Contrary to what the lame stream media (LSM) portrayed the James O’Keefe/Senator Landrieu story to be, it turns out to be much to do about nothing. Although ill-advised what they were trying to accomplish was to show that Senator Mary Landrieu was not responding to her constituents so they were checking to see if the phones were working. Everyone should know by now that the Democrat/Statists were not responding or listening to their constituents. They could see it from the town halls. Therefore, it was a non-story.
However, it’s ironic the LSM did not really question or investigate the Senator about the 300 million dollar bribe she received for her vote on the healthcare bill or why her constituents were unable to get in contact with her. They also ignored and downplayed the ACORN story. Instead, they thought they had Watergate two and wiretapping. They were dreaming and hoping to take down some big time conservatives with this story and had to retract some of their over zealous reporting.
Biased Ed Schultz even made the comment to Bertha Lewis of ACORN that the arrest of O’Keefe vindicated ACORN. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH. ACORN is a corrupt organization and is being investigated in numerous states for voter registration fraud, not to mention the videos made by O’Keefe of ACORN exposing more corruption regarding underage slave prostitution. Then again what did you expect coming from this BLOWHARD, after all Schultz said he would CHEAT TO WIN and vote 10, no 20 times if he lived in Massachusetts. By the way ED that is a crime.
The LSM likes to be the FIRST to report a story even if they do not have all of the FACTS. I would prefer to have the facts right and not be so concerned with being the FIRST. When the story first broke these questions came to mind, which for the most point have been answered.
What are the charges? What evidence do they have?
What were you doing in Senators Mary Landrieu’s Office? Was there an appointment made, and by whom?
Who was with you? Why were they with you? Were you taping and if so why? Did you seek permission to tape the interview? What were you trying to accomplish?
Have you heard of Nixon and Watergate?
As stated James O’Keefe was trying to show Senator Landrieu was not responding to phone calls from her constituents. The means he went about it was ill-advised, because O’Keefe has a target on him. Therefore, when he tries to expose corruption and misdeeds his methods must be done way above board.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
"ONE YEAR PRESIDENT"
Obama how about doing this country a really big favor and be a "ONE YEAR PRESIDENT," and resign today.You are a mediocre President now and your policies are not helping people and are wrong for America.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Arlen Specter Start Packing Your Bags
Arlen Specter start packing your bags you will be FIRED IN NOVEMBER. You are an ignorant condescending FOOL, and you don't know HOW to treat a lady. Specter you said Michelle was talking about talking points; that is all the Democrats/Statists do. Hope and Change. If these Statists have their way we won't even have the change left. And Arlen if I was in the room with you when you disrespected Michelle or any other LADY I would of Bxxtch-slapped you. So watch your manners!! BTW Michelle is a "LADY."
Lying Democrats
Donkeys painted at Gaza Zoo to look like Zebras
Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Etc.
NO MATTER HOW THEY TRY TO DISGUISE THEMSELVES THEY ARE STILL
DEMOCRATS
Monday, January 18, 2010
Gibbs and Transparency
Robert Gibbs, or is it Peter Griffin or Joseph Goebbels, has a problem explaining the lack of transparency coming from the Obama Administration when he campaigned on it. It’s hard defending a LIAR. So Gibbs gives non answers to the question and is dismissive and condescending to the press. It’s a little late but it seems some of the press is starting to ask the right questions. The freedom of the press is recognized in the first amendment of the Constitution because they are supposed to be the watchdogs over the government.
President Obama stated he was going to have the most transparent government ever. He wrote a memo that reads: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” I believe you should lead by example. Obama did not and does not release his birth certificate, or his college papers. He also said numerous times that the Healthcare debate was going to be open and wanted it to be televised on CSPAN.
Maybe he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word transparency, which according to Webster’s dictionary means, “clearness, to make bright or clear; to make evident; to free from accusation.” When there is a contradiction between what he says and what he does you begin to question, what is he trying to hide? What will those documents reveal? What is going on behind closed doors in the healthcare debate? What is going on is BRIBES and preferential treatment to groups that helped elect Obama.
If the healthcare legislation is so GREAT, why the need for the Democrats to vote on it in the dark of night? Why the need for BRIBES? Why are they not presenting the facts of the bill to the American people? Why do they want to put people in jail for not wanting to buy health insurance? Why the hurry in getting this bill passed? Why are the Democrats conducting business behind closed doors? What happened to transparency? The answer is the numbers do not add up and because the more people find out the details the more they dislike it and do not want it.
