archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

For whom will you be voting on Tuesday?

  • Total voters
    44
It's no picnic being related to the bitch either:

Support Liz Warren’s bro — so she won’t have to

By: Howie Carr

What is it with these moonbats who want to raise the taxes on everybody else but wouldn’t personally pay a nickel to see a volcano?

Whatever happened to the old saying, charity begins at home?

This morning’s Exhibit A comes from U.S. Sen. Elizabeth “Granny” Warren, the fake Indian. You may recall her childhood on the “jagged edge of the middle class.”

Now she’s crying the buckets again, sending out what appears to be a fundraising email about her hero Obama’s alleged cuts in Social Security.

Last year she threw most of her family under the bus during the Senate campaign against Scott Brown. (Remember how her racist grandparents forced her parents to “elope,” after which they returned home that evening for a reception?)

Now it’s her brother David’s turn to take a bullet for the team, the Cleveland Indians, or maybe the Atlanta Braves, or the Washington Redskins.

“Today my brother lives on his Social Security,” she says. “That’s about $1,100 a month, $13,200 a year.”

You can almost hear Granny dropping her voice to deliver some bad news. Somebody cue the violins.

“I can almost guarantee that you know someone — a family member, friend or neighbor — who counts on Social Security checks to get by,” she hyperventilates. “We cannot allow it (Social Security) to be dismantled inch by inch.”

Hey Granny, did it ever occur to you that maybe you could just … do the right thing by brother Dave? You’re worth well over $10 million, according to your financial disclosure statements. I know, you don’t own any stocks — “just mutual funds,” as you explained to a Kool-Aid drinker on MSNBC last year. If you don’t have it already, you’ll soon be cashing a big book-advance check for your new tome, “Faked,” I mean, “Rigged.”

By your own account, you provided the “intellectual foundations” for the now-almost-forgotten Occupy Wall Street movement. Those smelly hippies were opposed to “greed,” remember? Granny, isn’t it greedy for you not to pay your “fair share” for brother Dave? Think of it as an “investment in the future.” It’s not money, it’s just “revenues.”

Why don’t you just call Dave down in the Indian Territory and tell him, no problem bro, you can just move to my mansion in Cambridge and crash there until we get rid of this evil Republican president — er, never mind.

But this is the moonbat m.o. She wants to raise your taxes, not hers. She’ll give you the shirt off your back. Same thing with her ex-pal Obama. What about his brother George, living in a box in Nairobi? If Obama sent him a double-sawbuck, he’d double his annual income. But like Granny, Obama throws around quarters like manhole covers. He let Massachusetts taxpayers support his beloved Auntie Zeituni while she was here illegally, not working, collecting welfare.

http://bostonherald.com//news_opini...support_liz_warren_s_bro_so_she_won_t_have_to
 
Howie's an expert on charity. The Herald sends him a check every week for doing absolutely nothing.
 
regardless of what you think of her or the politics, i think you can see this is the use of an anecdote behind a policy that many people rely on. When I saw the headline, I thought she actually had a fundraiser or something for the guy. To say nothing about the policy or proposed changes, I think it was more a point of, we all know someone that relies on social security and they may not have a rich family.
 
7172526450_a4458375a5.jpg
 
MARTHA COAKLEY what a waste of Life and possibly the biggest waste of taxpayers time.

Foreclosed Massachusetts homeowners will get $1,480 each from national settlement

Matthew L. Brown
Reporter-
Boston Business Journal

Tens of thousands of Massachusetts homeowners were forced from their homes during rushed, shoddy and illegal foreclosures between 2008 and 2011, and they’ll get $1,480 for their trouble, state Attorney General Martha Coakley said today.

Beginning as early as next week, some 11,000 checks totaling about $16 million should be in the hands of Massachusetts borrowers who the state alleges were wrongly foreclosed by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and Ally.

The payments are the result of a settlement reached more than a year ago with the five big banks over improper foreclosures.

Checks arriving in Massachusetts next week will go to borrowers who filed valid claims with the settlement’s administrator. In situations where borrowers have divorced, or are no longer living together, payments will be split between them evenly.

Every borrower who filed a claim will at least get “a letter regarding their outcome,” Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office said in a statement.

The majority of the more-than $600 million in “relief” provided Massachusetts borrowers under the settlement has come in the form of second loan forgiveness, short sales and principal reduction.

Most, about $376 million, has come from Bank of America.

