This just in...Despite furiously handing out free tickets and bussing in churches and students, Obama is moving his location to a smaller venue for fear of not filling enough seats. He's moving from the 74,000-seat complex to a new one that seats just over 20,000.
"Democrats apparently are seeking to avoid the possible embarrassment of President Barack Obama accepting the party’s nomination in a partially empty stadium by moving his speech to a smaller indoor arena and citing inclement weather.
The president’s speech is set for Thursday at the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C. But officials have been working hard to fill it, the London Daily Mail reports.
Buses carrying students throughout North Carolina – and even some members of black churches in South Carolina – are scheduled, the Daily Mail reports.
It now appears that the speech will be moved to Time Warner Cable Arena, seats slightly more than 20,000."
Well maybe you trust the NY Post a little bit more. Imtab posted this on the other thread about WHO ARE THE INVESTORS AT BAIN CAPITAL
* Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)
* Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)
* Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)
* The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)
* Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)
* Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)
* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)
* Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)
* Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)
* San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)
* Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)
* Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)]
* Purdue University ($15.9 million)
* University of California ($225.7 million)
* University of Michigan ($130 million)
* University of Virginia ($20 million)
* University of Washington ($33 million)
Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.
Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets?
“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.
Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members.
Is Bain really a gang of corporate buccaneers who plunder their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations and elite universities thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.
If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.
Ive been telling Dude this for weeks now! He keeps thinking it's the pensions that are the victims of Bain and I keep telling him they are the beneficiaries and investors.
We don't need it, Dude. There isn't enough business to support the rail. And the rail is EXPENSIVE to maintain at the tax payers expense.
And you really should not throw stones about people's business prowess when the Annointed One has none. Nor do any of his czars know what they are doing.
I think Romney is championing smaller government and individual rights. That's what the whole job creation thing is about. People who work have money, people with money have choices. What they do with their choices is up to them. They can rise or fall on their own merits. But as Condi Rice said the other night, we HAVE to improve our education so that people have the skills to make the right choices. No more liberal "dumbing down the masses."
It is true, however, that our federal government has grown so big it has it's tenticles in virtually every facet of our lives now. But when I compare the two parties, there is only one who wants to do anything about it. Voting for Obama would just push us over the edge in that regard.
No Dude, Rick Scott turned it down because it was not economically feasible and he knew the tax payers would be on the hook for millions down the road. Obama just wanted to shove money in our faces so it could look like he was creating shovel ready jobs. But Scott is a businessman, and he could see how the high speed rail would come back to bite us on the rear. See? Obama cares NOTHING about the long-term effects of anything. All he cares about is staying in office so his party can get such a foot hold we'll all be forced to live off the government.
I keep hearing people say that over and over - and to a degree I think there is truth in that. But then I look at the two platforms running in this election and they have never been such polar opposites. Plus, I've known a few politicians and they are NOT all cut from the same cloth. Some care very deeply and are passionate about our country.
Let's just say I am not willing to just throw up my hands and give up on this country.
Well I'm not going to get involved since I've only been there once and know very little about the in-depth history. I just thought that story was kind of interesting.
This was what we were talking about the other night, and I did go to the government site where they were discussing this. It still leaves me very uneasy though. I would feel better if they would have provided stats for the amount of ammo they go through every year to see if this is a significant increase. It's sad to say, but I would not put it past them to lie.
The CRA was not the only contributor to the crisis and I never claimed it was. But its undeniable that the 1970s-era law gave birth to the problem by pushing banks to lend to low-income households and relaxing lending standards across the board. It is true that the Bush Administration later went whole hog for the program to expand home ownership, but that was after 30 years of mismanagement by previous administrations, particularly Carter and Clinton.
Regulators charged with enforcing the CRA's required banks to adopt many of the loan practices that turned out to be toxic. Everything from 100 percent loan-to-value ratios to no down payment loans were part of the package that banks used to satisfy the demand of regulators.
Could the banks have used other lending methods to meet CRA requirements? Perhaps. But no one can say for sure that these would have made regulators happy or have produced enough loans to low-income and minority borrowers. What worked was what the banks actually did, and so they kept doing it. The lax lending standards were a proven method of satisfying regulators, and they were fully approved by regulators. More than approved. The regulators lavishly praised banks that adopted these innovative lending strategies.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota attempted to absolve the CRA by claiming that only a small percentage of subprime loans were related to the act, but that argument doesn't hold up to the facts. In reality, once banks lowered lending standards to attract CRA borrowers, they found that they had to lower lending standards across the board. It simply wasn't possible or legal (thanks to anti-discrimination laws) to offer the lax standard loans only to the targeted borrowers. In short, if a bank wanted to raise the number of CRA loans, it had to lower standards across the board. The broader subprime market was basically a creation of the CRA.
The way the CRA was enforced guaranteed that the bad lending practices would spread like wildfire across the country. Banks that were found to be in compliance with the CRA were granted permission to acquire other banks. Banks that were not in compliance could not make acquisitions, which often meant they couldn't grow at all. The only known method of compliance was lax lending standards. This means that banks that lowered their lending standards grew through acquisitions, while banks that kept their standards high got acquired or stayed small. This process went on for years, creating a kind of perverted financial Darwinism. It was survival of the lax-ist.
When market processes began to counter-act this regulatory Darwinism, the politicians stepped in to keep it going. Once the proper political pressure was brought to bear, Fannie lowered its own standards and we got securitized subprime. Now banks could meet their CRA obligations while passing off much of the risk to others.