The Democrats are pushing this legislation to create an ever increasing amount of people dependent on the government in order to garner votes to stay in POWER. It is about CONTROL!!
President Obama stated he was going to have the most transparent government ever. He wrote a memo that reads: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” I believe you should lead by example. Obama did not and does not release his birth certificate, or his college papers. He also said numerous times that the Healthcare debate was going to be open and wanted it to be televised on CSPAN.
Maybe he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word transparency, which according to Webster’s dictionary means, “clearness, to make bright or clear; to make evident; to free from accusation.” When there is a contradiction between what he says and what he does you begin to question, what is he trying to hide? What will those documents reveal? What is going on behind closed doors in the healthcare debate? What is going on is BRIBES and preferential treatment to groups that helped elect Obama.
If the healthcare legislation is so GREAT, why the need for the Democrats to vote on it in the dark of night? Why the need for BRIBES? Why are they not presenting the facts of the bill to the American people? Why do they want to put people in jail for not wanting to buy health insurance? Why the hurry in getting this bill passed? Why are the Democrats conducting business behind closed doors? What happened to transparency? The answer is the numbers do not add up and because the more people find out the details the more they dislike it and do not want it.
The Democrats are pushing this legislation to create an ever increasing amount of people dependent on the government in order to garner votes to stay in POWER. It is about CONTROL!!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Pat Robertson & Danny Glover on Cause of Haiti Earthquake
Once again when a natural disaster strikes Americans respond with assistance. The American people immediately go into action to help those in need because that is the kind of people we are. The world looks to the USA for our response. President Barack Hussein Obama has pledged 100 million taxpayers dollars for support of Haiti. However, the answer is not to just throw money at it because the USA has been sending millions of dollars to Haiti but the corrupt leadership misused and stole the money.
Pat Robertson made a statement regarding the earthquake in Haiti blaming it on the pact the Haitian’s made with the devil. He believes it is the wrath of God that perpetrated this disaster. Although, it is a factual story; the Haitian’s did a voodoo ceremony making a compact with the devil. It’s a history lesson that I do not think needed to be taught at this time. It was an insensitive statement made during the time of the crisis, akin to kicking someone when they are down. Robertson was crucified by the media for making the statement, which was stupid and insensitive.
Danny Glover on the other hand blamed the earthquake on the god of Global Warming. He stated we are all in peril because of global warming and climate change. When we (USA) did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen this is the response, this is what happens. It will be interesting to see if there is the same amount of outrage directed towards him.
There will be natural disasters throughout the world, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, and hurricanes etc. because “It is what it is.” That is the nature of our planet. I do not believe it is “god’s will.”
Pat Robertson made a statement regarding the earthquake in Haiti blaming it on the pact the Haitian’s made with the devil. He believes it is the wrath of God that perpetrated this disaster. Although, it is a factual story; the Haitian’s did a voodoo ceremony making a compact with the devil. It’s a history lesson that I do not think needed to be taught at this time. It was an insensitive statement made during the time of the crisis, akin to kicking someone when they are down. Robertson was crucified by the media for making the statement, which was stupid and insensitive.
Danny Glover on the other hand blamed the earthquake on the god of Global Warming. He stated we are all in peril because of global warming and climate change. When we (USA) did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen this is the response, this is what happens. It will be interesting to see if there is the same amount of outrage directed towards him.
There will be natural disasters throughout the world, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, and hurricanes etc. because “It is what it is.” That is the nature of our planet. I do not believe it is “god’s will.”
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Causes and Solutions to the Financial Crisis
Greed and irresponsibility were factors in the housing and banking crisis. Politicians did things for their benefit to stay in office. Bankers and homebuilders were making money by engaging in bad business practices, and borrowers were getting that “Great Deal”. Other factors that contributed to the housing and banking crises this country is now facing are as follows: the Government/politicians through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, Community activists groups, predatory lending, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Banks that set up loans which would lead to foreclosures, Homebuilders who overbuilt, naïve borrowers and people who game the system.
Under the Community Reinvestment Act bureaucrats pushed for more homeownership among minorities and low-income consumers and encouraged lenders to make questionable loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded homeownership by reducing down payment requirements, and changed the underwriting in order to loan to borrowers with poor credit ratings. Also banks, thrifts, and mortgage companies pressed Fannie Mae to help make more loans to so-called sub prime borrowers. 100% loans are not the problem; the loans need to be structured in a way for the borrower to be able to pay back the debt.