A separate settlement between federal bank regulators and several large lenders also resulted in small checks, mostly between $300 and $2,000, for borrowers who had allegedly been wronged during the foreclosure process.

Massachusetts borrowers also recently began receiving checks resulting from that settlement as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2013/06/04/1480-for-borrowers-in-coakley.html

But continues to not file criminal charges against the individual bankers that cause this mess.

What a disgrace. Martha is truly everything wrong with our system.

SO all the people that could never afford a house that overpaid in 2008 you get a 300-2000 dollar check in the mail. AWESOME
 
Lawrence Summers' $900M soured swaps deal at Harvard comes back to haunt him


Aug 30, 2013, 6:29am EDT
Craig Douglas
Managing editor/online vertical products and research-
Boston Business Journal

As Lawrence Summers’ name continues to circulate as a potential replacement for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a disastrous financing deal he brokered while leading Harvard University is getting a second look.

While serving as president of Harvard during a five-year span that ended in 2008, Summers helped design an interest-rate swap agreement intended to fund the Cambridge-based university’s planned expansion on the other side of the Charles River in Allston. But the volatile swings in interest rates and credit markets surrounding the financial crisis that unfolded that year ultimately backfired on the Summers-endorsed plan, according to Bloomberg News.

Despite Harvard’s deep pockets and expansive real estate portfolio in Greater Boston, the market’s turmoil ended up costing Harvard around $900 million to unwind its swaps position, the newswire reported. Harvard’s expansion plans in Allston were subsequently put on ice, much to the chagrin of local neighborhood groups.

But that was after Summers, now 58, had already stepped down from the university. His departure in 2008 came during a controversial period on campus prompted by comments he made about women’s aptitude for the sciences.
Click to expand...

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/08/lawrence-summers-900m-soured-swaps.html

And they want this guy running the Federal Reserve Bank. We are better off picking somebody from the Yellow Pages
 
IAM sent tThis yesTERday:

Dear Senator Markey,

I wish to praise you for your comments at the open session of the hearing today.

There is no doubt that Syrian Government's treatment of its citizens is deplorable. However, he proposal to launch some cruise missiles as a "humanitarian" measure doesn't seem to be a logical or ethical response.

Once the missiles hit, who will have died...those who used the gas or the "collaterals" who were so tastefully not mentioned by advocates? What will prevent a repetition of gas attacks? Will we have to attack again?

And having been attacked, wouldn't Syria have a clear legal justification to strike at us? The proposed attack is an act of war, after all.

Should Assad choose to kill his citizens with weapons other than poison gas, would that make his choice a more acceptable one to our country? Shouldn't a wise policy work to prevent murder, regardless of the murder weapon?

If we decapitate the Assad regime, who replaces him? His clan, which hates us, or the "rebels", who hate us? And if it is the opposition, which supposedly includes our enemy Al Qaeda, will it destroy or spread through the world Syria's stocks of poison gas (not to mention the WMD's which supposedly crossed the border into Syria from Iraq when we decapitated the Saddam Hussein regime)? At least the destruction of Syrian airpower means Al Qaeda won't have an airforce when the deed is done, and it will have to deliver its new WMD's by other means.

And why is it that when Secretary Kerry spoke very eloquently about upholding international norms regarding poison gas, he did not identify the international parties who would be joining with us?

Or do these "international parties" prefer to remain hidden because this is really about Russia's ally Syria blocking a natural gas line from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean that would compete with the Russian natural gas line to Europe?

A great nation doesn't throw lonely pebbles into a river to staunch the flow. It works with others to gather the resources of the world to build a dam. That so few wish to stand on the river bank with us should be the cause of our deep inner reflection on the course the President has chosen.

You may also wish to consider the words of the former senior Senator from the Commonwealth who faced a similar question:

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq. And there is clearly a danger. But
the administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an
imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral pre-emptive
American strike and an immediate war are necessary. Nor has the
administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation.
. . .With all the talk of war, the administration has not explicitly
acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense
postwar commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq."

—Ted Kennedy, Senate Debate on use of force in Iraq, 2002.


I urge you to resist the lust for war evidenced by some of your colleagues, and to seek a collaborative and diplomatic approach to end the Syrian civil war. The President has framed the question for Congress in a way to squeeze our country into false choices.

War should be the last choice, not a shortcut for that hard and dirty work of diplomacy which is the only source of security.

Sincerely,

Bostonbred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top