Sonia Sotomayor's policy was eventually adopted on a national level to disastrous effect. I'm sure she never intended that home ownership for low income people be built upon terrible lending, this was the unintended consequence of the policy. Clearly, the program to extend home ownership to the poor was not something created by predatory lenders alone. They operated in cooperation with do-gooders who believed traditional lending standards were unwarranted and operating to prevent deserving people from buying homes.
The boom-bust in housing can't be blamed entirely on the CRA, and it doesn't absolve the corrupt lenders, the bubble-headed securitizers, the blundering ratings agencies or the careless MBS investors. But it DOES show that the government, through the CRA, had a strong hand in creating the kind of mortgage products we now regard as the source of the problem. Back then, they were regarded as part of the solution.
Changing the subject and back to the topic...As the democrats warm up to start their convention, no doubt they will deliver powerful speeches that aim to inspire, but no amount of uplifting rhetoric will be able to cover up their records – and it’s the results that matter.
The facts are that states with Democratic governors have an unemployment rate a full point higher than GOP-led states, and while Republican governors are cutting taxes and seeing their states’ credit ratings UPGRADED, Democratic governors have seen the opposite occur in their states.
It’s no surprise that 7 of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rate have GOP governors and 12 of the 15 best states for business are led by Republican governors.
Forget the party rhetoric...just look at the facts and figures.
It's like a little credit card the government gives out so that people can buy food. The only problem is, many people sell them for cash, or using them in strip clubs, or to buy alcohol and tobacco products. The program is rife with fraud.
There are several really good black Americans who are prolific writers who also strongly disagree with Obama: Star Parker, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams come to mind. You can add them to your reading list, Conrad (if you haven't already).
"I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous...
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card."
Another thing about Bush's debt that never seems to get any acknowledgement is the actual hard costs associated with the clean up of 9/11. I don't have a fully tally yet, but here are a few of the figures.
Estimated total costs, as of October 3, 2001
$5 billion for debris removal $14 billion for reconstruction $3 billion in overtime payments to uniformed workers $1 billion for replacement of destroyed vehicles and equipment (one Fire Department accident response vehicle costs $400,000)
This probably is only the tip of the iceberg. I will post more as I find it.
Since our debt has crossed the $16 trillion milestone this week, here's a look back at the former Senator Obama and what he had to say about Bush's measly $4 trillion debt.
One last thing, Purr4mance. I have no problem debating the issues with you or anyone else, but I will not stoop to personal attacks and I won't respond to your posts if you continue with yours. If you want to debate, that's fine, but if you can't do it without hate, you're on your own.
The CRA was not the only contributor to the crisis and I never claimed it was. But its undeniable that the 1970s-era law gave birth to the problem by pushing banks to lend to low-income households and relaxing lending standards across the board. It is true that the Bush Administration later went whole hog for the program to expand home ownership, but that was after 30 years of mismanagement by previous administrations, particularly Carter and Clinton.
Regulators charged with enforcing the CRA's required banks to adopt many of the loan practices that turned out to be toxic. Everything from 100 percent loan-to-value ratios to no down payment loans were part of the package that banks used to satisfy the demand of regulators.
Could the banks have used other lending methods to meet CRA requirements? Perhaps. But no one can say for sure that these would have made regulators happy or have produced enough loans to low-income and minority borrowers. What worked was what the banks actually did, and so they kept doing it. The lax lending standards were a proven method of satisfying regulators, and they were fully approved by regulators. More than approved. The regulators lavishly praised banks that adopted these innovative lending strategies.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota attempted to absolve the CRA by claiming that only a small percentage of subprime loans were related to the act, but that argument doesn't hold up to the facts. In reality, once banks lowered lending standards to attract CRA borrowers, they found that they had to lower lending standards across the board. It simply wasn't possible or legal (thanks to anti-discrimination laws) to offer the lax standard loans only to the targeted borrowers. In short, if a bank wanted to raise the number of CRA loans, it had to lower standards across the board. The broader subprime market was basically a creation of the CRA.
The way the CRA was enforced guaranteed that the bad lending practices would spread like wildfire across the country. Banks that were found to be in compliance with the CRA were granted permission to acquire other banks. Banks that were not in compliance could not make acquisitions, which often meant they couldn't grow at all. The only known method of compliance was lax lending standards. This means that banks that lowered their lending standards grew through acquisitions, while banks that kept their standards high got acquired or stayed small. This process went on for years, creating a kind of perverted financial Darwinism. It was survival of the lax-ist.
When market processes began to counter-act this regulatory Darwinism, the politicians stepped in to keep it going. Once the proper political pressure was brought to bear, Fannie lowered its own standards and we got securitized subprime. Now banks could meet their CRA obligations while passing off much of the risk to others.
Sonia Sotomayor's policy was eventually adopted on a national level to disastrous effect. I'm sure she never intended that home ownership for low income people be built upon terrible lending, this was the unintended consequence of the policy. Clearly, the program to extend home ownership to the poor was not something created by predatory lenders alone. They operated in cooperation with do-gooders who believed traditional lending standards were unwarranted and operating to prevent deserving people from buying homes.
The boom-bust in housing can't be blamed entirely on the CRA, and it doesn't absolve the corrupt lenders, the bubble-headed securitizers, the blundering ratings agencies or the careless MBS investors. But it DOES show that the government, through the CRA, had a strong hand in creating the kind of mortgage products we now regard as the source of the problem. Back then, they were regarded as part of the solution.
WhatUwish4 Forum Posts (7,986)
Don't play innocent with Momma Wish. 
)
RE: Democrats Drop 'God' From Party Platform
Who are you and what have you done with my Otto?????