Community activists groups under the guise of the Community Reinvestment Act were pressuring the banks to give out questionable loans to people who may have not normally qualified for the loan. Some of these banks were not verifying income, employment etc. in order to put through the loan because they were making money processing, packaging, and selling these loans.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act enabled commercial lenders to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt and established structured investment vehicles ( SIVs) that bought those securities. This conflict of interest could lead to abuses by these institutions.
Government/Bureaucrats in Congress (Democrats and Republicans) passed laws that brought about this financial crisis and were aware of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did nothing to solve the problem. In 2004 there were Congressional hearings on the questionable lending practices by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the guise of CRA. The Democrats (Representatives Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Arthur Davis, and Lacy Clay) wanted to continue the practice that was being done saying that there was not a problem. The Republicans (Representatives Christopher Shays, Richard Baker, Ed Royce, and Don Manzullo) saw the potential problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did not take decisive action on it even though they were in control of congress at the time.
John McCain while campaigning for President stated he was aware of the problem at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005. He was a US Senator at that time and the Republicans controlled Congress so where is the legislation to try to correct the problem. President Barack Obama states he inherited this economy with these deficits. He was a US Senator and the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 so where is the legislation from him to correct the problem.
Politicians receive campaign contributions from these lending institutions, which may influence how and what type of legislation is passed. The bankruptcy law that was recently passed heavily favors the lending institutions wherein it is more difficult to write off credit card debt in the bankruptcy but the interest rate that is being charged was not reduced.
These banks set up o% or low interest rate teaser loans knowing that some of these loans would go to foreclosure. These loans were basically a 5-year balloon note with the interest accumulating over the five years after which the interest payment and payments would adjust to higher payments unless the borrower is able to refinance at a lower rate. An onerous term “toxic assets” is used to make the situation seem direr. However these properties/ mortgage paper do have a value. If the loan had been modified the mortgage paper would not be “toxic”, or if the housing values had not depreciated and the homeowner would have been able to refinance at a lower rate, the mortgage paper would not be “toxic”. Also some of these properties have been sold in a foreclosure sale so why would the original mortgage paper still be on the banks books?
Some people are upset with the governments proposal to modify mortgage loans, stating they do not want to subsidize people for buying a house they could not afford calling them losers. However, it depends on how the loan is structured, because if it is spread out over a longer period of time one could afford it. Let’s say you want to get a loan for $100,000, if you have to pay it back in a week most people would not be able to pay it back but if spread out over time 10 years, 30 years, 100 years the person would be able to pay it back. The banks should have been modifying some of these loans on their own.
Some people are concerned with contract law that these people entered into a contract and they should abide by it. I say contracts are written in legalize in order to break the contract. When it comes to a mortgage the rate and terms are based on the persons credit report and now more importantly the credit score. Credit Bureaus and Banks in cooperation with each other are selling credit-monitoring services, which is clearly a conflict of interest because it is in the interest of the banks for the borrower to have a lower credit score so the bank can charge higher interest rates.
In my situation I bought a house, with a mortgage and made my payments. I then got another loan and bought a home to rehab and eventually move in it as my primary residence. Then came the housing collapse and I was unable to sell either house. I depleted my savings and began getting cash advances on my credit cards to make the payments in the hopes that I would be able to sell one of the homes in order to maintain my good credit. I tried to refinance the loan but the lenders would not refinance it if it were on the market for sale, stating per government regulations it needs to be off the market for 90 days before you can refinance. (I think that is a ridiculous guideline; it should make no difference whether the house is for sale in order to refinance the debt.) Now because of all of the foreclosures the appraised value of my home has deteriorated wherein the lenders will not refinance it. I could not sell either house therefore I contacted my lender to modify my loan. Would I be considered a speculator or a loser?
Bank robbers steal at the point of a gun. Bankers steal at the point of a pen. Not only did they set up risky loans in the mortgage business but also they have clauses in the credit cards to get more money from the consumer.
Banks use a universal default clause to charge people more interest on their credit cards. If you are late with another card, or if you are having a dispute with another creditor, or if your credit score drops, the banks can raise the interest rate even on charges that are already on the card. The banks also circumvent the usury laws by incorporating in states that have lax or no usury laws. There also is a binding arbitration clause where people are signing their rights away to the judicial process where you cannot join in a class action lawsuit against the bank.
