The shear stupidity and lack of responsibility could not be worse than...

[Rozman]

This is what happens when a country has nukes....Just wait till Iran has them and Obama is out of office and proud that he did nothing to stop them.

 

[MaggieMae]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

A link would help.

Do try and keep up if you want to comment. You shouldn't need a link for something that is common knowledge for those who pay attention.

I want a link that shows the Obama Administration has continued the Clinton era CRA program of redlining. Too much to ask? I couldn't find one. The only thing I'm aware of is the foreclosure assistance program begun two years ago. That would be existing mortgages, not new ones.

So, yeah, please provide a link for this "common knowledge."

 

[8537]

More than just keeping them as an ally. I think it's also meant to help keep the government stable. If Pakistan ends up falling apart, we have a nuclear weapons that suddenly cant be accountable for and are unlikely to remain in good hands.

Not sure if i agree with that reasoning. But Im confident that's part of why we are doing it.

We have a winner, folks! Add to this the amount China gives them.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is what happens when a country has nukes....Just wait till Iran has them and Obama is out of office and proud that he did nothing to stop them.

So we should do what? Run around the world forceably dismantling nuclear warheads from all the countries that have them now? That would be India, Israel, Russia, undoubtedly China (although not a public admission), North Korea, etc., off the top of my head. And what role would the IAEA play if the US unilaterally invaded Iran in order to force it to dismantle its nuclear program?

 

[8537]

A link would help.

Do try and keep up if you want to comment. You shouldn't need a link for something that is common knowledge for those who pay attention.

I want a link that shows the Obama Administration has continued the Clinton era CRA program of redlining. Too much to ask? I couldn't find one. The only thing I'm aware of is the foreclosure assistance program begun two years ago. That would be existing mortgages, not new ones.

So, yeah, please provide a link for this "common knowledge."

Well it's certainly true they've decided to renew the crackdown on redlining.

A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining - BusinessWeek

and rightfully so, of course.

 

[MaggieMae]

Do try and keep up if you want to comment. You shouldn't need a link for something that is common knowledge for those who pay attention.

I want a link that shows the Obama Administration has continued the Clinton era CRA program of redlining. Too much to ask? I couldn't find one. The only thing I'm aware of is the foreclosure assistance program begun two years ago. That would be existing mortgages, not new ones.

So, yeah, please provide a link for this "common knowledge."

Well it's certainly true they've decided to renew the crackdown on redlining.

A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining - BusinessWeek

and rightfully so, of course.

I did see that article, but I read it as "enforcement" of existing policy and not a new policy based on the old CRA, which is what Solo implied. The DOJ has every right to use legal means of enforcement when a bank is blatantly ignoring the rules.

 

[drsmith1072]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

That sounds fimiliar. Clinton, Dodd, Frank. Oh, yeah. We've been there before, thus the present housing mess.

WOW!

Yeah, as if it is the demcorats fault the right chose to do nothing when they controlled both houses of congress. LOL
Due to the FACT that the right controlled both houses of congress and did nothing how can you blame the democrats??
I have seen the edited video that was spliced together for you rightwingers but that really does nothing to show why the republicans chose not to act when they had the power to do so.
So again I ask, how can you blame the democrats for the inaction of the republicans??

I just love how many rightwingers love to repeat this BS propaganda.

 

[8537]

I want a link that shows the Obama Administration has continued the Clinton era CRA program of redlining. Too much to ask? I couldn't find one. The only thing I'm aware of is the foreclosure assistance program begun two years ago. That would be existing mortgages, not new ones.

So, yeah, please provide a link for this "common knowledge."

Well it's certainly true they've decided to renew the crackdown on redlining.

A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining - BusinessWeek

and rightfully so, of course.

I did see that article, but I read it as "enforcement" of existing policy and not a new policy based on the old CRA, which is what Solo implied. The DOJ has every right to use legal means of enforcement when a bank is blatantly ignoring the rules.

Oh, yes - you are correct. redlining laws were pretty much ignored by DoJ for years, and this is a step towards renewing enforcement.

 

[drsmith1072]

I want a link that shows the Obama Administration has continued the Clinton era CRA program of redlining. Too much to ask? I couldn't find one. The only thing I'm aware of is the foreclosure assistance program begun two years ago. That would be existing mortgages, not new ones.

So, yeah, please provide a link for this "common knowledge."

Well it's certainly true they've decided to renew the crackdown on redlining.

A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining - BusinessWeek

and rightfully so, of course.

I did see that article, but I read it as "enforcement" of existing policy and not a new policy based on the old CRA, which is what Solo implied. The DOJ has every right to use legal means of enforcement when a bank is blatantly ignoring the rules.

It also has not been shown that the DOJ is pressuring banks to give loans to "NO income people" either.

I agree though, they were already on the books therefore they should be enforced and no one should be surprised when the they are followed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

It's mind boggling that you find this sum to be outrageous when compared to aid we've been giving to other countries.

Since most of the aid money must be spent with US companies, isn't this just another form of corporate welfare, a gift to contractors?