It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Banks do not want to give loans to people that they know won't pay it back. It's against their nature.
No, they make the loans then sell the mortgage to someone else and let them worry about getting the money back. You do realize that, don't you?
If you want to know who is to blame for this economic mess, take a long hard look at Obama,
You really have yourself convinced that this is Obama's fault, even though it started back in the 1990s? Whoa... That's amazing. :shk:
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
Demands were made on lenders to supply bad loans under "equal housing" measures. When there was an initial protest by the lenders the system by which bad loans could be packaged and sold off was instated and then insured with psuedo governmental agencies like Freddie and Fannie.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
they make the loans then sell the mortgage to someone else and let them worry about getting the money back. You do realize that, don't you?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You really have yourself convinced that this is Obama's fault, even though it started back in the 1990s? Whoa... That's amazing. :shk:
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by nyk537
It's not 13 bucks a week. If that's what you think this is about, you're misinformed. It's for expanding and lengthening unemployment. These people's unemployment is going to be cut off instead of continued because Jindal is running for president in 2012.
I'm sure these people want their jobs back, but unemployment benefits would put food on the table until that time.
[edit on 24-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]
expanding and lengthening unemployment.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by sos37
It's true, if no one spends money then even the rich can't profit, but at least they can still afford to keep on some staff while they keep businesses running as long as they can.
So, that's your argument? At lease their staff have jobs???
"Oh, I had to let my butler go last week, but at least I'm providing jobs for my personal trainer, my chef, my housekeeper and my driver. I'm doing my part"!
Originally posted by grover
reply to post by redhatty
Its a crock and nothing but grandstanding... unemployment has been extended before and the states didn't have to change anything because of it.
I listened to his response last night and it was the most vacaous tripe I've heard since Sarah Palin last opened her mouth...
... he is obviously posturing for a bid in 2012 that's why half of his speech was spent talking about himself...
The rest of his speech could be summed up in 6 words... tax cuts and Americans can do anything... anyone have a count of how many times he said that one.
The Republican party as it stands right now is totally devoid of ideas and their tax cut mantra sounds like a broken record...
... no wonder they are still sinking in the polls.
You're even still using Sarah Palin as an example - she has come and gone
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by lordtyp0
He said, "No thanks" to that rail to nowhere... before he said, "Yes, I'll take it"!