The credit bureaus on the other hand lower your score if you shop for a loan. I do not believe you should be penalized for trying to get a better deal for yourself. The creditors use the credit bureaus as a club, or collection tool over people. The consumer’s word or documentation does not mean a thing; the credit bureaus take the words or documentation from the creditors, even though sometimes that information is inaccurate. Almost everything you do now is based on your credit rating/ score, if you are seeking employment, a loan, or insurance your credit report is ran.
Congress recently passed a law where people can get a free copy of their credit report once a year. However, you have to pay for your credit score and most loans these days are score driven. The credit bureaus will not reveal how they obtain your score or what criteria are used, because they claim it is proprietary. In math your taught that 2 + 2 = 4, but in credit scoring 2+2 = whatever the bureaus want it to be. This is not right and needs to be changed.
What should be reported is if you do not pay your bills. If you incur the debt you need to pay it back. However you should be able to make alternate arrangements to pay off the debt because of extenuating circumstances such as a loss of job, or illness.
The banks and credit bureaus use the scare tactic of Identity Theft to get more money out of the consumers by having them sign up for credit monitoring services. As previously stated the bureaus have even formed partnerships with some banks to offer credit-monitoring services for a fee, which is a conflict of interest. It’s the credit bureaus grave responsibility mandated by law to maintain accurate credit reports on individuals. So why are they charging a fee for monitoring it?
Banks and credit bureaus are in the business to make money by loaning money and maintaining credit reports for a fee. However, I do not believe these companies should be taking advantage of the consumers by use of the default clause, binding arbitration, credit monitoring or how the bureaus score the credit report.
Both sides are using class envy, which is not right or productive. The liberals/socialists use class envy against the rich and the achievers pitting the haves from the have-nots. The conservatives/right are calling some of these people losers saying they are gaming the system getting something for nothing.
Barrack Obama uses the term speculator in a derogatory way stating that in his housing plan he would not reward speculators. What is his definition of speculator? Is a speculator someone who buys a property, fixes it up, and sells it for a profit? What is the difference between a speculator and a homebuilder? A speculator and homebuilder both help the economy by purchasing materials and hire contractors to build and fix up the property. The retailers make money and the contractors make money wherein people are employed and their debts are paid. The homebuilders continued to build causing an oversupply of housing on the market causing the values of the houses to decline because of supply and demand.
Another consequence regarding the housing crisis is with the housing prices falling so will the tax revenue. In Missouri we have reassessments on property every two years. Properties are being foreclosed on which brings down the value of homes and with reassessment the homes will be valued less, therefore there will be less tax revenue. What will the government do with less tax revenue?
A solution to the housing problem is to do a loan modification on the property. Make it available to anyone that would want to do it. There would need to be exceptions made to the lending rules, by using the original appraisal of the property and renegotiate the rate and term of the loan. Reducing the interest rate and spreading the loan over a longer period of time wherein the homeowner is able to make the payment would help to stabilize the housing market. My solution would hold everyone involved in the transaction responsible and everyone would win. The costs are added into the renegotiated loan, and the payments are paid out over a longer period of time. The homeowner is held responsible by paying off his debt, and the banks and lender receive their money albeit over a longer period of time. . This would help the housing crisis, because the homeowner keeps the home; the banks and investors receive the money albeit over a longer period of time. Home values would stabilize and the government would receive the tax revenue. It would be a win-win for everyone including the states that receive tax revenue.
Another solution suggested by Jim Cramer is to modify everyone’s loan and give 40 year mortgages at 4 to 4 1/2% interest rate, write down the principal if need be and issue a certificate to go to the banks if the property wherein if the property is sold at a higher price from the principal being reduced the banks would receive the difference between the two and any excess over that would go to the homeowner.
The housing market needs to be stabilized which would stabilize the banking system.
More importantly to solving problems facing this country is to elect officials that are going to do the right thing and pass legislation that is fair to everyone.
Greg Zotta
Under the Community Reinvestment Act bureaucrats pushed for more homeownership among minorities and low-income consumers and encouraged lenders to make questionable loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded homeownership by reducing down payment requirements, and changed the underwriting in order to loan to borrowers with poor credit ratings. Also banks, thrifts, and mortgage companies pressed Fannie Mae to help make more loans to so-called sub prime borrowers. 100% loans are not the problem; the loans need to be structured in a way for the borrower to be able to pay back the debt.
