Comments on: Dems Want Judges To Set Mortgage Terms

By: dulcimergrl

dulcimergrl — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:47:38 +0000

Another example of Carter, part deux. I can hardly wait to have a 16% mortgage where the principal goes down every month–NOT!. I had a loan like that in the early ’80s for a few years. Sounds crazy, but there were a lot of those kinds of loans at the time.

By: Reality Bytes

Reality Bytes — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:04:20 +0000

From a little Acorn A MIGHTY OAF DID GROW!

By: proreason

proreason — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:41:18 +0000

“a 75 IQ, 22 year old, who happens to work as a “reporter”

Are there any other types who work as “reporters”?

If so, I can’t find any on TV or in the Slimes cabal.

But of course, I do enjoy the news babes and am in awe of “journalism” schools’ entrance criteria.

By: proreason

proreason — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:31:49 +0000

I would only be doing it for my wife of course. To preserve our marraige. And I think I deserve the help, because 14 centuries ago, some of my ancestors were enslaved. I just can’t get over it.

By: Colonel1961

Colonel1961 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:56:54 +0000

JMG: Your math is correct, but my hope is not diminished… ;-)

By: bill

bill — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:42:31 +0000

What they want is you to check your responsibilities at the door, which means you have no individual rights.

Rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked, no responsibilities, no rights.

By: Media_man

Media_man — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:41:50 +0000

Another brick in the road paved to hell…

These champions of the “little guy” are only going to succeed in getting mortgages priced with this kind of “risk” built into the interest rate. In other words, we’ll be seeing 15 to 20% interest rates on mortgage loans to take into account the risk of default.

This could very well destroy the market for real estate in the US.

And then they’ll blame the whole mess on “Wall Street” or Bush. They’ll blame everyone but the actual culprits.

By: Chinnubie

Chinnubie — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:29:21 +0000

Why should anybody be responsible anymore?? I can now forgo paying my bills because this new administration is going to pay them for me with this new legislation or is this only for home mortgages?? I mean where do we draw the line, this new responsible tone in Washington sits well with the hippie communes of the early 70s unfortunately, I thought we had learned our lesson from Charlie Manson and his bunch.

Speaking of Charlie and his cult doesn’t this new administration remind anyone of the cult leaders that have been exposed in the past. If you look into the whole idea of cults and the way some charismatic leader lures followers into his lair to do his bidding and the followers never question the Almighty Leader. Maybe it’s just me but Obama and his drones seem to be under some kind of a spell to do whatever he says without question; SPOOKY!!!!!!!!!

By: jobeth

jobeth — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:35:59 +0000

Sorry about that. This up here should have been down there…oh pooh, I’m going to bed…(sleepy grin)

By: jobeth

jobeth — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:33:38 +0000

Great weekend, thanks…especially now that we’ve thawed out! ha!
Back to normal Fl days..at least for a while
J.

By: 1sttofight

1sttofight — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:42:56 +0000

The 1st amend gives you the right to say whatever you want to say. It does not give you the right to avoid the consequences .

By: JohnMG

JohnMG — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:21:15 +0000

What about your wife?? And she’s the same age as you are–in my own case, 62 years old?

I see a flaw in your reasoning. What if she got a 19-year-old college stud? I mean, 19 goes into 62 more times than 62 goes into 19! ;-}

By: Odie44

Odie44 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:02:18 +0000

John –

Unfortunatley the Supreme Court decided it is ok for a 75 IQ, 22 year old, who happens to work as a “reporter” be given protection from releasing names of “sources”

Now I blame all of them (except the dissenting voices) for not having the ability to see how this ruling could be dangerous as opposed to “protecting someones so-called 1st Amendment right”, considering the SC had the brains to figure out long ago “shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment…” being the grave danger it could cause trumnps any perceived 1st Amendment free speech right.

Call me a wanky conservative Constitutional stickler.

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:51:15 +0000

ME FIRST……..
I say, “Pick your poison”.

By: Odie44

Odie44 — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:42:04 +0000

I imagine my mind gravitated to “5th graders”, being that was roughly when I learned all the math needed for mortgages AND the fact the show highlights said math skills.

I hope you had an enjoyable weekend, was lovely here in Atlanta.

By: JohnMG

JohnMG — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:40:01 +0000

…..” according to a Senate aide who was not authorized to be quoted by name…..”

I propose a new rule for reporting: From this point forward, no news leak concerning policy given by any spineless, trash peddling, scum-sucking, ball-licker will be allowed to be printed or reported upon unless said individual claim authorship by allowing his/her name in attribution.

I am sorely tried, and sick and tired of these gutless wonders hiding out where they cannot be bitch-slapped for deliberately lying, or be held accountable for their disingenuous ambiguities.

What a bunch of media-whores!