On 30 Jun 2009 21:53:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In
wrote:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/ ...

This is a useful site worth forwarding.

If you're a white supremacist of some sort.

Judging by the OP's choice of newsgroups, it helps to be an
inconsiderate boor too.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/about-npi/

White Americans have been led to believe that “diversity” and
“multiculturalism” are sacred. We’re conditioned to be shy when
it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn’t every
race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers
to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?
Isn’t it about time someone spoke for us?



Found this about a year ago:

...........................
There once was a time, not so many years ago, that mortgage lenders
would lend ONLY to those who were pre-determined to have a pretty good
chance of paying the money they were loaned back to the bank.

If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - income - you didn't
get
the loan.
If you didn't have a sufficient - and VERIFIED - credit history, you
didn't get the loan.
If you didn't have sufficient cash to plunk down for a down payment -
you didn't get the loan.
That was the way prudent mortgage lending worked. And - for most who
qualified - it DID work.

But - starting around the Clinton era - some started saying that such
lending policies were "discriminatory", and, as it follows (regarding
certain ethnic groups), "racist". So banks were persuaded (more likely
pushed) into creating something called the "subprime" market. A
well-chosen word, for these were loans made without a real promise of
repayment.

Hence, "no-money-down" mortgages.
Hence, "interest only" mortgages (for the first several years).
Hence, "balloon" mortgages.

Once the banks made them, they quickly sold off the "paper", backed by
hoked-up schemes (derivatives) to give the impression that the risk
was
removed. But it was never removed, because the foundation upon which
these shaky loans were made was based on sand.

A few years back, I remember a big sign on I-95 in Bridgeport,
Connecticut:
Buy a house! No money down! We habla Espanol!

That told me all I needed to know about where those loans were going
to
end up: many of them, in the toilet. Not to mention those who DID have
good incomes, but bought 'way over their heads, figuring they could
"flip" the property if they couldn't pay.

Now, we have the spectre of millions of bad loans - loans that should
never have been made in the first place - coming home to roost. And
the
banks and investment firms that hold the paper are toppling over. The
most prudent thing to do here is simply let them fall, and fail. And -
go back to responsible mortgage lending to only those who have a good
chance at paying the loans BACK.

But don't blame banks for loaning money to people who were unlikely to
repay. They were FORCED into such schemes by liberals who didn't want
to
"discriminate".

That's what *responsible* lending IS - "discrimination" against those
who can't repay, plain and simple.
..............................

We didn't let them fail. No, now we have a stimulus bill and our
grandchildren will ultimately pay for the final economic meltdown
caused
by those bad loans.

Eddie

On Jun 30, 7:12*am, wrote:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...the-dog-return...

This is a useful site worth forwarding. Note article Economics of
Mass Deportation.

ted

Poor pathetic racist. Aren't you actually your friend Hal Turner's lap
dog?