Copied from a user's group board : This is a part of the free weekly newsletter from Dr. Joe Duarte, who usually has some good commentary on the markets and the world: Over the weekend, we got an e-mail from a subscriber with a New York Times article from 1999, which we thought was worth passing on. The article, dated September 30, 1999 (anniversary accidental, we're sure) was "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending." The lead was innocuous enough, noting: "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." Yet, as the article progresses, things turned, as reporter Steven A. Holmes wrote: "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. And to those angry or surprised by the current events, including the $700 billion so called "bailout," we offer the following from the article: '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.'' ' And what was the purpose of the program? "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. "
So, to make it even more clear. I don't vote for someone base on whether he/she believes in abortion or GOD. I vote for someone base on whether they want to force their religious beliefs onto other people. You should do the same. Separation of church and state! Again, anybody who considers Palin qualified for the V.P. position is an idiot. I don't plan on taking this back anytime soon.
well Obama can go fuck himself ...McCain too...those two idots have no fucking clue how the markets works...
You're 110% wrong. Dr. Paul only believes abortion is not an issue for the Federal Courts. Dr. Paul has stated "abortion is murder." 2/15/2007--Introduced. Sponsor Ron Paul H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment. Now if you can find Palin saying ANYTHING DIFFERENT I'll stand corrected.
Well then I'm an idiot. Please find me a single comment regarding Palin and her opinion on abortion vis a vis' the law. Define "qualified?" I'm an IDEALOGUE. If a RETARD believes in states rights, free markets and family values then I consider him qualified. Is Biden "qualified"? Or Ted Kennedy? Obama? Not by MY criteria. Like I just posted: By ANY MEASURE: Dr. Paul has stated a more RESTRICTIVE legal view on abortion than Palin. It's you who's the idiot for not knowing their records/statements, eh?
........ Ron Paul believes that it's unconstitutional for the Federal government to get their hands on abortion issues. Period! In short he's saying "It's not my business, because even if I become the president, I have no power in deciding things like that, becuase the constitution did not gave me such power." With Ron Paul, it's all about following the constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers. Ron Paul believes that it's up to each individual state to decide whether abortions should be allowed. Again and again, he couldn't make it any more clear if you just bother to listen to him: It makes no different whether he believes it's murder or not. that's his religious belief. What matters is that the Federal government has no say in this issue. *********************** Palin, want to make all abortions illegal(including rape, but that belongs to a different debate topic). I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't even know what the Constitution of the United States of America is. ************************** For the last time, Ron Paul and Sara Palin are different not because whether they think abortion is right or wrong (that's a religious issue). They are different because one of them believes once they are elected they have the power to punish others because of what they believe in. ****************************** All of those being said, do yourself and every American a favor. Stop comparing Ron Paul to Sarah Palin. What did the old lovely man do to you to deserve this?!