Who will become the next Senator from Delaware?

[hotpprs]

Just a few points.
1) People are going to tell you how to title your posts? Just goes to show how progressives want to emulate Obama and the Democrats who don't believe in our basic freedoms.
Freedom to eat what we want, choose our health care,companies to do business the way they want. It's all about bullying and intimidation, that's how 3rd world dictators keep the peons in line. It's all about threats when they don't get their way.
2) Are the Republicans thinking of finding some way to get O'Donnell off the ticket? With what Karl Rove said, you wonder if there is a strategy to disqualify her. It doesn't make sense if she could be the tying or majority Senate seat. You have to back her even if you hate her, and say this stuff in private, or after the election. This doesn't add up.
3) The over reaction to this story by all the liberal media sites, shows just how desperate they are this year. They jump on the first early poll hoping all their influence would nip this in the bud, and influence voters to be scared of her. The same tactic they used with Sarah Palin, who is now the most influential politician in the country on the positive side. Yet they haven't learned that voters think the media is in bag for Democrats, and lean against almost every candidate they promote. They say that O'Donnell is sure to lose because of her past, yet no one knows zilch about Chris Coons, and if has past is any less interesting then hers.
 

[hotpprs]

Just a few points.
1) People are going to tell you how to title your posts? Just goes to show how progressives want to emulate Obama and the Democrats who don't believe in our basic freedoms.
Freedom to eat what we want, choose our health care,companies to do business the way they want. It's all about bullying and intimidation, that's how 3rd world dictators keep the peons in line. It's all about threats when they don't get their way.

LOL, okay. Tone down the rhetoric, dude, this is not that kind of site.

True, only left wing hackery like that is allowed.

Yep, I don't know what I was thinking to defend freedom of speech.
Everyone can read the first few replies to Beet who started this thread to see what I was referring to.
And I stand by what I think about Obama, his Czars and many of the Dems.
It's a dangerous road to single out certain businesses to "set an example".
We know how banks were intimidated into giving mortgages to individuals that couldn't afford them, and where that led. Now we hear health care companies are being warned not to blame Obama care for their rising costs. I can say more but it's not related to this thread.
But I hope everyone feels free to post what they want, and title it the way they want just as long as it follows the site rules.

[hotpprs]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

[hotpprs]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

This has nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. The entire subprime housing market melted down, and when you look at the proportion of those broken loans that were CRA loans, they were a very small proportion. A vast majority of the subprime meltdown was in non CRA loans.

The even more absurd thing though is... if CRA was the cause... how do you explain the Commercial Real Estate Bubble? How do you explain the Spanish and Irish and British bubbles happening at the same time? This has nothing to do with the CRA. "Blame the CRA" is a lie invented by totalitarian propagandists because was ideologically convenient.

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

[hotpprs]

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

No offense, but this is wrong and has no basis in reality. There are facts out there about what happened, there's no need to make up theories. There's a great book called Broke, U.S.A. that I recommed to you if you're genuinely interested in which banks started this trend, how, and why.

Well, read this link which supports my theory.

http://limitedmodifiedhangout.blogspot.com/2010/02/cause-of-2008-mortgage-crash-according.html

We can go on and on posting references to who is correct, but obviously history is going to show no one is. It was a little bit of both of their faults.
But the fact that liberals are spending so much time defending the government role in this, shows how they have no intention in dropping these types of policies in the future.
New home buyers should have to put down 20% on their homes like the old days, and have a qualified income.
Also, they should have to pay the same property taxes as everyone else. There has been a circuit breaker proposal in NY where they want certain individuals to pay much lower taxes  based on documented income. (I stress documented income, what a joke).
Well, didn't NY learn that people that can't afford a house, are going to get into financial ruin now matter how long you try to prop them up? Which creates a bigger mess and higher taxes for everyone else down the road.