Trump signed a sweeping executive order Friday that he billed as a necessary step to stop “radical Islamic terrorists” from coming to the U.S.
Maybe if we didn’t pay and arm the terrorists they would be less likely to come here. We seem to think we can control what the terrorists do after we give them the resources to terrorize. Not only is it unethical to do what we do, but it predictably backfires on us.
Tulsi Gabbard knows how to stop the carnage. Why not listen to her message rather than trying to kill the messenger?
No wonder we have medicinal drug culture where we take one drug to prevent a symptom, and then we take a second drug to overcome the side-effects of the first one, go back to step one and repeat. This sort of thing seems to fit our mentality these days.
This video confirms my reason for usually switching channels when Wolf Blitzer comes on. After Tulsi Gabbard spends a minute or more explaining why the U.S. effort to get rid of the Bashar El Assad’s regime is counterproductive, Wolf asks the brilliant follow-up question:
Why do you say the U.S. effort to get rid of the Bashar El Assad’s regime is counterproductive and illegal?
Isn’t an interviewer suppose to listen to the answers that the guest makes to his questions. I suspect that many interviewers come in with a list of questions they are going to ask, no matter what the guest has to say.
This is the first video I have seen that includes an interview with Dennis Kucinich.
One trouble I note with many of these videos, is the question that the interviewers almost always ask. They ask Tulsi and Dennis how they could possibly meet with Assad who has this long litany of charges against him. Both Tulsi and Dennis go on to explain why you have to talk to such people if there is a chance to stop a war. They rarely spend the time to point out that many of the charges made against Assad are likely fiction promulgated by our spy agencies. What is the point of not talking to someone because of accusations that might be completely false?
Dennis and Tulsi may have good reason to not want to get bogged down in a conversation about whether or not Assad is guilty of all the charges against him, but when they don’t mention their objections we get yet another repetition of the lie that goes unchallenged.
Since I don’t watch much television, I had no idea of the rounds that Tulsi Gabbard has been making of news shows on diverse channels. Now that I started searching the internet for these videos, I am so pleased that she is being widely reported. Amazingly, some of the coverage is relatively unbiased.
This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would’ve considered this move–or something similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used as pawns in a cheap political game.
I am not sure what to make of this story. The missing piece is an analysis of whether the rate cut was good or bad policy, and no analysis if restoring the rate was good or bad policy. There is an analysis in the comments that does give some answers to the question.
I don’t know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn’t require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.
A comment on this comment adds further data to the discussion.
Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.
Obama had no more concept of how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night, before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.
There is one thing in this story with which I can agree wholeheartedly,
If we can’t win with the truth, we don’t deserve to win.