1st try to get more back links to your website and the easiest way to do thats is by submitting your website to free web directories such as:

http://www.lii.org
http://www.dmoz.org
http://www.surformation.com

Backlinks provide higher ranking in search engine, but most importantly, links drive direct traffic to your website when visitors clicks on your links.

2nd Try promoting your website on social networking and internet communities such as

http://www.twitter.com,
http://www.digg.com,
http://www.stumbleupon.com

This is where web surfers are spending a big deal of their time, so have your share of visitors.

3rd and most importantly, provide quality content, this is an indirect way to get back links by genuinely driving people to link to your website.

4th make sure that your meta tags ( web page titles and description) match the content of your pages, this is a huge part of search engine optimization and drives traffic from search engine to your website

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

I really don’t hear them say that. Could you stae where you got your facts

You may also insert affiliate links for 100% of the commission, within the restriction of 2 links to any affiliate program site.

Go to hubpages.com / my account / Affiliate settings in Your Account column

Another good way to get users is to create contests and give away something.

You can check out our e-marketing solution http://www.beezilla-marketing.com there’s a few tools to help you build your contact list.

Many Thanks and God Bless!

I can give you information that will help you skip over the 12 years learning curve where you would be losing your money over and over again. The stock market is set up on a 90/10 scale. 10% of the people out there make the money and everyone else (90%) donates to them so they can build their houses and buy their cars and property.
I started out in the stock market in the mid 90s and made a lot of mistakes and then I suddenly found out what works and what doesn’t. I have learned how to make money in the stock market. He res a synopsis of what doesn’t work:
1. Dint try to play the news. The pros on the floor get the news before you do at your laptop online. They have services such as First Call, and other immediate news services. Also the guys on the floor hear the rumors before you do. Basically what this does is the stock already moved before you even got the news, too late.
2. Penny Stocks. You might have heard about someone who made a mint in penny stocks. He bought 10,000 shares at .03 apiece and suddenly the stock jumped to 3 dollars a share and he bought a new car or a house. This is ultra rare. Usually you will buy a penny stock for .07 a share and then it will go down to .03 a share and stay there for a year.
3. You try to do momentum plays. If the stock suddenly shows up on the ‘most up’ lists for the day you think that you can join up with the momentum and make money too. But by the point YOU see it on the lists, the pros are already starting to sell it. You buy it and the stock starts to drop.
4. Rolling penny stocks? No. Everybody wants to buy at the bottom of the roll, no body wants to sell at the top of the roll.
5. You try to daytrade, fighting the market makers and screw them out of thier bid and ask spread. Not going to happen. You are up against a professional who makes his living doing this.
6. You learn technical analysis. But this takes about 6 years to master.
7.You try giving your money to a pro…most money managers dont make money during down years. As a matter of fact they can lose quite easily.
8. You can follow stock pics from the Wall Street Journal or IBD but then everyone sees those pics. You would be one of the 90%. Those pics, unless they are forcasts, show stocks that are currently hot. As you see them pros are dumping them.
9. You try to catch a ‘falling knife’. A stock drops big because of news so you buy it because you think its cheap. Yeah but there was a reason the stock went down, a fault in the stock itself. So it keeps bleeding after you buy it and then it keeps dropping. Then it gets downgraded and drops more.
10. You tried options. Most people dont know how to do them right and most people lose at options. Heres why. a) you buy an option that expires at a certain time (they all do) and the stock goes down, your option goes down. b) you buy an option and the stock remains at the same price and is flat. The option time erodes and you are left with nothing. c) You buy the option and the stock price soars. You are estatic because the stock price made your option triple. Sell the option? Hell no, it could go up more! So you hold it. The problem with that is they all expire worthless if given enough time. So you hold hoping for even more money then the price goes down. You lose.
12) You move your money around in one big pile. Investing 100% of your money all at one time is a big mistake because that one time when you have a catasrophic loss from one trading mistake is the time you are done. Always have different piles for trading down or up.

Well that is my two bits and I suggest that you follow this if you want to learn and make money. Site I have this from is below.

In fact, bush’s own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Bwany Fwank is a lib and a little research will revel the truth!!!