Community activists groups under the guise of the Community Reinvestment Act were pressuring the banks to give out questionable loans to people who may have not normally qualified for the loan. Some of these banks were not verifying income, employment etc. in order to put through the loan because they were making money processing, packaging, and selling these loans.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act enabled commercial lenders to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt and established structured investment vehicles ( SIVs) that bought those securities. This conflict of interest could lead to abuses by these institutions.
Government/Bureaucrats in Congress (Democrats and Republicans) passed laws that brought about this financial crisis and were aware of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did nothing to solve the problem. In 2004 there were Congressional hearings on the questionable lending practices by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the guise of CRA. The Democrats (Representatives Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Arthur Davis, and Lacy Clay) wanted to continue the practice that was being done saying that there was not a problem. The Republicans (Representatives Christopher Shays, Richard Baker, Ed Royce, and Don Manzullo) saw the potential problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did not take decisive action on it even though they were in control of congress at the time.
John McCain while campaigning for President stated he was aware of the problem at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005. He was a US Senator at that time and the Republicans controlled Congress so where is the legislation to try to correct the problem. President Barack Obama states he inherited this economy with these deficits. He was a US Senator and the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 so where is the legislation from him to correct the problem.
Politicians receive campaign contributions from these lending institutions, which may influence how and what type of legislation is passed. The bankruptcy law that was recently passed heavily favors the lending institutions wherein it is more difficult to write off credit card debt in the bankruptcy but the interest rate that is being charged was not reduced.
These banks set up o% or low interest rate teaser loans knowing that some of these loans would go to foreclosure. These loans were basically a 5-year balloon note with the interest accumulating over the five years after which the interest payment and payments would adjust to higher payments unless the borrower is able to refinance at a lower rate. An onerous term “toxic assets” is used to make the situation seem direr. However these properties/ mortgage paper do have a value. If the loan had been modified the mortgage paper would not be “toxic”, or if the housing values had not depreciated and the homeowner would have been able to refinance at a lower rate, the mortgage paper would not be “toxic”. Also some of these properties have been sold in a foreclosure sale so why would the original mortgage paper still be on the banks books?
Some people are upset with the governments proposal to modify mortgage loans, stating they do not want to subsidize people for buying a house they could not afford calling them losers. However, it depends on how the loan is structured, because if it is spread out over a longer period of time one could afford it. Let’s say you want to get a loan for $100,000, if you have to pay it back in a week most people would not be able to pay it back but if spread out over time 10 years, 30 years, 100 years the person would be able to pay it back. The banks should have been modifying some of these loans on their own.
Some people are concerned with contract law that these people entered into a contract and they should abide by it. I say contracts are written in legalize in order to break the contract. When it comes to a mortgage the rate and terms are based on the persons credit report and now more importantly the credit score. Credit Bureaus and Banks in cooperation with each other are selling credit-monitoring services, which is clearly a conflict of interest because it is in the interest of the banks for the borrower to have a lower credit score so the bank can charge higher interest rates.
In my situation I bought a house, with a mortgage and made my payments. I then got another loan and bought a home to rehab and eventually move in it as my primary residence. Then came the housing collapse and I was unable to sell either house. I depleted my savings and began getting cash advances on my credit cards to make the payments in the hopes that I would be able to sell one of the homes in order to maintain my good credit. I tried to refinance the loan but the lenders would not refinance it if it were on the market for sale, stating per government regulations it needs to be off the market for 90 days before you can refinance. (I think that is a ridiculous guideline; it should make no difference whether the house is for sale in order to refinance the debt.) Now because of all of the foreclosures the appraised value of my home has deteriorated wherein the lenders will not refinance it. I could not sell either house therefore I contacted my lender to modify my loan. Would I be considered a speculator or a loser?
Bank robbers steal at the point of a gun. Bankers steal at the point of a pen. Not only did they set up risky loans in the mortgage business but also they have clauses in the credit cards to get more money from the consumer.
Banks use a universal default clause to charge people more interest on their credit cards. If you are late with another card, or if you are having a dispute with another creditor, or if your credit score drops, the banks can raise the interest rate even on charges that are already on the card. The banks also circumvent the usury laws by incorporating in states that have lax or no usury laws. There also is a binding arbitration clause where people are signing their rights away to the judicial process where you cannot join in a class action lawsuit against the bank.
