Political Opinions on Political Blogs [bloggingforsmoney.blogspot.com]

Political Opinions on Political Blogs [bloggingforsmoney.blogspot.com]

“It is interesting that when it comes to outsourcing that this president has been outsourcing a good deal of American jobs himself,” Romney said. “By putting ... Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews ... GOP, Dems Dispute Who's Bad for Women and Jobs

Political Blogging: A Panel DiscussionA freewheeling discussion by some of the most prolific political bloggers in Pittsburgh discuss the ethical boundaries (if there are any) of writing for a political blog. What's right? What's wrong? What's good? What's bad? And how do we set boundaries?Dave who blogs at 2 Political JunkiesMaria who blogs at 2 Political JunkiesBram who blogs at The Pittsburgh CometSue who blogs at Pittsburgh Lesbian CorrespondentsMs Mon who blogs at Ms Adventures on the Mon

http://falamosportugues.com// Session: "Political Blogging: A Panel Discussion"

No matter what your political affiliation is, it probably isn't represented by the mainstream media. By trying to please everyone, the media - like the political establishment it has come to serve - pleases no one. For most American people, until recently they just had to put up with this situation. Until the invention of political blogs, there was simply no good news analysis that did not try to tow a moderate party line. Thanks to politics blogs, however, that has all changed. No matter what ideological position you are coming from, you can find a political blog that is written for you.

I have been reading liberal political blogs for about three years now, and I feel like they have really enhanced my understanding of current events. We live in such a conservative society that much of the real news of what is going on is censored by the mainstream media.

In these free political forums, however, the news can finally be heard by the public that is hungry for it. Unfortunately, political blogs don't have the budget to do some of the things that the more mainstream news outlets do. They cannot have correspondents all over the world, for example, ready to report any event that happens. What they can do, however, is access a wide range of different media and try to put together a more complete picture than any single publication does. News analysis is a valuable service, and one that is completely neglected by the mainstream media. Thanks to political blogs, we can get beyond the the facile analysis provided by most of the news pundit shows.

But some blogs are not based on facts. So it will be your job to know which political blogs are based on proof or spoofs.

Of course, the problem with personal blogs is that they do not have the same standards of proof as some of the media outlets do. While most political blogs are at least as dependable as Fox news, when they are compared to legitimate media outlets, many of them falls short. This is why you have to pick and choose carefully when you are reading blogs. Anyone can write anything they want on a political blog, and it is very hard for someone to call them on it. After all, free speech is a right, and posting on the Internet is simply an extension of that right. People have just as much right to blog political fiction as fact, and rumormongers abounds. As always, it is up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. Suggest Political Opinions on Political Blogs Articles

Question by john_d_ayer: What are the secondary causes of the subprime loan issue.? The garbage on the web, especially blogging by uneducated morons campaigning for their political parties and candidates is overwhelming. This is especially true, as usual of democrats. The propaganda disseminated by Liberal Democrats is incredible. Getting past that is really difficult, but, I have found a few threads that are really interesting. In 2004 Greenspan warned about the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040224/ The governor of Illinois shot Greenspan down. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040521/default.htm Fannie Mae vomited garbage about how great they were including mentioning that they were selected by Fortune as one of the best managed corporations. http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/16CorpGovAmendKorologos.pdf Greenspan came back in 2005 with a discussion about credit.http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/2005/20050408/default.htm If you have a home you know that getting a mortgage and making payments really kicks your credit rating up and you get flooded with offers, most from credit predators. My preliminary assessment is that predatory subprime lenders targeted people who then made payments, established better credit and became the victims of predatory credit card lenders. This began coming to a head in 2003 to 2005. The eventual response of the Bush admin was to lobby for bankruptcy law changes which appears to have made the whole mess worse. Now before all you liberal demophytes who are incapable of research jump on this issue remember that Dems were talking about how stable the credit markets, particularly Fannie May and Freddie Mac were. Dems blocked any other legislation. McCain voted for the Bankruptcy law and Obama voted against it, do your own research for those links. My preliminary assessment is that essentially the changes in Bankruptcy laws were meant to stabilize the credit markets, but, what they did was encourage predatory credit companies to further target people with subprime mortgages. In my opinion the extended credit and changes in bankruptcy laws are secondary causes to the current crisis. Too much credit and reduced ability to structure debt forced people into mortgage foreclosure which caused the crash. FYI, it looks like 40% of the recipients of these predatory lending practices were new (illiterate)college grads. You know, the Obama supporters. Preliminary results are this group got the most credit, mismanaged money and screwed up the worst. Do your own research. Anyone else researching the issue finding similar data or have different well researched and educated opinions on the subject? Nunya, once again your ridiculously uneducated blather is worthless. The Democratic party has a history of propaganda going back to the bigot and NAZI supporting William Randolph Hearst (D). The Democrats are a genocidal political party and I have posted more than enough easily to research data to prove that beyond a doubt. If you had actually read any of my posts on this subject you would know that I have identified predatory mortgage brokers specifically who essentially conned both borrowers and underwriters.....wasting time on facts with you is useless. There are some very good answers and I appreciate them. The situation is a set of dominoes and I am trying to identify the dominoes. Thanks for those who helped. Best answer for What are the secondary causes of the subprime loan issue.?:

