Well Thought Out Plan of Attack!

Given my work history, I've been especially interested in the housing market since the crash of the sub-prime market. I started processing loans just as things started to unravel. I didn't really understand what was happening, while it was happening, but then again, I don't think too many people actually did. Including, and especially, politicians.
I try to make it a habit to at least read the front page of some of the newspapers provided for the students at the U. Today I was reading about how the government intends to resolve record breaking foreclosure rates. Obama intends to incentivize lenders and investors to refinance thier loans. Investors with mortgages higher than $729,750 are eligible for special interest rates that will save up to several hundred dollars monthly. It's estimated that 4 million people will benefit from this action. What I find ironic is that every body hates Bush because he just "spent, spent, spent" while he was in office. Yet, as much as he did, this bill that Obama is passing is much more ambitious and costly than anything Bush ever did. The difference is that Obama is essentially trying to 'twist the arms' of the lenders into revising loans. His bill also enables bankruptcy judges to modify loans at their own discretion. Here's where it get's tricky. In a market where declining house values are a very real threat, and given that houses value's are determined by the houses being sold, or that have been sold in the previous months, if a judge decides to alleviate the burden of the homeowner by changing the loan amount, he effectively decides the house is not what it was worth when the homeowner purchased the house. So that only contributes to the dangers of declining house values.

Obama Obama Obama...

Does anyone else find it ironic that Obama's chewing out all these execs for their crazy huge rewards for sucking on everyone's investments right now, but he felt perfectly justified in throwing the most expensive inauguration party in this country's history? I know, the party's expenses pail's in comparison to some of the dough that the exec's are getting. Here's what I think is a little silly:
Obama chewed out execs for buying jet's, and giving crazy bonuses to people in the midst of this financial crises. Just a few weeks prior, he asks the entire University of Utah marching band to play at his inauguration... If he's suppose to lead this country, and shed costs, and help get us going again, by leading by example... how should that be interpreted?
I'm all for cutting back on the exec's compensation, don't get me wrong. I think it's asinine that men get into these positions making $50+ million annually, with the option to potentially make $150+million, albeit a risky venture. They don't care, they're guaranteed a salary. The incentive structure should be our target.
Anyway, I'm just not entirely convinced about how he's the answer to America's problems. I'm finding it pretty humorous though how many nominated individuals that are ineligible for one reason or the other.

Our Mutual Joy

This is something I've been meaning to do for quite sometime, but am finally taking some initiative. My intentions for this blog page is simply to voice my humble opinion about current issues. I feel that common sense is far too often overlooked and I try to point out what I feel is common sense. So, anyway, take it for what it's worth, with a grain of salt.


While I was sitting in the Jiffy Lube lobby waiting for my oil change, I picked up a Newsweek magazine and couldn't resist reading the cover story about a gay couple fighting for custody rights for their, invitrio conceived daughter. The editor started off by telling her readers why the decision as to whether gay marriage should be allowed or not should not be based off of biblical teachings. In the introduction, she wrote,

“Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when
he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered
children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and
heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better.
Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly
attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage
as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is
better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most
lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.”

This argument about what the bible says or doesn’t say, is exactly why no one can interpret the Bible sufficiently! No team for that matter can truly state what the author’s intentions were when they said this or that. Paul said, “it’s better to marry than to burn with passion,” … Paul also said that women should be quiet in their meetings, and to not “usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” This article only reinforced in my mind the importance of revelation. Who better to turn to, than to Who originally inspired the writers of the message.



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA=

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/output/comments