[bobtn]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

That's because McMahon, while I'm not a fan of her, doesn't display the strong social agenda that has hijacked the GOP in the past 10 years.

I also wonder how many points McMahon is gaining from Malloy's dearth of popularity.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by bobtn

I also wonder how many points McMahon is gaining from Malloy's dearth of popularity.

Quite a few, I'd guess.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by bobtn

I also wonder how many points McMahon is gaining from Malloy's dearth of popularity.

And Chris Murphy's absenteeism as a congressman...


Fact Checking Chris Murphy - YouTube

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

That's because McMahon, while I'm not a fan of her, doesn't display the strong social agenda that has hijacked the GOP in the past 10 years.

Agreed. She's not running on gay marriage, limiting abortion rights and/or pretending Shari'a law is some kind of threat. I'm not a fan, but, shes the type of Republican I could vote for...

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by JViello

And Chris Murphy's absenteeism as a congressman...


Fact Checking Chris Murphy - YouTube

Not that I don't take Linda at her word (or any politician for that matter) but I'd like to know the real story on this. How did his absenteeism compare to other congressman on the committee? What WAS he doing instead. Is there a real problem here, or is she taking an out of context statistic that sounds horrible.

What's the real story?

M

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Agreed. She's not running on gay marriage, limiting abortion rights and/or pretending Shari'a law is some kind of threat. I'm not a fan, but, shes the type of Republican I could vote for...

True, she is sticking with the very successful Christie/Walker models of fiscal conservatism plus improving the climate for business, to foster job growth in the private sector.

[sharingan99]

Originally Posted by treasurekidd

The Republicans have only held a majority in the house since the last mid-term election, less than two years ago. What about Obama's first two years when he had a Democatic majority in both the house and the senate? He had two years to do basically anything he wanted, and he did nothing but pass an $800 billion dollar failed stimulus package and the Obamacare debacle, both of which we CAN NOT AFFORD. His first term was such a failure that on this campaign, he refuses to discuss his performance on jobs, the economy and the deficit, and had not mentioned anything about what he plans for a second term if reelected. All he can do is continue to blame Bush and try to frighten voters by acccusing Romney and Ryan of anything and everything. Hope and change has turned into hope to change the subject!

God I am afraid to post on this due to the lack of knowledge on both sides, but here it goes.

Yes you are right, he had it for two years, however you do understand that two years is not long enough to do anything and even if a person was to do right by the economy, it takes on the average 4 years to turn it around.

As for the stimilus package, as much as I am against giving money away, I guess it couldn't have been helped. As far as I am concerned, wallstreet, automakers and home loaners got themselves into this mess, why do we have to bail them out? But the reality of the situation is that things probably would have been worse if he hadn't

P.s- I have a huge and I mean HUGE grudge against business and wall street types. They are typically against Obama, but they had no problem asking for money like street corner beggars when they needed. I have been employed this past year, guess who helped me out? Not a damn person, so the next time wall street needs a bail out they can shove it, economy or not as far as I am concerned. As a tax payer, I don't think it's right that people complain about others wanting to discharge student loans, but no one complained when it came to wall street and helping out home owners..ok i'm done /rant

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by sharingan99

P.s- I have a huge and I mean HUGE grudge against business and wall street types. They are typically against Obama, but they had no problem asking for money like street corner beggars when they needed.

What? In 2008, Obama set the record for donations from Wall St. It is not 1965 anymore. Since Robert Rubin infested Bill Clinton's cabinet, a disciple of Wall St has been in every cabinet. So while Main St business dislikes Obama, Wall St likes BOTH parties, or put more honestly, they buy stakes in both parties.

Personally, I think it should be against the law to donate to opposing candidates for the same office in the same campaign. When it is done, it is simply bribery..not a belief in an agenda.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Well I will flat out raise the bs flag. I went through it as well, and can attest that pre-qual progress was far more thorough and painful than the entire purchase process i experienced in 2008. Like JV, good credit scores (815) income well ithe six figures and a complete clustermess.

As for autos, there have several reputable articles highlighting the re-emergece of aggressive financing, particularly in sub prime in auto financing.

Raise whatever flag suits you. The fact of the matter is, my colleagues were able to show steady income over a long-term period. What the "bonus babies" refer to as "static" income, is actually what lenders want to see right now. Lenders don't want to see extreme variances from year to year.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by JViello

Well, I can tell you that we are a family with solid documentation of 6 figure income, and credit scores not perfect but approaching 700 and we were denied time and again because our house was 4K short of having 20% equity.

I don't think we are ghetto rats trying to purchase. We have not been late on a mortgage payment in 10 years.

I assumed that W2PA was referencing people with 720 or higher scores.