The credit bureaus on the other hand lower your score if you shop for a loan. I do not believe you should be penalized for trying to get a better deal for yourself. The creditors use the credit bureaus as a club, or collection tool over people. The consumer’s word or documentation does not mean a thing; the credit bureaus take the words or documentation from the creditors, even though sometimes that information is inaccurate. Almost everything you do now is based on your credit rating/ score, if you are seeking employment, a loan, or insurance your credit report is ran.
Congress recently passed a law where people can get a free copy of their credit report once a year. However, you have to pay for your credit score and most loans these days are score driven. The credit bureaus will not reveal how they obtain your score or what criteria are used, because they claim it is proprietary. In math your taught that 2 + 2 = 4, but in credit scoring 2+2 = whatever the bureaus want it to be. This is not right and needs to be changed.
What should be reported is if you do not pay your bills. If you incur the debt you need to pay it back. However you should be able to make alternate arrangements to pay off the debt because of extenuating circumstances such as a loss of job, or illness.
The banks and credit bureaus use the scare tactic of Identity Theft to get more money out of the consumers by having them sign up for credit monitoring services. As previously stated the bureaus have even formed partnerships with some banks to offer credit-monitoring services for a fee, which is a conflict of interest. It’s the credit bureaus grave responsibility mandated by law to maintain accurate credit reports on individuals. So why are they charging a fee for monitoring it?
Banks and credit bureaus are in the business to make money by loaning money and maintaining credit reports for a fee. However, I do not believe these companies should be taking advantage of the consumers by use of the default clause, binding arbitration, credit monitoring or how the bureaus score the credit report.
Both sides are using class envy, which is not right or productive. The liberals/socialists use class envy against the rich and the achievers pitting the haves from the have-nots. The conservatives/right are calling some of these people losers saying they are gaming the system getting something for nothing.
Barrack Obama uses the term speculator in a derogatory way stating that in his housing plan he would not reward speculators. What is his definition of speculator? Is a speculator someone who buys a property, fixes it up, and sells it for a profit? What is the difference between a speculator and a homebuilder? A speculator and homebuilder both help the economy by purchasing materials and hire contractors to build and fix up the property. The retailers make money and the contractors make money wherein people are employed and their debts are paid. The homebuilders continued to build causing an oversupply of housing on the market causing the values of the houses to decline because of supply and demand.
Another consequence regarding the housing crisis is with the housing prices falling so will the tax revenue. In Missouri we have reassessments on property every two years. Properties are being foreclosed on which brings down the value of homes and with reassessment the homes will be valued less, therefore there will be less tax revenue. What will the government do with less tax revenue?
A solution to the housing problem is to do a loan modification on the property. Make it available to anyone that would want to do it. There would need to be exceptions made to the lending rules, by using the original appraisal of the property and renegotiate the rate and term of the loan. Reducing the interest rate and spreading the loan over a longer period of time wherein the homeowner is able to make the payment would help to stabilize the housing market. My solution would hold everyone involved in the transaction responsible and everyone would win. The costs are added into the renegotiated loan, and the payments are paid out over a longer period of time. The homeowner is held responsible by paying off his debt, and the banks and lender receive their money albeit over a longer period of time. . This would help the housing crisis, because the homeowner keeps the home; the banks and investors receive the money albeit over a longer period of time. Home values would stabilize and the government would receive the tax revenue. It would be a win-win for everyone including the states that receive tax revenue.
Another solution suggested by Jim Cramer is to modify everyone’s loan and give 40 year mortgages at 4 to 4 1/2% interest rate, write down the principal if need be and issue a certificate to go to the banks if the property wherein if the property is sold at a higher price from the principal being reduced the banks would receive the difference between the two and any excess over that would go to the homeowner.
The housing market needs to be stabilized which would stabilize the banking system.
More importantly to solving problems facing this country is to elect officials that are going to do the right thing and pass legislation that is fair to everyone.
