1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Second U.S. Housing Bubble?

Smartchick Wrote: Mar 28, 2014 7:48 AM
#1. Peoples incomes are about the same or slightly increased from what they were making BEFORE the recession in 2007 and we were paying much higher prices for housing then than we are now as homes have not quite come back to 100% of what they were then. #2. Interest rates are far lower than they were in 2007 so even if homes were back to 100% levels, the cost per month for a mortgage is still lower. #3. It's a great time to buy, but most people are reluctant to because of articles like this. The idea is, if you want to buy a home, you have a secure job and enough savings to make your house payment if you are laid off for an extended time, then buying now is a great time. Interest rates affect you much more than the purchase price, and they won't stay at this level forever.
Obama's reign is a perfect example on a small scale of the rise of the Antichrist. Now you may not believe in such things, but if you do, you can now see how how the Antichrist will be overwhelmingly elected, much more so than even Obama. It's so stunning to me how many sheep we have in our midst. Jim Jones and the Kool Aid episode year ago showed us this. We must fight it in any way we can that's convincing to those who don't bother to see with their head and their eyes. At some point people will object, just like they eventually will with the Antichrist, but then it's too late.
Fact #1 Obama, people who struggle to save for retirement do so because they have no money at the end of the paycheck, in fact they're in the red. Fact#2, you can set up a Roth IRA at so many hundred, maybe thousand places, that no one even needs this option. Fact #3, as stated below, the interest rates as so pitiful that Obama is giving false hope to people that they actually would have a secure retirement in the end. The power of compound interest is such that when you're young at least, you need that money actually working for you not sitting in a Treasure Bond. Fact #4 Last but certainly not least, Really Obama you needed to go around Congress to come up with this, offering it to us huddled masses? Is it that controversial that you think Congress would have refused to work with you on this? Well maybe they would have actually offered us something of value. Ya, that would be good.
The taxpayers actually do feed them if the mother cannot. It's call WIC, SNAP, Welfare, and food banks.
I for one have seriously considered moving to another state. The Progressive Liberal agenda that I have to live with on a daily basis (at work in my union job, smoking laws, banned plastic bags, Mike McGinn, Seattle's bicycling mayor along with war on car drivers by reducing road capacity, new legalized marijuana laws, the list goes on. Patty Murray was just the start of it, and the 'mute' button on my t.v. gets used quite a bit when she makes the news.
I have no problem believing it, as in our own hospitals doctors were throwing born alive babies that had been aborted (botched) in the trash and given no medical help. Hence the passage of the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" that was passed by Congress after nurses from a large hospital in Chicago came forward with the horrific details. And by the way the Great Saviour Obama voted against this bill 4 times as a Senator from Illinois.
That is also part of Obamacare. You will not be allowed to pay for your uncovered treatment or drugs with your own money if you don't 'qualify' for it under our new system. Guess we had to pass it to find out what's in it.
In response to:

Why Obama Won’t Make a Tax Deal

Smartchick Wrote: Sep 06, 2012 10:06 AM
Good point. What the Dems tell us about themselves by driving hard for Abortion is that they are self centered and cannot control their bodies and minds and they shouldn't have to. After all getting pregnant isn't a disease it's a choice for the majority of women. The cries for free contraception tells the same story about themselves plus one.When they are out of control they also refuse to take responsibility for their actions and the results of same. And who should pay the price? Innocent babies. This tells you all you need to know about Feminists and the Left on their moral stand. They only stand up for SOME, picking and choosing the winners so if you're inconvenient, A Christian woman or Republican they won't stand up for you.
Finally someone that actually sees what Justice Roberts did (underhanded yes, but he's managed to diffuse some of the issues that were hovering ready to squash us in a broad way ). Brilliant! Yes I'm disappointed that the ruling wasn't just overturned, but think of the political leverage that would have given Obama through November. I was pretty worried about just that. What a 'gift' Justice Roberts, now we only need 50 votes to repeal and we already have 47 of them. I am betting there will be at least 3 or 4 Dems that would like to repeal this TAX before their re-election in November. The frosting on the cake? No requirements for states to expand their Medicaid rolls. This basically guts Obamacare.
In response to:

Obamacare: A Case In Point

Smartchick Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 7:26 AM
Well first of all you can forget about paying for it yourself. Their are rules against paying for any medical care out of your own pocket, you see that wouldn't be fair to those that can't afford it. Yes you would see a nurse, that's how things work in the UK I know, my husband is a Brit. When we got married I insisted he see my GP for a physical. He had prostate cancer! No one had ever ordered a PSA test for him in the UK. When he had surgery in 2000 before he moved here, he was in a ward to recover with 8 people in it, no private room for him. The UK has been adopting private health insurance. Go figure that the Brits want what the kind of healthcare that we have here.
1 - 10 Next