Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Jon Stewart and Anti-Semitism

MariansMusings Wrote: Sep 04, 2014 12:32 PM
The people who are not allowed to criticize are Christians/Jewsand conservatives (and Jews) unless they are criticizing Christians/Jews and conservatives. Conservatives and those on the left are not allowed to criticize Muslims or any other minority no matter how egregiously bad their actions are. Most of all, no one in the spectrum is allowed to criticize Obama, any action he takes or any member of his organization--no matter how blatantly failed a policy is. "To find out who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire
The only label that comes to mind for Obama is "workplace violence" and that has already been used--for Major Nidal, that got up in his trial and blew the label all to smithereens. In the face of uncontroversial evidence (Obama knows what that term means--he is a lawyer for gosh sakes) that the major was indulging in jihad, our leader still declined to re-label the murders, thus denying the wounded and the dead's families the benefits they deserved as victims of the war against us. Now that Obama's buddy-in-crime Jimmy Carter is having fundraisers for Hamas, no liberal should have their hand stuck so far in the sand (or in another place) to figure out what is really going on. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
In response to:

This is Providence

MariansMusings Wrote: Aug 28, 2014 11:33 AM
How lucky our country is that a few people like Mike have bucked the system. How many conservative teachers and professors have been squeezed out the past several decades. How much better would our country be at this point if they had all stood up like Mike has? MusingsbyMarian do tc om
In response to:

Obama fails History 101

MariansMusings Wrote: Aug 28, 2014 11:27 AM
Exactly! Moreover, no amount of evidence can change the minds of his followers. They have been so conditioned by liberal teachers, their minds snap shut like a steel trap when confronted with reality or incontrovertible evidence that contradicts the propaganda they have swallowed. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
In response to:

Obama Satire? Still Objectionable

MariansMusings Wrote: Aug 23, 2014 4:12 PM
SNL's mischaracterization of what Sarah Palin said about Russia's proximity to her part of the United States and Fey's extremely mean-spirited hatchet-jobs (mocking is too mild a word) played a large part in turning people off the Palin-McCain campaign. Unfortunately, McCain has turned out to be just another lilly-livered establishment hack that sells out his constituents and the country. So our choices then were worse and catastrophic. Voters chose catastrophic. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
In response to:

The Federal Bagpipe Police?!?

MariansMusings Wrote: Aug 23, 2014 10:22 AM
The Canadians should be smarter. They just fly into a border Mexican City like Juaraz; walk across our now meaningless southern border; take a bus to an international airport like Houston and fly to Scotland. Problem solved. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
When Americans used to go to these countries to adopt, the locals accused our country and the adoption agencies of kidnapping children the parents did not want to give up in order to fill the demand. Innocent women tourists were attacked and badly injured because of this perception. Obama has now convinced the same people to give up their children by the truckloads-not to go to loving adoptive parents but to an unknown future. This is all part of the "turn your children over to us" that was began by Hillary's book, "It takes a village to raise a child." Village indeed. These kids will wind up in the left's version of Hitler youth. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
After having dodged the bullet of having this idiot as president, we somehow wound up with him in a position to even more damage to this country than if he had been elected. With friends like John and Hillary, the Jewish people need no enemies. Yet American Jews continue to crawl in bed with Democrats. They come out covered with fleas and and never figure out why. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
Yes, it was a beautiful program. You should know that the mortgage insurance premiums collected by Federal Housing Administration were initially put into a "box" and saved to cover foreclosures. The government did not give money to the borrowers--they simply insured the loans. For many years FHA was the only agency that operated "in the black" Yes the system worked beautifully for many years because the INSURANCE PREMIUMS were used to cover foreclosures and only for that purpose. Then politicians cast their greedy eyes on the funds, took them out of the box to spend for other things and the rest is history. Then it was decided that housing should be an instrument to achieve social justice. Until Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act; and Clinton put the Act on steroids, it was a beautiful program indeed. Remember, the government was not giving the borrower anything. They were simply insuring the loans. Because of the underwriting guidelines, people did not let their houses go back very often; as a matter of fact, they could often get premiums back if they sold the property or paid it off. Foreclosures were few because underwriting guidelines made sure people had money to pay their principal and interest, insurance taxes, upkeep and have enough left over for their food, cars, gas, credit cards, doctor bills etc. The suit against Citibank changed all that--and not for the better. Making sure people had enough money to make payments and other expenses became racial profiling and redlining, so the baby had to be thrown out with the bath water. We now know how that turned out, but it won't stop it from happening again. So sad. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
Very few people outside the industry understand where the money for mortgages come from. They think if they go to XYZ Bank to get a loan, the bank has all that money in a vault behind the counter. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Historically, much of the money has come from investors that collect money for later payouts, i. e. insurance companies and retirement funds for instance. The money goes into pools and then XYZ bank will go to market to "buy" blocks of money from the pools, which they turn around and use to finance homes. The interest and or points charged have historically reflected what the bank paid for the money. We are told the lender does not make their money off the interest (the investors who provided the money get that) so the lenders collect their money by charging origination fees, points, etc. When we destroy a whole segment of the economy that has historically invested their funds in long-term mortgages, we destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. Right now the federal government, through Obamacare, is setting the entire health insurance sector up for a major fall. Not only do they not care, they planned it this way in order to slide us over to a single-payer system. Once those awful insurance companies are gone, a major source of mortgage money will disappear. Worse, large segments of our economy will be dragged down with them. This is a simplified explanation of a very complex subject, but nothing is complex to the federal government. They are determined to discover (for the umpteenth time) the law of unintended effects as they wipe out our financial markets by putting health insurance companies down. After they succeed, there will be much public hand wringing. Privately they will be gleeful. MusingsbyMarian do tc om
Previous 11 - 20 Next