVEN years to correct the problem (from 2000 to 4Q 2007).
Did he?
No.
3) sillapond wrote: "Did HE [W] author credit default swaps and
derivatives?"
Maybe not directly, but the entire mess was caused by Big Business /
Wall Street...and W was the BEST FRIEND Big Business ever had.
So, however you slice it -- W caused it directly or caused it by not
doing anything about the 1999 "Clinton legislation" -- either way, he
seems to have had a wee bit of responsibility.
Heck of a job, Georgie!
Mal Ware
> On 08/10/2010 12:51 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>> Do you mean that 10% unemployment caused by George W. Bush's Great
>> Depression?
>
> Di
Do you ever have anything of interest, or substance, to say?
You are a little dick bitch who feels like it is his civic duty as
a Usenet troll to place his nose firmly in the sphincters of those he
dislikes every time they post. They all own you, spammy.
'Shit happens'
---Traitorous 'Spammy' Sam's reply to the fact that 34 Americans
died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in
uniform.
RHF
> On Jul 12, 2:55 am,RHF<rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 3:14 pm, dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
>
> > > dxAce wrote:
>
> > > > Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > > >> The "Obama" oil spill?
>
> > > > Yep, cause all the inspectors were under the clown 'tards control.
>
> > > > Ya got the Office, ya control it.
>
> > > > Get over it, yer Wonder Boy owns it.
>
> > > It was not the inspectors' job to stop exchanging seawater for drilling
> > > mud when the well started to kick at 8:30 PM CDT on 20 April.
>
> > - I don't thinkObamawas consulted either.
>
> - Chicagoland and having a Paul McCartney Event
> - instead of minding the Gulf . . .
> -
> - .
>
> -news- FLOTUSVacation-news-
> [ First Lady of the United States ]
>
> First Lady MichelleObamatakes LavishVacation
> in Spain as America's Royal Queen Bee -buzz-
>
> Queen Marie Antoinette on a Glitzy and Luxury
>
> The US Un-Employment Rate is ~10% and
> American Tax Dollars on Foreign Vacations ?
> How Out-of-Touch can MichelleObamaget
> with the reality of the common Hard Working
> American Tax Payers who have to support
> her Lavish Lifestyle ? -and- PrezObamaand
> his White House Staff let her do this ? ? ?
>
> few days in a Five-Star * * * * * Hotel on the chic
> Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her
> "closest friends."
> * Millionaires' Playground
> * Room Rate per Night a Staggering $2,500.
> * Flying in Air Force Two
> * Plus Transporting and Housing the estimated
>
> Hey - Misses First Lady MichelleObama
> Ain't America's 50 Beautiful United States
>
> -O^O- MichelleObamaWatch .Com -O^O-http://www.michelleobamawatch.com/
>
> Meanwhile PrezObamawas out playing Golf; Fun
> Raising in Chicagoland and playing Basketball.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/09/2010-08-09_after_...
>
> PrezObama"TheVacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
> .
> ©Obama-U-Nism© There Is No Deceptionhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e39e54fe4774d794
> .
> All Hail to Our Lord and Savior PrezObama!http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
> -for- all those unbelievers : the truth will set you freehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
> .
> .
Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
* The US Royal Family On Vacation Again
-while- Millions of Americans suffer un-employment
without a job and income to support their families.
.
Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/15474f8ed7d69c77
* The US Royal Lady Takes Overseas Lavish Vacation
-while- Millions of Americans Suffer Mass Un-Employment
Without a Job and Income to Support their Families.
.
barack, Barack. BARACK ! - IT'S BARACKING TIME !
The Baracking© of Prez Obama and the Obama-Regime©
has begun : Bring-on the Ugly Dogs of Fear and Hate ! ~ RHF
-wrt- Baracking© - Shouting the Liberal Democrat Left's
Hateful and Divisive Rhetoric Back-In-Their-Face - YEAH !
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5d555266b10093d5
http://www.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/ce53aea2bfa0ea49
.
Prez Obama "The Vacation" {Play-Boy} Prez-a-Duntz !
Vineyard Resort area for the Rich and Famous
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmB5ipM0-330AC9mNlmbw_gpu9Tw
While Americans get the forced vacation of high
10% un-employment and no pay-check.
but, But. BUT ! Prez Obama had time to once again
-rotfl- Blame the Republicans for the Sick Economy
and High Un-Employment and lack of Small Business
Incentives from the Small Business Administration
and other US Government Agencies that he has had
under his {Prez Obama's} control for 19-Months.
Yah Prez Obama You The Prez-A-Duntz for 19-Months
and old prez 'what's-his-name' [Bush] is long gone . . .
Plus since 2007 both House of the US Congress have
been Totally Controlled by the Democrat Party of the
USA headed by Speaker Pelosi [D-CA] and Senator
Reid [D-NV]
* The Sick Economy is the US Congress Democrat's
Fault : They Pass the Laws and Create the Budget and
all the Prez does is Rubber Stamp them Up-or-Down
-so- Blame Speaker Pelosi [D-CA] and Senator Reid
[D-NV] and the Democrat Party of the USA.
* High Un-Employment is the US Congress Democrat's
Fault : They Pass the Laws and Create the Budget and
all the Prez does is Rubber Stamp them Up-or-Down
-so- Blame Speaker Pelosi [D-CA] and Senator Reid
[D-NV] and the Democrat Party of the USA.
* Lack of Small Business Incentives from the Small
Business Administration is the US Congress Democrat's
Fault : They Pass the Laws and Create the Budget and
all the Prez does is Rubber Stamp them Up-or-Down
-so- Blame Speaker Pelosi [D-CA] and Senator Reid
[D-NV] and the Democrat Party of the USA.
* Mort Americans on Food Stamps in History is the
US Congress Democrat's Fault : They Pass the Laws
and Create the Budget and all the Prez does is Rubber
Stamp them Up-or-Down -so- Blame Speaker Pelosi
[D-CA] and Senator Reid [D-NV] and the Democrat
Party of the USA.
.
No Jobs and High Unemployment Obama-Nomics©
Plus Obama-Tax-Slavery©
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/c0167411acc7b56b
ObamaNomics© = No Jobs and High Unemployment
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/0b57349be45d88ed
+ Creating a Culture of Joblessness, Dependency
+ and Controlling Your Every Day Life
+ Plus Taxing Every Day You Live :
= That's Obama-Tax-Slavery© !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/0864edf9bca744ca
.
The Obama 'Promises' -versus- The Obama "Reality"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/24c4972514017282
Prez Obama -says- Read My Lips . . .
I Am Gona Raise Your Taxes and then some more
.
Get Ready America -for-
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7ab4d19b5c461925
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5a2d94877b3e7fcb
The Great Obama Depression 2009 ~ 2016 and beyond...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/c699fedfd4514f49
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/0b57349be45d88ed
? Ask Yourself : Where Will Prez Obama and
The Obama Royal Family Be Vacationing in :
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 ?
-and- Will you have a Job or even an have an
a small un-employment check . . . while they
are Living Large on Your Tax Dollars ?
.
© Obama-U-Nism© There Is No Deception
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e39e54fe4774d794
Prez Obama is a Spend-It-All-ist© and Tax-It-All-ist©
Great-Leader together these are Obama-Nomics©
which results in Obama-Tax-Slavery© for all.