Greg Zotta
Questions on Healthcare
Here are some questions that should be answered before proceeding with healthcare legislation. If the healthcare legislation is so GREAT, why did the Democrats vote on it in the dark of night on a Saturday night? Why are they not presenting the facts of the bill to the American people? Is it because the numbers do not add up? The Democrats say that there is a need to pass this legislation today because thousands of people are dying because of the lack of healthcare. Yet the benefits do not go into effect until 4 years from now, so by their calculations are they going to let thousands more of Americans die? Where has anyone been refused treatment in this country? Why the hurry in getting this bill passed? Why are the Democrats conducting business behind closed doors? What happened to transparency? Why don’t the Democrats want the Bill or Amendments read? Is it because the more people find out the details the more they dislike it? Why do they want to put people in jail for not wanting to buy health insurance? Would that even be constitutional? Why are certain states and groups, like the unions getting preferential treatment? What about equal protection as stated in the 14th amendment? Why do they have to bribe certain Senators in order to get them to vote for it? Is Eric Holder going to investigate this bribe? Why do politicians say one thing but do another, Joe Liebermann? Will the news media begin doing their job and expose this fraud? Will the American people stand up and be heard to stop this monstrosity? The Democrats are pushing this legislation to create an ever increasing amount of people dependent on the government in order to garner votes to stay in POWER.
Greg Zotta
Greg Zotta
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Obama and Guantanamo Bay
President Barack Hussein Obama regarding Guantanamo Bay prison stated, “Let me be clear, it has always been our intent to transfer detainees to other countries only under the condition that they provide assurances that our security are being protected. Make no mistake, we will close Guantanamo Bay. It has damaged our national security interests. It is a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. In fact it has been an explicit rational for the formation of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As I have always said, we will do so; close the prison in a manner that will keep the American people safe and secure.” He called Gitmo a black eye on America relations to the world.
The prison in Illinois will not be ready for at least a year if Congress gives them the funding. Illinois is around the center of the country; do we really want to be a target there? By relocating the detainees from Gitmo to Illinois isn’t that just relocating Gitmo to Illinois?
If President Obama truly wants the American people to be safe and secure then Gitmo should remain open. The US has spent billions on the prison at Guantanamo Bay and is safer than the prison in Illinois. He should also rethink having the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York. Talk about a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, this will be a very costly circus.
Mr. President, other things you can do for the safety of Americans is to stop going around the world apologizing for what a rotten country the USA is and realize that Islam is at war with America.
Greg Zotta
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
NYC How to Guide to Heroin Use
New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene printed pamphlets for heroin users. The guidebook offers information on how to prepare drugs carefully and how to care for veins to avoid infection. “If you’re going to do drugs, do it right, because even drug addicts deserve to have their lives protected.”
The department printed and distributed about 70,000 copies of the handout at a cost of $32,000.00.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Democrat/Republican/Independent King of New York defended the decision to distribute the how-to guide to shoot up illegal drugs stating, "I would certainly not recommend to anyone that they use hard drugs or soft drugs," he said. "But our health department does have an interest in if you're going to do certain things to get you to do it as healthily as you possibly can."
This is the same Mayor who bribed the New York City Council to repeal the term limits law that restricted elected officials to two terms in office. He then spent over 100 million dollars to barely win the election for his third term as Mayor.
New York has very restrictive gun and smoking laws that Mayor Bloomberg pushed through with zeal.
This pamphlet instructs the heroin users on how to prepare and inject the drugs, which is a felony, a crime. Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is itself a crime. This concept encompasses rendering support, assistance, or encouragement to the commission of a crime. My question is would Mayor Bloomberg and whoever else was behind distributing this how to guide to shoot up heroin be guilty of aiding and abetting? Is the Attorney General going to look into this matter?
Greg Zotta
The department printed and distributed about 70,000 copies of the handout at a cost of $32,000.00.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Democrat/Republican/Independent King of New York defended the decision to distribute the how-to guide to shoot up illegal drugs stating, "I would certainly not recommend to anyone that they use hard drugs or soft drugs," he said. "But our health department does have an interest in if you're going to do certain things to get you to do it as healthily as you possibly can."
This is the same Mayor who bribed the New York City Council to repeal the term limits law that restricted elected officials to two terms in office. He then spent over 100 million dollars to barely win the election for his third term as Mayor.
New York has very restrictive gun and smoking laws that Mayor Bloomberg pushed through with zeal.
This pamphlet instructs the heroin users on how to prepare and inject the drugs, which is a felony, a crime. Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is itself a crime. This concept encompasses rendering support, assistance, or encouragement to the commission of a crime. My question is would Mayor Bloomberg and whoever else was behind distributing this how to guide to shoot up heroin be guilty of aiding and abetting? Is the Attorney General going to look into this matter?
Greg Zotta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