Answer by Shizzle
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Basically an affirmative action for mortgage loans. This was the opening which allowed sub prime lending to occur. Greed and incompetence followed.

Answer by whip
i was surprised how involved acorn was from 91 to 95 storm trooping banks and forcing them to make loans available to people who should never had them.this is a democrat problem.hell even bill clinton there god said so.

Answer by nirv
Many words - little brain..

Answer by Dennis P
People were refinancing their homes every 2 or 3 years to pay for toy haulers or credit cards or other things. when the value of houses were going up 10 to 20 % a year everything was fine. When they started down , the people who were used to the refi's were trapped by their own greed. TO bad.

Answer by curlyman72
I don't think it was really the change in the bankruptcy law but, rather, the greed of the predatory lenders and the stupidity of the borrower thinking they could borrow more than they can pay back. Illiteracy of the 40% has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that the borrowers were gullible enough to believe they could borrow more than they could afford. It's just a lack of common sense in my book and inexperience in proper budgeting. If the borrowers were smarter than this, it wouldn't matter if there was predatory lending because everyone would see through the lies. Another big factor in this huge mess was the inability or unwillingness of the government to intervene when the trouble started to surface. Maybe the government was just lazy? Who really knows. It didn't happen overnight, as you state, it happened over a period of time. If the government was paying attention to the troubles at home rather than being distracted by other things such as the wars we're in and other global issues, it could have been averted. Lastly, i don't think this has anything to do with partisanship. It's a national issue that no party was really responsible for. It's a product of poor judgment from everyone involved; mainly lenders and borrowers.

Answer by Nunya K
I just don't understand you and your insistence on blaming everyone but the lenders in this fiasco. Did you happen to read the article about the ninety year old woman who shot herself because her home was being foreclosed? The lender gave this eighty year old woman more money than the house was worth, knowing there was no way on god's green earth the loan could ever be repaid before the woman died. I blame the woman for taking such a loan, but I blame the lender even more for making the offer. To me that is immoral and unethical beside being predatory. Your beloved free market system is corrupted, your president is socializing the markets, more accurately socializing losses. I hope in your enthusiasm for blaming anyone and everyone who isn't a republican, you don't mind paying your share of Wall Street's losses. You wouldn't want the CEO's of Wall St. who are used to their fine lifestyles give them up would you?

Answer by Obama W Bush
I see the problem starting with South Dakota changing Banking law so they could host Financial Corporations. Dozens of the big name Banks Re Incorporated in South Dakota so they could enjoy the predatory practices that were legal in SD. In the late 80's Provident / Providia of San Francisco was looking for a less restrictive legal environment SF DA Halihan charged Provident with Bank Fraud the case went on for a decade Provident moved to SD and the SCOTUS rejected Halihan's case. With that decision came an immediate pilgrimage of Credit Banks to South Dakota. Provident bought WaMu and retained the WaMu name. Is no time Watchovia, City, even the Great Chase Manhattan moved to South Dakota and started selling paper By Bush's first term Computer Programers got envolved in banking writing complex insterment of debt programs that took fractions of a cent from everywhere. South Dakota was doing so well they deregulated even more luring a new class of Banks and Mortgage Brokers. There was blood in the water the more the cost the more the plus. Houses were being thrown together as cheep as possiable and sold Sub Prime no money down no payment for 12 months. First time buyers did not care the house was poorly built because they moved in for free. Mean while the Banks were bundeling the debt back in South Dakota and selling it as Bonds. Domino Theory was running wild people loved the increased credit limits got new cars on the value of a house they had not paid a dime for; but the profit taking at the top levels out distanced the the input cash flow suddenly the well was dry I like the Mosaic Lending Laws sure they are a few thousand years old but they have a balance that is admirable.

[political blogging good or bad]