A new day, a new controversy! It’s like journalists, and I use this term loosely, do their best to dig up ‘controversies’ that will cause people to focus on a whole lot of things, but the issues not among them. This time the controversy is that Obama got a very minor discount on his home loan.
My God. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. 0.315% (or such)! Amazing. Shocking. This means that, well, I don’t know what it means, but I’m sure it says a whole lot of bad things about Barack Obama!
Just. Chill. This is ludicrous. It’s utterly irrelevant yet the mob (with that I mean every single himself disrespecting blogger) writes about it as if it was something serious. Either in order to defend Obama, or in order to smear him.
What’s more hilarious than anything else is that this actually made the top spot at Memeorandum. Of all the news published today, this one is getting the most attention on the blogs. Both left and right.
How pathetic is that?
I once again repeat my belief that the blogosphere will blow itself up in the coming years because every blog becomes a copy of every other blog.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a beat up but don’t discount the impact of those 1/3% discounts. The article says it would have saved Obama about $300 a month. It was a 30 year loan so that’s a saving of 300 x 12 x 30 = $108,000 – not a bad discount, really.
Is not the bigger picture being missed here.
That Barak Obama is really nothing more then a politician taking advantage of all the perks of the trade. That he would choose to accept favorable financing not offered to ordinary citizens because of his stature within the senate.
Even more astounding is the fact that the Democrats and perhaps not necessarily Barak Obama resent big business and corporations that are in the business to make money. That this loan was proffered by a giant bank in an attempt to draw the good senator to their bank and perhaps by their gratuitous offer allow for themselves some future perk in return for their generous offer.
1/3 rd of a percent is irrelevant. It is after all not the money but the intentions on both parties that is at question here. The money is irrelevant.
I suppose if Im going to comment here for a short while that I might offer a little insight into who I am.
I am a libertarian. I am a states right advocate. I am opposed to the nanny staters of the Democrats and the Republicans. I live in the United States. I served in the Military. I am opposed to drugs. I rarely drink. I am a christian.
I have no dog in this fight. I will most likely write in My name for president because I believe that I can solve all the worlds problems by lunch and we can play golf the rest of the day.
Of course, any other family where both adults work (and at very secure jobs at that), which has no credit card debt, etc. probably has the credit rating to get an especially good rate, too. Not to mention that the man had just gotten a million dollar book deal. The wonder would be if he didn’t get a good rate.
But then, the people making the charges may have lousy credit themselves, and therefore not realize how mortgage rate setting works in the real world.