"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
<quoted text> Oh, you mean like pushing a major piece of legislation that got passed by a strict partisan vote and 60% of Americans were against? That kind of agenda? Do you mean the "train wreck that's coming" kind of agenda?
It's more than amusing how you liberal loons single out a complete unknown "running the GOP".
The rest of us have no problem with rape kits. They not only gather evidence but prevents pregnancy within hours of a possible conception. That's not an abortion. The cells haven't even begun to divide yet.
<quoted text> What eludes them is Bush "inherited" a recession after the dot-com bubble burst. The same dot-com bubble Clinton capitalized on and, luckily, was able to exit the stage before it went boom. So Bush basically got stuck with the dot-com crash and 9/11 right after Clinton said, "Exit stage right!" like Snagglepuss.
Here's a list of 20 years of change in GDP, can you pick out the years represented by the "catastrophic" recession that compelled George to put an end to those pesky surpluses and start a couple of wars?
<quoted text> That's because you're apparently legally blind. Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending? Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru NBER Working Paper No. 18609 Issued in December 2012 NBER Program(s): AP CF Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609 The CRA and the revamping of it during the Clinton years is the Democrats' baby.
Psst! CRA was passed under Carter son.
If you had any brains, you'd know that.
You really are out of your league son. And all it does it expose your partisan politics and how you like to twist facts around.
<quoted text> This is Flack b;laming the Democrats for the Bush recession. Signed into Law May25th. Went into effect July 26th. That .70 cents an hour raise. less than two months later Bush tells us we are on the verge of a financial meltdown & the worst recession in 80 years starts in December. Yep that minimum wage did it. Nor the unfunded Bush Tax cuts Not record Earmarks Not doubling the debt Not two quagmire unfunded wars Not the unfunded part D expansion to Medicare. It was that GD .70 cents an hour raise to the minimum wage.
More ridiculous remarks.
It was a world wide recession. The Democrats were warned about Fannie & Freddie and said, no problem. Democrats also voted for the use of force.
You are just an old retard dissatisfied with your position in life so you blame others.
<quoted text>Psst! CRA was passed under Carter son. If you had any brains, you'd know that. You really are out of your league son. And all it does it expose your partisan politics and how you like to twist facts around.
You've obviously started drinking already, Joe Six Pack.
["John Galt"] Three-quarters of the states 'elected representatives in the U.S. Congress' must ratify any proposed Constitutional amendment.
No dingleberry. 2/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. Meaning 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve. It is why the ERA amendment failed. Could not get 3/4 of the states to approve in the time allowed.
Memory eventually fails us all, but apparently the decline strikes one party far more than the other.
In recent weeks, my friends across the aisle have expended a lot of breath proclaiming that the Democrats caused the present financial crisis by failing to pass legislation to regulate financial services companies in the years 1995 through 2006.
There is only small one problem with this story -- throughout this entire period the Republicans were in complete charge of the House and for the most critical years they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
In the House of Representatives, the majority party has almost unlimited power over the minority party. The majority party owns the committee chairmanships; it controls what bills come to a vote; and it is under no obligation to consider the ideas of the beleaguered minority. When the Republicans were in the majority they ruled with an iron first; it is no accident that Tom DeLay was known as "The Hammer."
That is why I find it particularly flattering the Republicans now claim that in the years 1995 to 2006 I personally possessed supernatural powers which enabled me to force mighty Republican leaders to do my bidding. Choose your comic book hero -- I was all of them.
I wish I had the power to force the Republican leadership to do my bidding! If I had had that power, I would have used it to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton, to stop the war in Iraq, to prevent large tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and to stop government intervention into the private life of Terri Schiavo. Yet that power eluded me, and I was unable to stop those things.
According to the Republicans' misty memories of the period before 2007, I allegedly singlehandedly blocked their determined efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and my supposed intransigence literally caused the worldwide financial crisis.
Fortunately, we have tools to aid memory -- pencil and paper, word processing, transcripts, newspapers, and the Congressional record. And as described in the most reputable published sources, in 2005 I in fact worked together with my Republican colleague Michael Oxley, then Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, to write a bill to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We passed the bill out of committee with an overwhelming majority -- every Democrat voted in favor of the legislation. However, on the House floor the Republican leadership added a poison pill amendment, which would have prevented non-profit institutions with religious affiliations from receiving funds. I voted against the legislation in protest, though I continued to work with Mr. Oxley to encourage the Senate to pass a good bill. But these efforts were defeated because President Bush blocked further consideration of the legislation. In the words of Mr. Oxley, no flaming liberal, the Bush administration gave his efforts 'the one-finger salute.'
The Republicans can claim some supposed successes despite my awesome power. In 1999 they passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overturned a Depression-era law preventing commercial banks from acting like investment banks. In 2000, they passed another bill which loosened regulation of derivative markets. I voted against these bills -- but to no avail.
<quoted text>You failed to read the entire link to Park Ridge or you really lied about knowing the town. The town did have a industrial/ retail base with its traditional brick-making business as a core industry to the town's development. And now you're telling me that you oppose U S Constitution civil right equal housing laws . A pewrson ought to have a right to live wherever he damn well pleases and not be forced by the prejudice or racism of others to live someplace else.
DID you read your own post. DID they don't anymore. A "Pew-son" has a right to live where ever they can afford to live. There is no reason why they should have TAX Payer housing forced on that city or any other one. It is now in every city or town in Illinois. O'bama made sure that communities would be disrupted by housing at least 10% dead beats and thugs, illegal aliens and gang bangers-more than likely the same. Moslems and terrorists also go into low housing in these areas and destroy communities. Who is going to foot the bill once all these tax payers leave?
Tell me when this thread is updated:(Registration is not required)